Google Search: Now with Fact Checking

[WMGroomAK]

In a bid to help combat fake news items, Google implemented an algorithm back in October on it's News search site to show which News Articles had been checked against a 'fact-check' source.  Now though, Google is rolling this out across their complete web search engine.  According to the Tech Crunch article:

https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/07/fact-check-the-world-is-flat/

Quote

In practice, this means that if you are looking for facts in Google Search (maybe to make sure it’s not fake), you will now regularly see information from sites like PolitiFact or Snopes that will prominently appear on the page. Google will present a link to those sites’ fact checks, together with a bit of additional information about the claim and, of course, whether this organization rated it as true or false (or somewhere in the middle).

Of course, this being Google, the question about how these are conducted and what about a disagreement in facts.  From Tech Crunch again:

Quote

Occasionally, of course, different groups may have come to different conclusions. Some of these claims can be a bit fuzzy, after all. Google says it will present those different opinions to its users. “Even though differing conclusions may be presented, we think it’s still helpful for people to understand the degree of consensus around a particular claim and have clear information on which sources agree,” the company writes in today’s announcement. “As we make fact checks more visible in Search results, we believe people will have an easier time reviewing and assessing these fact checks, and making their own informed opinions.”

 

On its help pages, Google notes that it is obviously not doing these fact checks itself (“If you disagree with a fact check, contact the website owner that published it”). Organizations that want to add their fact checks to Google Search must follow Google’s relatively stringent guidelines (the last thing Google wants, after all, is to unwittingly include fake news that masquerades as a fact check…). At the end of the day, though, it’s an algorithm that decides whether the source of a fact check is trusted — and chances are, somebody is going to find a way around this sooner or later.

BBC Article: http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-39527644

 

I haven't seen this pop up on any of my Google Searches yet, but keep an eye out.  Of course, I still recommend people to question the search results and try to apply some critical thinking to anything you come across.

 

EDIT:  To add on to how this is apparently working, Ars Technica did an article where apparently the search criteria right now to show these results are an often repeated claim.  

 

https://arstechnica.com/business/2017/04/google-expands-automatic-fact-check-insertion-into-search-results/

Quote

The trick is, you won't find these results unless you specifically type in an oft-repeated claim, as opposed to a question. If you search for the phrase "how many undocumented immigrants are in the United States," normal search results appear with a mix of answers and data points. Searching specifically for "34 million undocumented immigrants" will bring up a fact-check box that credits President Donald Trump with that claim, along with a direct link to Politifact's "pants on fire" fact-check rating.

Google's automation is only combing certain data and research sites and the data must be put forth using the "Share the Facts' widget or with Schema.org ClaimReview markup.  Google's algorithm then determines whether the source is authoritative using:

https://support.google.com/news/publisher/answer/4582731#fact-checking

Quote

• Discrete, addressable claims and checks must be easily identified in the body of fact-check articles. Readers should be able to understand what was checked, and what conclusions were reached.
• Analysis must be transparent about sources and methods, with citations and references to primary sources.
• Article titles must indicate that a claim is being reviewed, state the conclusions reached, or simply frame that the article’s contents consist of fact checking.

I'm thinking that there will probably be a lot of room for algorithm improvements as this system develops.  As stated above though, critical thinking still should be applied to any article that you read online.

Edited April 7, 2017 by WMGroomAK
Additional Article

[Remixt]

Hopefully it's better than their advertiser friendly algorithm that flags every video. Although it would be funny to see Google classify everything as fake news like DJT does and then he uses it to be like: see I told you!

[laminutederire]

Let's fact check this news

 

[PlayStation 2]

>Politifact

[anything good]

"PANTS ON FIRE"

[WMGroomAK]

Just now, laminutederire said:

Let's fact check this news

 

Someone needs to create a fake fact check site just so they can fact check the fake facts to make the fake facts facts that then need further fact checking to prove whether they are fake facts.

[ivan134]

I just typed in "Sweden rape capital". It works. Only problem is Google is part of the Illuminati.

 

[Dabombinable]

Its made the search engine less useful than duckduckgo for me as Google used to get the same results, case and point:

The (luckily still stuck) label on the motherboard 7ZXA which I'm working on is the only means of identification on it .

[colonel_mortis]

9 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

Its made the search engine less useful than duckduckgo for me as Google used to get the same results, case and point:

The (luckily still stuck) label on the motherboard 7ZXA which I'm working on is the only means of identification on it .

You have different queries there - your Google search is ZX7A, whereas the DuckDuckGo search is 7XZA.

