General > General Technical Chat
Youtube/Google is evil, time to fight back
Zero999:
--- Quote from: dunkemhigh on April 29, 2022, 10:40:34 am ---
--- Quote ---for source verification.. by fsct checker sites
--- End quote ---
Who fact checks the fact checkers?
Seriously. At the last election there were 'fact checking' websites run by one side or the other to a) confirm whatever that party wanted to push, and b) diss the other side's claims.
--- End quote ---
Fact checkers are invariably just journalists, who lack the technical competence in the subject they're supposed to be verifying. Even experts aren't 100% certain of the facts, which has often been the case over the pandemic. Official bodies often get it wrong, or only accept facts which support their policies/agenda. I'm very skeptical when only one narrative is accepted to be true, by the mainstream media.
Ed.Kloonk:
--- Quote from: Zero999 on April 29, 2022, 10:50:29 am ---
--- Quote from: dunkemhigh on April 29, 2022, 10:40:34 am ---
--- Quote ---for source verification.. by fsct checker sites
--- End quote ---
Who fact checks the fact checkers?
Seriously. At the last election there were 'fact checking' websites run by one side or the other to a) confirm whatever that party wanted to push, and b) diss the other side's claims.
--- End quote ---
Fact checkers are invariably just journalists, who lack the technical competence in the subject they're supposed to be verifying. Even experts aren't 100% certain of the facts, which has often been the case over the pandemic. Official bodies often get it wrong, or only accept facts which support their policies/agenda. I'm very skeptical when only one narrative is accepted to be true, by the mainstream media.
--- End quote ---
Once you make peace with fact that the modern fact checker doesn't tend to hold facts as the top priority in their quest, well..
:)
tszaboo:
--- Quote from: dunkemhigh on April 29, 2022, 10:40:34 am ---
--- Quote ---for source verification.. by fsct checker sites
--- End quote ---
Who fact checks the fact checkers?
Seriously. At the last election there were 'fact checking' websites run by one side or the other to a) confirm whatever that party wanted to push, and b) diss the other side's claims.
--- End quote ---
As I hear, people who do fact checking have burnout problems faster than the average JS programmer.
PlainName:
--- Quote ---Fact checkers are invariably just journalists
--- End quote ---
Proper ones, no doubt. What I'm pointing out is that there were/are essentially fake fact checkers who look like the real thing (unless you know something they are pushing is wrong). How do you know the checkers you are looking at are pukka fact checkers?
Traditionally, you could rely on mainstream newspapers and TV because if they were pulling a fast one (that was bad enough) they would be called out by the oversight organisation. Sure, there would be bias but outright fibbing would have to be corrected. The likes of YouTube channels... well, not so much. The web... lol.
rsjsouza:
That was then. Now, this journalistic ethic has left several major media corporations and what remains are activists - these are one part of the body of authoritative sources and anything posted that contradicted them was censored by the tech overlords. Fact checkers also rely on them, carefully selecting the bias du jour when making their judgment calls. A journalist named Tim Pool noticed that quite early and created a media company so it could act as an authoritative source and have a leg to stand against some of the excess of these guys.
Another authoritative source is the government: with the deep divide currently present in politics, their value is close to nil.
So, IMHO the only reliable authoritative source is indeed research done by oneself... Just like many here already suggested.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version