
Labeling fact-check articles in Google News - lumberjack
https://blog.google/topics/journalism-news/labeling-fact-check-articles-google-news/
======
sergiotapia
Surely this won't be abused to push an agenda. The Ministry of Truth prevails!

Expect copious amounts of this:
[http://i.imgur.com/1Y0sN6b.png](http://i.imgur.com/1Y0sN6b.png)

~~~
witty_username
Genuinely curious; did you read the headline? Google is labeling articles
based on the type; not saying whether something is a fact or not.

~~~
sergiotapia
You need to read the article again. They are allowing anyone to label their
site as a "Fact checking site".

Just use ClaimReview and my-agenda-is-the-truth.com can be put in front of the
eyes of millions of people who only read the title.

~~~
witty_username
So? Why would you trust someone just because they say they're fact checking?

~~~
philipov
Well, it looks like google is the one saying they're fact-checking, and people
trust google.

~~~
witty_username
So, that just makes me trust the page is fact checking, but doesn't tell me
the accuracy of the page's fact checking.

------
trendia
Imagine that this existed right before the Iraq war. If a news article said
that Saddam Hussein had WMD's, how would Google's 'fact-check' algorithm work?

1\. on the one hand, official reports suggested that Saddam did have weapons
of mass destruction

2\. on the other hand, those reports were fabricated or based on false
evidence

Any 'fact checking' is limited by the information currently available to
everyone. Further, not all evidence is presented equally well.

~~~
nickff
The most interesting part of those reports is that they were not based on
fabricated or false evidence. Most intelligence agencies in the world said it
was very likely that Iraq had some WMDs. This brings up many questions about
what methods they used for estimating the likelihood, and what should have
been the minimum level of certainty to trigger a military response.

For answers to the first question, I suggest you read Tetlock's masterwork on
prediction, "Superforecasting". I am still unsure what the answer is to the
second question.

~~~
trendia
Intelligence services didn't have bad intent, they had bad intel.

Specifically, they used an informant (Curveball[0]) who was later discredited.

However, this still supports my argument that Google's "fact-checking"
algorithm will not tell us what's true or not, it will tell us what the
prevailing belief is. But that's not what people want -- they want the truth.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_(informant)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_\(informant\))

~~~
handedness
Two issues come to mind there.

The first is that some of the intel those agencies were acting on wasn't
baseless. (See Operafion Avarice.)

The other is that Hussein's deliberate strategy was to make the world believe
he was in possession of WMDs. (Specifically Iran.)

True or not, it worked. So whether it was suicide by cop using a real weapon
or a realistic looking fake, it was ultimately still suicide by cop on a
global scale. And the more we learn as things become declassified, the more
it's looking like his position wasn't entirely a bluff.

(Leaving aside the extraordinary incompetence displayed by SECDEF Rumsfeld,
the WH, and numerous other senior officials.)

~~~
lostlogin
"extraordinary incompetence" This goes back to the great-great-etc
grandparent. Was it actually bad intent? There were plenty of instances that
certianly were, but overall?

------
pdx
'Fact Check' articles are often just as biased by what studies they cite,
whose projections they choose to use, and what information they supress, as
any other article.

I would venture to say that the majority of 'Fact Check' articles are more
biased than average articles, as they were specifically written to push or to
punish a point of view.

I wonder which sources Google will bless with this new trust symbol? Just
kidding! We all know.

~~~
jahewson
> I wonder which sources Google will bless with this new trust symbol? Just
> kidding! We all know.

Enough of this nonsense. Try reading the actual blog post:

> Publishers who create fact-checks and would like to see it appear with the
> “Fact check” tag should use that markup in fact-check articles.

Perhaps you should go and check your own "facts" first.

~~~
pdx
I did read that. Do you imagine that Breitbart or Drudge Report will be given
the 'Fact Check' tag, even if they use that markup?

You know they won't, but fake outrage is proven effective, isn't it?

------
koolba
Years of internet use have immunized me from relying on the word "fact" in the
title of anything.

------
amelius
It seems that the masses are implementing a kind of online tribunal for
politicians.

This makes me wonder, would it be possible for a group of fact-checkers to
successfully sue politicians based on their statements?

~~~
xname2
Funny, can Nobel Price sue Obama to take the medal back?

------
dj-wonk
I wish [https://angel.co/skeptive](https://angel.co/skeptive) still existed!

------
xname2
Is there any Google News guy here? May I ask why WikiLeaks in not trending in
Google News? They have been publishing Podesta emails for weeks, but neither
WikiLeaks / Podesta / DNC / HRC is in "Top stories".

------
qwrusz
Fact: this is the best thread on HN right now. Comment upvote.

------
xir78
If it cuts down on crazy conspiracy theories and fear mongering, that would be
good.

Political maneuvering and pivots are one thing, but dredging up UFO type
conspiracy theories is really dangerous.

------
lisivka
It can help to fight Russian lies (called «propaganda» or «informational
war»[1] in Russia), but, IMHO, they will just create their own «true fact
checking network» instead, with their own facts about «double standards of
Western governments».

I was puzzled by their tactic for long time until I found answer in Russian
book for FSB newcomers: they use massive campaigns of FUD to break trust in
victim country (their troll tasks are labeled like «inspire more suspects
about government [in target country]», etc.) and to quickly hire agents in
enemy organizations. Even USA cannot protect their own citizens from Russian
«propaganda» (see case of John Demianuk[2]).

[1]: [http://cepa.org/reports/winning-the-Information-
War](http://cepa.org/reports/winning-the-Information-War) [2]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Demjanjuk](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Demjanjuk)

~~~
pdx
Are you seriously this naive, or are you astroturfing?

The corporate media in the west is a lustily willing tool of neocon and
neoliberal propaganda itself, no Russians needed. If you have ignored that
fact for the last four decades, I wonder how you continue to ignore it in the
face of the contents of the daily WikiLeaks dumps?

~~~
lisivka
I am already in Russian kill list, since 2008, so I'm not naїve anymore.

IMHO, you are mismatching regular propaganda with Russian propaganda (AKA
Informational War). Please, read linked book above, it contains in depth
explanation of the topic by European Union.

~~~
pdx
John Demjanjuk? What the hell does a Nazi guard have to do with Russia?

As for your other link. I did look at it. Here's a paragraph talking about
Russian Television News.

    
    
        The underlying message is simple: the United States is engaged in a selfish, ruthless bid for world
        domination. By implication, anything Russia or any other country can do to resist this is commendable
        and justified. It portrays the foundations of modern Euro-Atlantic security—including NATO enlargement
        to former communist countries and Western support for Ukraine—as hypocritical and unjust. 
    

I gotta say dude, I agree with Russia here. Putting Nukes on their border when
we freaked out (rightly so) when they put nukes on ours in the 60's, is
fucking hypocritical and unjust.

~~~
blackguardx
The US put anti-ballistic missiles in Poland, not nuclear weapons. Or am I
missing something?

~~~
code_sardaukar
Putin made two points about this in June, 2016[0]. First, it's not possible to
verify what's in the warheads of anti-ballistic missiles. Second, defense and
offense are part of a single set of capabilities. If you remove the opponent's
ability to retaliate against a first strike, that is just as dangerous to them
as if you had increased your offensive capability. I'm well out of my depth in
terms of judging if these statements are true, but this is what he said.

[0]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqD8lIdIMRo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqD8lIdIMRo)

~~~
blackguardx
The issue isn't the tactical implications of putting ABM launchers in Poland.
The issue is the false claim (propaganda?) that the US put nuclear weapons in
Poland.

~~~
pdx
I'm actually talking about Romania, which isn't technically on the border, if
we now insist that Ukraine is not Russia affiliated, but still damn close,
missile fly time wise.

And yes, they are Nukes. They were moved there after the Turkish 'coup'.

[https://www.euractiv.com/section/global-europe/news/us-
moves...](https://www.euractiv.com/section/global-europe/news/us-moves-
nuclear-weapons-from-turkey-to-romania/)

~~~
blackguardx
Do you have a reputable source for that?

