On NewsGuard's advisory board, 5 of the 7 slots are taken by people who have held high level posts in US Intelligence and other state affairs.
If NewsGuard was just being rolled out to the USA, I'd still consider it horribly biased, but its a complete joke to make it on by default for the entire world.
They've even received some praise from Sy Hearsh for having what he saw as one of the most promising investigative teams in the industry (I'll have to find the interview later today and update the comment with a link).
I do question the wikileaks rating, but wikileaks isn't a news site, and everything they publish ought to be a matter of 'buyer beware'.
I also question Microsoft's decision to include the plugin at all. I'd rather not have an arbiter of truth looking over my shoulders, reminding me what i should or shouldn't read.
This points to another pretty obvious problem with NewsGuard, though: flagging happens at the site level instead of the article level. It's obvious why that's necessary, but the result is a complete failure to deal with any source where quality varies widely. Fox's written reporting is sometimes quite good, but Glenn Beck's old videos are still posted under the same domain. The result is that NewsGuard happily puts a big green checkmark above a video declaring that the US is the only country in the world with birthright citizenship.
In the same sense that labels like "no added sugar" can actively mislead by giving the appearance of health, I worry that NewsGuard is going to warn people away from Onion articles while encouraging them to accept outright lies without due diligence.
...Though, that being said, the original idea behind X.509 certificates was quite different: you [the domain sysop] would use your critical thinking to pick a root CA you trust, and configure your machines to only use that single root CA; and then that root CA would either directly sign [code, server, client] certs they trust, or would cross-sign other CAs' root certs to indicate that they trust them to delegate to them. Essentially, a domain (like a corporation or university) would have a business relationship with a particular CA, who would "do their critical thinking for them" (and would also be legally liable if they failed to do that critical thinking.)
For X.509, we pretty much immediately moved away from that world, though, to a world where each application (e.g. OS HTTP API, third-party web browser, etc.) is acting as a root CA, you endorse that root CA by installing/using the app, and then the app devs make decisions on what to trust/delegate trust to.
Which is kind of what's happening here: you use your critical thinking to install an app/OS, whose devs are then your "truth source." Sadly, though, this isn't a business relationship where they can be sued for failure to deliver quality content through that channel. (For contrast, where a customer is paying a business for "truth", see: investment newsletters.)
And it's a good thing that fact checking exists as a service (now apparently also in independent fashion), because nobody has the time, knowledge or capacity to literally dig through every piece of journalism they read, on every topic.
This is such a tricky point. On the one hand I almost agree with you in the sense that it could have a dangerous outcome: ceding control to an entity who essentially influences what content users should read.
On the other hand, the amount of misleading information on the web is having a very real, very serious impact on the world. If used responsibly this might influence positive change.
I'm not convinced this is true. I'm more convinced many really want it to be true to explain results they otherwise can't. And as expected, they have convinced others this is true. It's just another in the long line of bogeymen.
And for reference, the group was called 'American Warrior Revolution', so you too can take a peek into the insanity I'm referring to.
Actually, I think whether something is shared and how prevalent that sharing is among the populace is a better indication of impact than many others.
For example, one (fairly binary) way of measuring individual impact might be whether it's viewed as worth spreading to other people. Things not worth sharing may or may not be impactful, but things worth sharing almost definitely are.
Scaled up, if a high enough percentage of people in a group view something as worth sharing, then it is impactful.
Disagree, but impactful can be seen as an overloaded term. We need to accept in modern situations that the ease of sharing something might be more of a reason it is shared than whether the sharer/recipient is impacted by it. Or there might be many other reasons. The important thing is accepting that we don't know what is impactful and not running to the heavy-hand of the law/censors assuming we do.
Maybe your mother is sharing fake information, or maybe your own information is fake and the problem is the inverse (or maybe you're both wrong in different ways).
"R.I.P. Justin Allen 23, Brett Linley 29, Matthew Weikert 29, Justus Bartett 27, Dave Santos 21, Jesse Reed 26, Matthew Johnson 21, Zachary Fisher 24, Brandon King 23, Christopher Goeke 23, and Sheldon Tate 27.... All are Marines who gave their lives this week for you. There's no media for them... not even a mention of their names. We’re too busy talking about trying to get “Baby It’s Cold Outside” off of the radio. Please honor them by copying and pasting this post."
Except obviously, they didn't die last week as of that post. They died seven years ago. Now why would a large group share literally fake information like that? And why would you immediately jump in and attempt to discredit my argument given that I even gave you the name of the group? Take a cursory glance at them and their actions.
I guess I don't see a need for a conspiracy, Russian or otherwise, to get people re-sharing posts on Facebook that explicitly say "if you don't reshare this you're a bad person".
Which, in my experience, "is generally about as on the level as their contemporaries", just concerning different stories and the way they're spun.
• (1) Does not repeatedly publish false content
• (5) Avoids deceptive headlines
• (8) Reveals who's in charge, including and possible conflicts of interest
It gets red marks on:
• (2) Gathers and presents information responsibly
• (3) Regularly corrects of clarifies errors
• (4) Handles the difference between news and opinion responsibly
• (6) Website discloses ownership and financing
• (9) The site provides names of content creators, along with either contact or biographical information
On "Clearly labels advertising" it gets N/A. The parenthetical numbers are the order of the importance of the various criteria.
So, red on 1, 5, 8, green on 2, 3, 4, 6, and 9, and 7 is not applicable.
Foxnews.com gets green on 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 9, and red on 3, 6, and 8.
This sort of thing strikes me as a type of modern-day Star Chamber. Even if initially implemented by the right people with the right intentions, it wields enough power that inevitably it will be compromised in some fashion that makes it a threat to a free and open society.
What they could do is have a "fake news?" button that you press to find out if a particular article is bs, with a panel showing pro and con views so you can make up your own mind based on real information.
The veracity of the information they do publish is certainly more reliable than what you'll get from Fox.
This is echoed quite a bit lately, I have not seen any evidence to support it. Is there any documented case where WikiLeaks withheld information? Is the criticism about the fact that they have a release schedule rather than always immediately publishing? They're a journalism group at the end of the day, don't they have a right to publish stories in a way that maximizes impact?
None of that makes any sense to me, and it lacks credibility.
1. Daily dot has not published any evidence of actually having this document. It could be entirely made up.
2. Even if such a document exists, there's no guarantee that Wikileaks' source was the same source that somehow ended up in the hands of US courts.
3. Why the hell would wikileaks publish so many other juicy files in the Syria Files, but selectively withhold this one minor document about a money transfer between two allies at a time of war? Yes, it's a large sum that's claimed to have been transferred, but in the midst of the Syrian Civil War in 2011? A few billion is peanuts.
I don't buy it.
edit: The BBC story is about Jared Kushner and is not really about Wikileaks.
edit2: 4. Considering that Daily Dot names the group that is behind the attack, why haven't the hackers who allegedly sent the documents to Wikileaks said anything about this situation? They have the power to tarnish their reputation or confirm that it wasn't sent.
I don't know who at Microsoft thought this was a good idea but they're clearly insane. I had nothing in particular against Edge and even use it sometimes, but after this there's no way I'm going to use it. The last thing I need is some delusional crazies who probably believe Assange works for Putin telling me what is and isn't real.
partial truth / known lies
partial truth / unprovable assertions
conjecture passed as news
limited snippets biasing intended viewpoint
commentary (Fox "news")
Disagree with assertions
Propaganda by state actor
The underlying thing, is that when things are bought to light, the truth surfaces. Yet now, the attack is on the very definition of "truth", playing the ultimate word definition game.
A big thing missing from these discussions is the history of propaganda. I think a lot of people who are worried about "fake news" need to research that term.
Propaganda is still very prevalent especially as far as war goes. Do people really think that CNN tells them the real reasons for going to war? They will say whatever the Pentagon tells them. Why? Because no one is going to risk their lives and kill other people for some technical, strategic reason or just as part of a larger military campaign. People risk their lives to fight the "bad guys" who are "evil". They need to believe its a moral cause.
Don't let some giant company (or a small one) dictate what source your information comes from. If I used a Microsoft browser I would uninstall that plugin. Assuming that's an option.
It may not shut down all forms of manipulated information, but it can stymie the flow of procedurally-generated blogs that are triggering so much confusion.
for the most part these services are both circle the wagon and circle jerk in nature. circle the wagon because journalist of the same beliefs want to protect each other and circle jerk because their choices will simply be beneficial to those they already agree with. the public as I mentioned before will just dismiss it as more of the same. the internet is good at holding them to account and they don't like it.
That's not to say RT is a usable source, I'm not particularly interested in their coverage here. But I'm also not very interested in hearing what news Michael Hayden wants me to listen to.
Sure they might oppose the sitting President but would they publish something which would undermine stated US diplomatic policy?
Citation needed. It almost seems that you invented something just as an attempt to demotivate people from taking a look. Normally I don't watch videos, but this time I got curious, and I've seen only "Belgian Imam embroiled in the scandal" in the chyron.
But while checking that, I've found out that the video has some real points:
- Co-founder of the NewsGuard: former columnist of the Wall Street Journal, for which EFF wrote that he "repeatedly gets his facts wrong about the NSA surveillance."
- In Advisory Board: Michael Hayden, former NSA and CIA director, Tom Ridge, former First secretary of Homeland Security, Richard Stengel, former Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy
Maybe there was some tampering here and there but I got the impression when I lived there that most people thought he was good and supported him.
Systematically and violently suppressing any political opposition is a lot more than 'some tampering here and there'.
So they will fail not only because nobody uses Edge.
I suspect not, because in general, nobody can agree on a definition of it.
That said, I have no idea if they have done so.
They also have a political analyst for NBC on their board. So I'm sure they are objective about NBC.
If you can‘t immediately spot the difference, you may be a late victim of post-modern relativism.
They also have transparent documentation of their ratings. Example: https://www.newsguardtech.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/rt....
The claim is not that all news is equally true; that would be ridiculous. The claim is that lists of trusted sources are ripe for abuse by the list-makers.
Consider this evil plan: suppose that I put a grassroots issue blog on the same list as 100 fake publications. Everyone will believe me, because, look: I was right one hundred times! That problem can even arise without intentional evil on the part of the list makers, just look at the history of spam blacklists. People, even teams of people, are not one hundred percent just one hundred percent of the time.
(I just called something evil, and you can't get any less postmodernist than that! ;)
Worth noting that PropOrNot already exists, and got a lot of positive coverage before people started to get suspicious. Its model was almost precisely what you describe: providing extensive lists of clearly Russia-affiliated sources like Sputnik News, then including a handful of high-quality domestic gadflies like Naked Capitalism without any justification.
This isn't just a hypothetical risk of such tools, its already an active problem on these exact topics.
Unfortunately most people in the US are not going to be able to believe that American propaganda exists.
Which do you read?
'Proper' journalism doesn't exist. Maybe it never did, it's just more obvious now. It's news entertainment.
a) who gets to decide what constitutes "fake news," would the BuzzFeed story that the Special Council discredited be considered "fake news?" If not, why? How would that story be different than any other that's fake?
b) The idea of labeling "fake news" often emboldens believers of fake news to think of some grand conspiracy to hide the truth.
Another thing is that the "fake news" scare is largely a farce. A recent study showed that people that share fake news are largely older...well, that's what the headlines highlighted. However, in the actual study they found sharing of fake news to be incredibly low and not really even terribly common.
I think the thing I most fear in media, is not obvious fake news sites, it's actual journalists rushing to judgement or being told by and editor they need click/engagement numbers up (this happens, I've worked in multiple news rooms.)
What I call "outrage culture" is largely a corporate creation to drive clicks/viewership and social engagement, because current media models need this sort of thing. If you ever go through media training for cable news (I have) they will tell you to play things up. They also often don't go after level headed people, they want conflict. Conflict gets viewers and viewers get ad dollars.
That to me, is a far bigger threat...not only because it divides us, but because it discredits the media itself in the minds of many, on actual important stories. So in those cases, people do turn to alternative (or overtly partisan) media sources...and that's where "fake news" often breeds and feeds off of.
I think if we really want to battle "fake news" we need to be reevaluating business models of media companies. News should not be something people "hate watch" or "hate click" because what they are watching is so divisive or nonsensical. The media is really its own worst enemy here.
For better or worse, this product judges sources, not individual stories. FWIW, Buzzfeed News lets their readers know, right in the lede, that this particular story is disputed by Mueller. As others have mentioned in this thread, a hard definition for "fake news" is hard to pinpoint, but disreputable sources certainly don't own up to mistakes like this.
More to the point, I think the issue goes beyond media and into culture. People want to be outraged and the media is happy to oblige. Something in that equation needs to change.
Well that's what it is - an attempt to bully media into self-censorship, or provide a fig leaf for actual censorship.
It seems implicitly difficult to judge 'news' because news is not always first-hand, so there is no way of exactly chronicling what happened without directly experiencing the source of the news. There's an inherent perception/reality dilemma based on our own cognition and processing of events.
Fake news could be established in different ways, and gets harder to judge the more nuanced it gets, partially when the events are being reported and re-reported using secondary or tertiary sources.
The kind of structures and thinking you would need to create this challenge fundamental ideas of dissent, free speech and democracy at which point you should stop and question your objectives, but of course if its not in good faith that won't bother you.
* Firefox about:newtab pocket links
* Brave browser replacing ads
* Edge shipping NewsGuard
With this content curation going on, will there be one day a Fox news browser and a CNN browser?
What you are going to have is a 'normal' internet with government-controlled and sanctioned information on one hand. Then the real 'free' internet will run on an entirely different set of distributed technologies. China is the leader in controlling media and the real inspiration for technologies like NewsGuard.
This is not a good move and it's not the job of the web browser, as others have pointed out.
I'm curious what ideas people have to combat the problem more effectively? Solutions like "people should just l2thinkcritically" don't seem practical to me.
I think crowdsourced approaches will just degenerate into partisan feuds. Relying on a central authority just paves the way for the nation-states/illuminati/"globalists"/evil-sentient-penguins to manipulate public opinion on a grand scale. So, what else is there?
There are a scant few independent non-profits I'd consider trusting with determining "fairness" or fact. The US government certainly isn't qualified anymore with how corrupted and disconnected from the people it is, corporations by definition are amoral, and power corrupts. Giving anyone the determination of what is "fake" makes them a vector for exploitation and abuse.
The answer should be you need a new, legitimately representative and democratic government, to oversee regulation on those who claim to be news in order to more closely guarantee honesty. Thats a bit bigger of a problem to approach than the mass-deception and manipulation of a society by monied interests, though.
The answer should be you need a new, legitimately representative and democratic government
Jokes aside, you might be right. If you are though, it probably means we won’t make any meaningful strides towards a better system for quite a while.
Let's review a quick timeline.
The term "fake news" was hardly used until recently:
The huge spike corresponds exactly with the election of Trump and Britain voting for Brexit. Suddenly, fake news was supposedly everywhere and the problem of the moment. Before mid 2016 though, nobody talked about it.
To any outside observer it's very clear what has happened here. Several problems have intersected.
Firstly, a huge chunk of the left wing population doesn't really understand conservatism - not why people think like that, or even what they think at all. This isn't some idle speculation, it's actually been studied at scale:
Conservatives understand liberals at scale but not the other way around - Republicans may as well be an alien race, as far as many Democrats are concerned. So of course they look for explanations of why people can hold such obviously 'wrong' set of beliefs. And they find it in the belief that the population is as easily programmable as your TV set.
Rewind the clock a few years and you can find a lot of rhetoric about campaign spending. Citizens United and Obama saying there should be a constitutional amendment. The belief was simple - whoever spends the most on advertising wins over the weak minded and wins the election. Huge swathes of voters don't think for themselves, they simply vote for whoever they saw advertised the most. Because conservatives were backed by big business, allowing businesses to spend money on political advertising would doom the correct way of thinking to oblivion.
2016 rendered that idea completely untenable. In America Clinton outspent Trump 2:1 and in the UK the Remain campaign obliterated the Leave campaign in terms of resources and spending. Remain spent more on a single leaflet campaign than the entire Leave campaign combined. Yet both sides lost.
So now the money=winning line is proven false, what can be the explanation? There has to be something else brainwashing the weak minded population other than obvious political advertising. The conundrum was solved with the idea of "fake news" and the Russian bogeyman, who used ... Twitter ... to have an even bigger impact than political advertising. The fervour that was previously directed at the idea of unlimited ad spend was now turned on the idea of news sources that didn't cooperate and support Clinton (like Wikileaks).
The problem with this worldview is that it's as wrong as the previous belief. At least political advertising had a concrete definition which allowed it to be studied, and found to have little impact once people became informed about an election and who the candidates are:
"We argue that the best estimate of the effects of campaign contact and advertising on Americans’ candidates choices in general elections is zero. First, a systematic meta-analysis of 40 field experiments estimates an average effect of zero in gen- eral elections. Second, we present nine original field experiments that increase the statistical evidence in the literature about the persuasive effects of personal contact 10-fold. These exper- iments’ average effect is also zero."
But nobody can quite identify what fake news really means, hence the arguments over what is and isn't fake. It's probably the case that if Clinton and Remain had won, nobody would be talking about fake news or Russia at all.
