Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwanem | Hacker News Reader

Politifact is one of the organizations on the approved list [1], and the closest thing I can find on that list to an organization anyone not on the left is likely to regard as politically neutral is the Associated Press. So I'm not really seeing what Facebook expects this to help.

[1] http://www.poynter.org/fact-checkers-code-of-principles/

View on HN

Maybe stop the spread of nonsense like 'pope endorses Trump' or pizzagate?

I wonder how this would affect, say, the claim that bulk marketing emails for Trump hotels were actually secret communications with Russia, as reported by Slate and repeated by a certain @HillaryClinton on Twitter. (And, for that matter, the associated belief that the FBI concluding they were a non-issue was proof that the FBI are backing Trump.)

would these measures end up blocking something like a modest proposal

A Modest Proposal is not, and never was, "News". It is opinion.

Most news is (unfortunately) nothing more than opinion. Either the opinion of "an unnamed official", the opinion of a contributor, the opinion of a sponsor, or the opinion of an editor.

Take the recent opinions of anonymous officials that Russia's objective in leaking DNC corruption was to get Trump elected. That's being reported on as news and fact, with the opinion aspect of it turned down to obscurity.

maybe Best In Show, that dog documentary, is a better example.

Maybe reality doesn't match your opinions.

If one suspected this whole effort will be focused far more on politics than on truthiness (I know... amazing!), you've just confirmed that suspicion. Congratulations, I guess.

You're the one focused more on politics than truthfulness.

What exactly do you disagree with in this code of principles? [0] Or is the problem that reporting reality accurately undermines your fantasy?

[0] http://www.poynter.org/fact-checkers-code-of-principles/

Haha yeah after one post I'm "focused". Meanwhile you have seven posts on this page, none of which obey the Principle of Charity. There's still time to edit!

I see nothing wrong with the document you link.

Maybe it takes a little more to convince anyone of anything than merely to say "no, you're wrong" over and over and over again. Would that the world were so simple, perhaps. Evidence suggests that it is not.

I agree that saying "you're wrong" isn't an effective rhetorical technique, but trying to argue with alt-right trolls is a waste of effort.

Sites like Snopes and Politifact do the research, with primary sources, to actually validate claims. Since conservatives can't actually invalidate those claims, they've decided to simply claim that any source which disagrees with them is biased.

It's gaslighting.

The evidence is often correct. It's the assignment of weight to each claim, lack of charity when reading, and therefore output of the truth-o-meter which is biased. This isn't just rhetoric; it can be evaluated rationally.

Worth scrolling through this Twitter feed [0] for individual examples. They can be validated and many are not just 'gaslighting by the right'. And others feel this way, too [1].

[0] https://twitter.com/PolitiFactBias

[1] https://twitter.com/jamestaranto/status/809480523693387777

To some extent, I agree that Politifact's ratings are bad because they're inherently subjective. Thankfully Facebook's system will allow you to click through to the original article and read the evidence for yourself.

The latest claim is that even Snopes is politically motivated and lying. The amount of gas lighting which the alt-right is doing is absurd.

> the closest thing I can find on that list to an organization anyone not on the left is likely to regard as politically neutral

The American right's association with reality is well known to be, uhh... tenuous. So it's not too surprising that they tend to disagree with people who verify facts.

Edit for downvoters: The mainstream positions of the Republican party are, objectively, factually incorrect on the issues of climate change, evolution, and women's health. I'm not aware of any issue where the left's position completely disagrees with established scientific fact. Thus, anyone concerned with basing their understanding of reality on facts is going to be "left-leaning" by simple virtue of the right's disregard for fact.

Please keep partisan politics off HN.

I was explaining why fact checkers appear to be left-leaning, but OK.

Many on the right consider theirs to be the only political tendency compatible with reality, too. They're incorrect in so considering, too.

I've vouched your prior comment because I believe its content should be visible. It would be a shame if anyone were to confuse that action with an endorsement.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com