A single media “facts checker” passing judgment on media sources (rather than on individual articles reporting supposed facts) can manipulate perception of hundreds of thousands of articles by merelly adjusting the bias ratings on certain media sources, whilst each individual media source can only ever manipulate its own reports, which is what makes such “fact checkers” ideal for state actors doing Propaganda Ops: they act as a trust nexus that can be used to promote or defuse the impact of countless reports from media outlets all over the World, well beyond the borders of said states.
Fact checking should be limited to checking actual reports of supposed facts, not passing judgement over media outlets (and by implication on the trustworthiness of all their reports), and the fact-checkings and fact-checkers themselves need to be fact-checked, similarly to how Wikipedia deals with edits on their articles.
If your “independent” fact-checker and its fact-checking aren’t subject to open dispute in a well-publicized forum out of their countrol and they’re passing judgment over entire media publishers rather than only checking each article reporting supposed facts, they’re neither independent nor fact-checkers.
(And no, Think Tanks with suspiciously manipulative designed-for-a-purpose names aren’t independent jack-shit-anything, including for oversight of fact-checkers. In fact given the modern trends on Think Thanks they’re almost certainly the opposite)
So, you claim lots of things, but I miss you backing up your arguments with substantiated evidence like a link. Instead of keeping attacking my argument it would be nice if you’d actually provide evidence based info.
For example, in addition to my earlier point via this article.
“As director of the International Fact-Checking Network, I’ve watched this movement label fact-checkers as part of a “censorship industrial complex,” claiming that fact-checkers are trying to suppress debatable information. Ironically, this deeply misleading argument itself is aimed at suppressing critique and debate.”
Sounds familiar?
I am just critical about newssources with mixed credibility when we are already facing a very polarised situation.
You’re the one claiming that this entity is so high in the Trust Hierachy that they they should be treated as Trust Overseers of the World’s newsmedia, which is quite a gigantic claim.
I’m just doing a pretty standard Trust Requirements Evaluation as it would be done, for example, in IT Security, which yields the pretty obvious result that “tall claims require proportionatelly ironclad evidence from multiple trusted sources” and pointing out the gain that bad actors could get in setting up such a “trust gatekeeper” with only fancy web frontends, astroturfers and useful idiots as “evidence” of them deserving the guardianship of the Trust in the World’s newsmedia.
I’m not claiming they are anything, I’m pointing that we don’t know what they are because:
There are massive risks in delegating trust on Press articles to any Trust Overseer given that well resourced actors stand to gain massivelly from setting up such an entity, and thus can derive large Propaganda gains from investing massive amounts of manpower and money in creating a fake one or taking over a genuine one.
There is nowhere near enough strength and quality of evidence that Mediabiasfactchech can be trusted with the extremelly high place in the Trust Hierarchy they claim to have.
People should have very strict demands on proof before trusting any such Trust Overseers of the World’s Press.
When it comes to Trust, the default is to Do Not Trust until proven otherwise, not the other way around - trust must be earned, the more important the subject matter the harder should it be to earn it - so I don’t need to prove distrust, it’s you, who are making sky-scrapper sized claims that these people are Trust Overseers of all the newsmedia of the World, who has to provide evidence from sufficient trusted sources (and, no, self-referential chains of trust don’t count) and of enough quality to back up such outsized claims.
A single media “facts checker” passing judgment on media sources (rather than on individual articles reporting supposed facts) can manipulate perception of hundreds of thousands of articles by merelly adjusting the bias ratings on certain media sources, whilst each individual media source can only ever manipulate its own reports, which is what makes such “fact checkers” ideal for state actors doing Propaganda Ops: they act as a trust nexus that can be used to promote or defuse the impact of countless reports from media outlets all over the World, well beyond the borders of said states.
Fact checking should be limited to checking actual reports of supposed facts, not passing judgement over media outlets (and by implication on the trustworthiness of all their reports), and the fact-checkings and fact-checkers themselves need to be fact-checked, similarly to how Wikipedia deals with edits on their articles.
If your “independent” fact-checker and its fact-checking aren’t subject to open dispute in a well-publicized forum out of their countrol and they’re passing judgment over entire media publishers rather than only checking each article reporting supposed facts, they’re neither independent nor fact-checkers.
(And no, Think Tanks with suspiciously manipulative designed-for-a-purpose names aren’t independent jack-shit-anything, including for oversight of fact-checkers. In fact given the modern trends on Think Thanks they’re almost certainly the opposite)
So, you claim lots of things, but I miss you backing up your arguments with substantiated evidence like a link. Instead of keeping attacking my argument it would be nice if you’d actually provide evidence based info.
For example, in addition to my earlier point via this article.
“As director of the International Fact-Checking Network, I’ve watched this movement label fact-checkers as part of a “censorship industrial complex,” claiming that fact-checkers are trying to suppress debatable information. Ironically, this deeply misleading argument itself is aimed at suppressing critique and debate.”
Sounds familiar?
I am just critical about newssources with mixed credibility when we are already facing a very polarised situation.
You’re the one claiming that this entity is so high in the Trust Hierachy that they they should be treated as Trust Overseers of the World’s newsmedia, which is quite a gigantic claim.
I’m just doing a pretty standard Trust Requirements Evaluation as it would be done, for example, in IT Security, which yields the pretty obvious result that “tall claims require proportionatelly ironclad evidence from multiple trusted sources” and pointing out the gain that bad actors could get in setting up such a “trust gatekeeper” with only fancy web frontends, astroturfers and useful idiots as “evidence” of them deserving the guardianship of the Trust in the World’s newsmedia.
I’m not claiming they are anything, I’m pointing that we don’t know what they are because:
People should have very strict demands on proof before trusting any such Trust Overseers of the World’s Press.
When it comes to Trust, the default is to Do Not Trust until proven otherwise, not the other way around - trust must be earned, the more important the subject matter the harder should it be to earn it - so I don’t need to prove distrust, it’s you, who are making sky-scrapper sized claims that these people are Trust Overseers of all the newsmedia of the World, who has to provide evidence from sufficient trusted sources (and, no, self-referential chains of trust don’t count) and of enough quality to back up such outsized claims.