= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ChristianKl comments on ClearerThinking's Fact-Checking 2.0 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (40)
Reposting by comment from your post on omnilibrium:
You failed to address, or even acknowledge the question, of who fact-checks the fact-checkers. For example, you mention PolitiFact, it has a acquired a reputation for downplaying some politicians lies, and in some cases even outright classifying true statements as lies by others.
In general, this proposal is just silly. After all the media is supposed to fack-check politicians but it is rather notorious for its own biases and even occasional lies. Why would we expect self-proclaimed fact-checkers to be any better?
Also, judging by the upvotes this post has recieved and the rest of the comments, it appears even most LWers will accept someone's claim to be stating facts without question.
They operate under a bit different incentives. PolitiFact gains less by writing sensational stories than classic news outlets.
That's not self-evident to me. They still want eyeballs and clicks.
I basically remembered FactCheck.org funding model and thought PolitiFact uses the same.
PolitiFact does make money via adverstising. At the same time I expect it's reputation needs to be a bit different.