You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

RichardKennaway comments on ClearerThinking's Fact-Checking 2.0 - Less Wrong Discussion

23 Post author: Stefan_Schubert 22 October 2015 09:16PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (40)
Tags: political_rationality fact-checking

Comments (40)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 23 October 2015 08:04:35PM 2 points [-]

We think that reading that a candidate's statement is false just as it is made could have quite a striking effect. It could trigger more visceral feelings among the viewers than standard fact-checking, which is published in separate articles. To over and over again read in the subtitles that what you're being told simply isn't true should outrage anyone who finds truth-telling an important quality.

Will the outrage be directed against the politician, or against the person who claims they're wrong?

I expect that any politician could take any speech made by a politician on the other side and "fact-check" it to produce a subtitled video "correcting" their "lies". How do you propose to establish a reputation for probity of the proposed system?

Comment author: ChristianKl 23 October 2015 10:02:57PM 2 points [-]

There no problem with outrage being directed against people who claim that a politician is wrong. That outrage can lead to productive discussion.

I don't think a strong reputation is necessary for people prefering to watch the debates with those subtitles instead of watching the debates without the subtitles. At the same time I think that the way Stefan Schubert annotates the videos is likely to be appreciated by many people. I think this is hard to judge in the abstract without viewing those videos.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit