Google, Facebook and fake news

[Pannonian]

Firstly, I did say I'm generally OK with it since displaying "news" links is their prerogative.

As to the "slippery slope" rebuttal... Many conservatives have taken to calling CNN the Clinton News Network this election cycle and say anything put out by them is lies. Similarly, liberals have been calling Fox News 'Faux News' for years. I don't think either of those sources should be excluded as "fake news", but I know many of the more blind partisans on each side truly believe one or both are "fake" and would approve of their disfavoured outlet being filtered out. Who decides what's fake or not?

I don't think we have an algorithm good enough to do it right and I don't trust the intellectual honesty of people to do it objectively. It gets down to the consumers intelligence- if they have any, they'll spot phony news. If they don't.... there's no helping them anyway.

The most reliable algorithm is to use the BBC as a baseline. Labour accuse it of rightwing bias, while the Conservatives accuse it of leftwing bias. When both sides of the political divide accuse you of bias towards the other side, you can be reasonably confident of your impartiality.

[TBFProgrammer]

When both sides of the political divide accuse you of bias towards the other side, you can be reasonably confident of your impartiality.

Not really. Just about any outlet that is not rabidly and openly biased can dig up representatives of both sides to stake that argument on. Further, this assumes that an accurate answer lies in the space between the two sides. On most issues that garner serious interest by both partisan interests, this is reasonably likely to be the case. However, it doesn't and cannot speak to any bias with regards to issues that don't generate a partisan divide.

[rory_20_uk]

The most reliable algorithm is to use the BBC as a baseline. Labour accuse it of rightwing bias, while the Conservatives accuse it of leftwing bias. When both sides of the political divide accuse you of bias towards the other side, you can be reasonably confident of your impartiality.

In the UK, both "Rightwing" and "Leftwing" are an incredibly small selection of all options. No one is saying "hey, maybe a Chinese government Meritocracy is something to consider". It is either pro-EU is more open to the world, or anti-EU is more open to the world. No one considers whether being open to the world is innately a good thing (I do - but the point is there remain many, many things that are not explored).

Or humanitarian aid into a warzone. Both sides argue how this should be done. It doesn't appear to be discussed whether it should be done and even why we are getting involved in the war in the first place.

[Montmorency]

Or humanitarian aid into a warzone. Both sides argue how this should be done. It doesn't appear to be discussed whether it should be done and even why we are getting involved in the war in the first place.

Really? Seems more like the other way around with respect to "whether" and "how". Or are you thinking of the subject of "intervention" more broadly?

[rory_20_uk]

Really? Seems more like the other way around with respect to "whether" and "how". Or are you thinking of the subject of "intervention" more broadly?

Probably best the broader point regarding intervention. But it appears we hear that giving aid is a good idea and the BBC is often at pains to say that the people are without medical aid and are hungry - as if this isn't always the case in wars.

Regarding aid we have had aid convoys and of course humanitarian ceasefires discussed. No one has pointed out that allowing all sides to rearm is mainly going to make the war drag out for longer.

Even who is in charge is based upon what external actors want, not the Syrnian people themselves. They might elect someone who didn't win the popular vote - or even worse they might and that would be evidence of voter fraud. Only democracies are allowed to have systems such as this.

[Montmorency]

Regarding aid we have had aid convoys and of course humanitarian ceasefires discussed. No one has pointed out that allowing all sides to rearm is mainly going to make the war drag out for longer.

IMO an all-around political and humanitarian good move would be direct management and funding of refugee camps in Jordan and Lebanon. Of course that opens more aid workers to raids and attacks, but it sidesteps the need for troops on the ground beyond defensive outposts at the camps to supplement local forces.

[Pannonian]

In the UK, both "Rightwing" and "Leftwing" are an incredibly small selection of all options. No one is saying "hey, maybe a Chinese government Meritocracy is something to consider". It is either pro-EU is more open to the world, or anti-EU is more open to the world. No one considers whether being open to the world is innately a good thing (I do - but the point is there remain many, many things that are not explored).

Or humanitarian aid into a warzone. Both sides argue how this should be done. It doesn't appear to be discussed whether it should be done and even why we are getting involved in the war in the first place.

That's the legacy of being on the side of the Good Guys in WWII. If we want to continue carping on that legacy, we have to live up to the image we've created for ourselves.

[rory_20_uk]

That's the legacy of being on the side of the Good Guys in WWII. If we want to continue carping on that legacy, we have to live up to the image we've created for ourselves.

It was delusional before WW2 and has continued to be afterwards. We joined WW2 to protect Poland and failed miserably, supported Stalin, sent the Cossacks back to be shot etc etc etc...

We fought wars all over the place in the preceding years and conspired with the Israelis to get back the Suez canal and equally failed to involved in many others. There is no logic to how we are the Good Guys beyond we say we are. So why not just continue saying we are Good rather than worry about reality?