Hacker News Reader

Comment by rvz | Hacker News Reader

So fact-checking has become a new way of distorting and censoring articles that have credible sources but seem to disagree with the overall bias of the platform (Facebook, Twitter, etc.)

Maybe one should just go back to the age old saying: 'Don't believe everything you read on the internet.' Given that even these so-called 'independent fact-checkers' can also be wrong.

Who checks the 80+ so-called fact-checkers? Or the 'trusted news initiative' [0], which Meta (Facebook) is part of?

[0] https://www.bbc.com/mediacentre/2020/trusted-news-initiative...

View on HN

I've seen multiple hit pieces to defame on "fact check" articles including on Reuters - which prior to that I thought was credible as a brand. These hit piece articles aren't balanced either and I even contacted a site once to ask for citations for their counter-claims - not to mention the other dishonest tactics to diminish someone's arguments/statements, where they didn't actually list any author, where they promised to respond within 48 business hours to all inquiries - but that was months ago and I haven't heard back. These are all for show but people trust them because they look good, just like poorly done science dressed up to look like it's science to the layperson - but then used as a primary citation by bad actors or incompetent ideologues who want to push a certain narrative or toe the line to not cause friction in their life. We need to figure out proper trust networks again, and how to teach/train everyone to be critical - and provide the time for this, and societally, culturally, make this process perhaps the sole thing we put on a pedestal - truth, the base or other side to coin of love.

Unverifiable theory, but I think when the news was just the few media companies who ran TV and newspapers, selling a narrative was easy. Look how easily we got tricked into going into Iraq and staying in Afghanistan for 20 years. Now that news is more distributed (as originally intended) by independent journalist on things like YouTube and substack. Not only do these independent journalistic outlets exist, they are more popular than traditional news (TV/print), making various propaganda efforts much more difficult to stick. This is one of several strategies to regain control of that propaganda channel.

Sorry but there was enormous international pushback against it (curiously this is when they started calling French Fries "Freedom Fries"): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governmental_positions_on_th...

I'm sceptical that the population that was "tricked" back then wouldn't be just as easily swayed nowadays. Political affiliation is largely an emotional matter to a great mass of people, and rationality has a limited role in it.

>Sorry but there was enormous international pushback against it

Sure, there was domestic pushback too, but the "trusted" news sources actually countered that pushback by not questioning the government line and bolstered the whole WMD fear mongering. The NYT actually apologized for it after the fact to try to save their reputation.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2004/may/26/pressandpublis...

The NYT, et al also refused to publish the Snowden revelations until they absolutely had to (after the guardian pushed it). Same with the Clinton/Lewinsky thing. They refused to report on the Hunter Biden laptop either, which, like it or not, is "fit to print." There were also quite a few anti-Assange articles if I recall.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com