For one, the search trend for “fake news” means absolutely nothing to me. That term only entered the zeitgeist when it was popularised during the 2016 elections. I truly believe that even the organisations with the most integrity can be accused of blatant partisan bias. And as far as I can tell from my (albeit limited) investigations, it’s been that way since mass media was born. You don’t have to fabricate news. You can omit certain facts, or frame the story a certain way to drive the narrative you want.
I agree the money expenditure during a campaign isn’t the ultimate measure of impact. Remember the Leave slogan on the side of the bus during Brexit? I doubt that cost much. Outright lies aren’t terribly expensive, most of the time.
TL;DR - I strongly disagree with the idea that there isn’t a problem at all. People are curating their own echo chambers every day, and our existing establishments and platforms are encouraging them to do so.
Looking over the results for those sites, it seems reasonably fair as far as left vs. right goes. I see both liberal and conservative sites covered, and in both groups see sites with perfect ratings and sites with terrible ratings and site in between.
Edit: Implementation wise, this thing is really well done. I installed the Firefox version, and when I visit a site that it has info on, the green/red summary shows up, and clicking that gives details, as would be expected, and that was all I expected.
What I didn't expect is that when I'm in Google news, it puts the indicator beside the source name on each story. It also does this on Google search results. It's also working with Bing search results.
"So let's educate people that the green tick means fake news and red means trustworthy"
This is what we're dealing with folks - people who push conspiracy theories to the detriment of society. It makes sense coming from the wikileaks crowd but it's infecting the entire culture.
See also those that oppose/reject the Polio vaccine.
I think wikitribune.com is doing something interesting: providing permanence to news stories. Most media cover "breaking news" as quickly as possible, with whatever facts are available, but have no time or space for follow-up or analysis. (Hey, remember that big story from last year (whatever it was)? What happened to those people?)
You would need an absolute ton of resources, and even that probably wouldn't be enough to fact check the entire online media in anything close to real time.
If we can detect fake news, why can't Twitter detect fraudulent ads?
EDIT: Not sure why downvotes (currently at -4). Here is what typically happens when I try to point to "facts" (linked assertions) that invalidate someone's point:
1) Person says bullshit
2) I show person link from credible source that seems to invalidate the bullshit
At this point one of 5 things invariably happens: A) The source I linked to is not read, wasting my time B) The goalposts are now moved to some OTHER bullshit assertion C) The source is accused of being "bought and paid for" (this literally happened to me when I was blocked by someone on Facebook for using factcheck and politifact links). D) "Wikipedia is editable by anyone!" E) "That's just MSM conspiracy talk!" https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFalla...
We have a situation where the far-left and the far-right (but mostly the far-right) are basically being gaslighted by their sources of media.
Maybe the solution is not to enforce The One And True Source Of Facts, but to teach people how to fucking lose an argument gracefully. Or at least, to "compete" on rational/empirical grounds. And gracefully win or lose on those grounds, and not just on "what I believe".
And, for the record (and to my point), regarding the "news is slightly left-wing-biased" claim, third-party media bias reviewers have all rated the major news sources, at least in the U.S. (ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN) as left-leaning, save for Faux News of course.
This plugin triggers on daily mail which should start the crazies off pretty sharpish.
Here’s a starter https://m.imgur.com/80iDatZ
DM comments section is the cesspit of humanity.
There is such a thing as a wrong opinion.
But they aren’t a news provider. The entire of Twitter is an opinion piece.
Truth is not a well-defined concept, nor is it _definable_.
For example, multiple well-designed studies on drugs are required because different studies produce different results. The idea that all good studies produce all good results on all good drugs is simply not true.
It is true to say that someone has been given autism by a vaccine - is publishing that true story and enciting antivax movements fake news? Is it right to suppress all antivax news as fake?
IMO, it seems that journalistic integrity is at an all time low (an existence created by a reactionary and unthoughtful public). I think starting censorship programs on an already sickly media can be nothing short of a catastrophe.
> Is it right to suppress all antivax news as fake?
pruth requires any intrinsic context, so it would be fake if you look at the rate of occurrences.
I agree with you statement about journalism but don't see any reactionaries as guilty. To me, it is a story about money. Can't say if that is the pruth though. And no, more censorship wouldn't be good since the pruth will come out eventually and any trust would be further eradicated.
So change your OS. There are dozens, hundereds even, of options, or you can roll your own.