Theres your first problem (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/new-york-times-quietly-upd...), there is no authority on what is fake and what is reliable and you'll never get those two groups to agree.
"More than 67 Palestinians, including 16 children, have died since the start of the conflict on Monday, Palestinian health officials said. The rockets fired by Hamas and its Islamist ally, Islamic Jihad, killed at least six Israeli civilians, including a 5-year-old boy and one soldier."
Note the use of died vs killed.
2. the msn example is about nyt loudly and visibly updating a report. I don't see how that is an example about the claim. other than msn thinks it's a good idea to misrepresent a visible and cleanly tagged article update as "quiet update"
But how do you make that decision? People will choose sources whose news hews to their worldview, no?
which includes my personal thought about this dilemma: education. democratic consensus that our society is built on certain values, one of which is the ability to deliberately ponder and discern "news".
I understand I live in a country privileged with proportional representation, which is much less prone to polarization than a fptp by district congress. good luck to all of us..
Sounds like a pretty small sample size.
Or auto generated junk like "[Man|woman|person] in [your city|your state|your country] has [biggest|smallest] [body part]" and they generate it for 100s of combinations.
"More than 80% of people who drank water even once in their lifetime have died!" is a true statement of fact (if you follow the accepted estimate of ~100 billion humans ever). Does it communicate something incorrect? That very much depends on the reader.
Truth vs. Lie, especially by omission, is so context dependent that there's no objective measure one can use.
Truth in this context is not well defined.
"Dietary cholesterol increase associated with increased mortality" and "Dietary cholesterol increase not associated with increased mortality" are, in fact, both true depending on context. A well written and researched article may elucidate the context in which the headline is true, or (as is more often the case) will just assume that context.
Is it fake news? Depends on the reader's context, but for 99% of the readers at least one of them is fake news, because they are not familiar with the context in which the other is true.
In my experience, the things reported where people -- if they actually looked at the evidence -- would have consensus about "true" or "fake" are actually a small fraction of the things which are - in widely accepted contexts - false.
Let's say I publish an article saying "oxycontin is addictive even if used as prescribed" - today it is considered true, five years ago it was considered fake. The facts did not change, and quite a few people claimed that was the case and had facts to back them up five years ago. This one is easy to talk about because it's essentially been "resolved". There are thousands of examples that have not been resolved, and depend on your context and sources about whether they are "fake" or "not fake".
The whole point of lying by omission is that the statement is true -- even when what is communicated isn't.
So I contacted one of the more reputable publications that had spread the story, The Independent, and pointed this out. The response from the author was basically that he didn't see the problem and it was up to readers to figure out if it was fake news: "The website quoted in the article does to me look to have a Spanish presence, although it looks like the rest of the news is aggregated. I don't believe there is any reason to disbelieve this particular article, and we have clearly attributed the quotes and included a link to Global247news, so our readers can always make up their own minds."
(For context, the "Spanish presence" was literally an address on the About page for an unnamed "Webmaster" which I'm not sure even exists as an actual address in Spain... and in itself seems a little fishy, given that the website was very definitely not registered to someone in Spain.)
There are metric tons of coverage over the last few years about this
I'm guessing this is a variation of your story:
I mean the premise of the article definitely isn't fake. People are getting rejected for TIE cards, that's always been a thing.
Brexit now forces British expats to apply for a TIE card.
So what's left to be fake news?
For the record, most people associate fake news with stuff that's based in complete lies, not stuff that's maybe a little low quality.
That's an absurd, bad-faith generalization.
Any approach that is trained to detect "fake news" that just relies on feeding it the article's content is either just going to classify based on incidental features such as style (e.g. sensationalism), "hot words", etc., or if it's really good, classify based on whether the article's content is consistent with the "reliable" or the "fake" narrative extracted from the previous training.
In fact if I'm reading this right, they find out that taking a "fake news" article and rewriting it in "reliable news" style fools their detector. Garbage in, garbage out.
However, the common usage of "fake news" is not only literally "news that is not true", but rather "news that is deliberately not true in a very specific way".
Many object to the usage of the term itself, and honestly I myself agree that it's not the best way to describe the phenomenon, but it's something that exists regardless of how you choose to call it. I can see the research being useful, I wouldn't say "garbage in, garbage out" really applies here.
In my opinion this article focuses on the later but not on the former, while using the word for the combination (oh the irony).
Though in that sense I agree that it's not completely useless, as it may be good to strip or standardize the propaganda/virality aspect so one is forced to actually look at the facts.
The word "fake" surely doesn't have a connotation of an honest mistake, does it? That's not just "common usage", it's the only one I'm aware of.
In this case, some style of writing or a particular set of authors, publications, timestamps, etc could be features useful in determining whether something will be fake news with high accuracy. If so you don't necessarily need to always analyze the factual contents to detect fake news with high accuracy.
"Just?" Can you really not read a newspaper article about a topic you don't have a lot of depth in, and tell just based on the writing style (vocabulary, techniques, embedded logic, etc) that it is "likely" to be at least inaccurate?
How well this can be implemented with current machine learning technology is another discussion.
1) de-bias news stories, we can do that with algorithms. News agencies use different words for the same thing depending on their position.
2) show the background and development of a story. it can also be done with algorithms. The fact check and fake news detection can go here
I guess if you just push these things long enough, the resistance will slowly dissipate as they are just single people and not a well organized, oiled machine who is motivated by money and political power until the end of civilization.
Not saying that most of the mainstream views are wrong. Just that they are manufactured and subjected from above to the people below.
For example reverse-image searches of bombed out buildings or dead children that purport to be from a conflict yesterday were revealed to be from the Syrian Civil War from 6 years ago. And these images were re-tweeted by Americans, some in positions of responsibility. I'm all for free speech, but I feel that people and platforms should be held accountable for actions like this, when they involve objectively false news. False by anyone's definition of false.
But what if those same pictures are tweeted, with only a vague text like "This is how war looks like"? I've seen this in the last week, specifically with 6-year old Syrian civil war pictures, and placed strategically among tweets about recent israel/palestine war.
Some of the replies to the poster were "hey, this is old pictures" to which they replied "I never claimed otherwise".
Is this fake news by any objective measure?
If you somehow detect (and disallow) provably fake news, it just means that it will shift to deliberately vague statements, strategically placed among true statements, so that they cannot be faulted as "false".
I think the problem is inherently unsolvable.
Most of the world's problems are inherently unsolvable if you treat solved/unsolved as a binary condition. That doesn't mean that there's no obligation to help mitigate at least some of the negative effects that technology (and I'm not singling out computing) enables or amplifies.
It also depends on your priors, of course. We might disagree on whether only "authority approved" data can be disseminated, and about specific authorities (gov, ny times, snopes, individuals, ...), and whether precision or speed is more important - you can delay any tweet for a year at which time it can be verified. That will considerably reduce the "fake" factor, but at a cost I am not willing to pay.
Fake news is largely defined by context and degree. Details can matter, a lot, in specific situations. This isn't one of those situations.
And accountability + political manipulation don't mix that well.
(in the sense of not necessarily factually incorrect, but