[Memories4K]

Quote

In practice, this means that if you are looking for facts in Google Search (maybe to make sure it’s not fake), you will now regularly see information from sites like PolitiFact or Snopes that will prominently appear on the page.

lmao wut that's like fact-checking for news on AMD's upcoming VEGA at WCCFTech

[Bensemus]

kinda confusing. I typed in "Global warming is a chinese hoax" and instead of saying that is wrong it says that yes Trup did say that.

[N3v3r3nding_N3wb]

Well, I think they discussed this pretty well on WAN show, even if I'd like them to take a stronger stance (which I know'll never happen).

 

PolitiFact is heavily biased (http://thefederalist.com/2016/12/16/running-data-politifact-shows-bias-conservatives/), and Snopes's objectivity is at least called into question (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-daily-mail-snopes-story-and-fact-checking-the-fact-checkers/amp/).  I think this shows a clear political bias in Google's policies, if their handling of YouTube demonetization wasn't proof enough already.  My fear is that it'll just indoctrinate people who only casually look at news and don't actually research anything even more than is already happening with Google's prioritized search results (https://www.google.com/amp/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/google-search-results-can-lean-liberal-study-finds-1479760691, http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/14/google-is-burying-negative-search-suggestions-for-hillary-clinton-new-study-shows/).  This is dangerous to the free, open market of ideas and is morally bereft.

 

P.S. Sorry, mods, if this is more political than is allowed, but I feel like I've backed myself up with sufficient facts and sources.

[Jito463]

8 hours ago, N3v3r3nding_N3wb said:

Well, I think they discussed this pretty well on WAN show, even if I'd like them to take a stronger stance (which I know'll never happen).

 

PolitiFact is heavily biased (http://thefederalist.com/2016/12/16/running-data-politifact-shows-bias-conservatives/), and Snopes's objectivity is at least called into question (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-daily-mail-snopes-story-and-fact-checking-the-fact-checkers/amp/).  I think this shows a clear political bias in Google's policies, if their handling of YouTube demonetization wasn't proof enough already.  My fear is that it'll just indoctrinate people who only casually look at news and don't actually research anything even more than is already happening with Google's prioritized search results (https://www.google.com/amp/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/google-search-results-can-lean-liberal-study-finds-1479760691, http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/14/google-is-burying-negative-search-suggestions-for-hillary-clinton-new-study-shows/).  This is dangerous to the free, open market of ideas and is morally bereft.

 

P.S. Sorry, mods, if this is more political than is allowed, but I feel like I've backed myself up with sufficient facts and sources.

I couldn't have put it better myself.  In fact, I was about to post something similar until I saw yours.  I trust Google/PolitiFart/sNopes to "fact check" for me, as much as I trust a fox to guard the hen house.

[Taf the Ghost]

It's actually even worse than people are saying.  There's a specific way that the Media creates a "fact".

 

Someone reports it somewhere. (Can be anywhere, doesn't matter.) Someone says it's "mostly true" ("fact checkers" rather than the old day of just repeating it multiple times). It gets reported in a "major" Media outlet and all other Media assumes it is true. Someone puts it on Wikipedia, links to a story, and it's suddenly a completely established fact.

 

This is how they create Fake News and Fake Science. It allows for the creation of a narrative that's controlled by groups that want it controlled. (Though it does go hilariously wrong often: search for "Aqua Buddha".)

 

This is just the next step in Google's shift from "Don't be evil" to "Ministry of Truth".  They've been on this glidepath for a rather long time.

[Prysin]

Lol, it is so obvious where this "fact checking" is gonna go.

[matrix07012]

4 hours ago, Taf the Ghost said:

Someone reports it somewhere. (Can be anywhere, doesn't matter.) Someone says it's "mostly true" ("fact checkers" rather than the old day of just repeating it multiple times). It gets reported in a "major" Media outlet and all other Media assumes it is true. Someone puts it on Wikipedia, links to a story, and it's suddenly a completely established fact.

The best example of this, that I can think of, is Gamergate.

[Phentos]

Hopefully it will fact check sites like WCCFtech too

[PlayStation 2]

I'll just leave this here.

EDIT:

HOLY SHIT IT'S ACTUALLY LEGIT

 

[Jito463]

 

[Notional]

"Fact" checking

 

Wtf is Google doing? Is this the ministry of truth? WTF? I love how Americans hate the Soviet Union, North Korea and other extreme authoritarian states, while they are claiming to be land of the free. The US are just as bad, but much better at giving the illusion of freedom for the sheeple. This is ridiculous.

 

17 minutes ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

I'll just leave this here.

EDIT:

HOLY SHIT IT'S ACTUALLY LEGIT

 

 

 

Oh is that false eh "snopes? Well I'm sorry, but the New York Times disagrees with your so called "fact checking":

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0

Quote

 

At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.

 

Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

 

2

Frack your propaganda and fake news, snopes ministry of truth.