Google Won't Add Fact Checks Despite New EU Law (axios.com) 157
According to Axios, Google has told the EU it will not add fact checks to search results and YouTube videos or use them in ranking or removing content, despite the requirements of a new EU law. From the report: In a letter written to Renate Nikolay, the deputy director general under the content and technology arm at the European Commission, Google's global affairs president Kent Walker said the fact-checking integration required by the Commission's new Disinformation Code of Practice "simply isn't appropriate or effective for our services" and said Google won't commit to it. The code would require Google to incorporate fact-check results alongside Google's search results and YouTube videos. It would also force Google to build fact-checking into its ranking systems and algorithms.
Walker said Google's current approach to content moderation works and pointed to successful content moderation during last year's "unprecedented cycle of global elections" as proof. He said a new feature added to YouTube last year that enables some users to add contextual notes to videos "has significant potential." (That program is similar to X's Community Notes feature, as well as new program announced by Meta last week.)
The EU's Code of Practice on Disinformation, introduced in 2022, includes several voluntary commitments that tech firms and private companies, including fact-checking organizations, are expected to deliver on. The Code, originally created in 2018, predates the EU's new content moderation law, the Digital Services Act (DSA), which went into effect in 2022.
The Commission has held private discussions over the past year with tech companies, urging them to convert the voluntary measures into an official code of conduct under the DSA. Walker said in his letter Thursday that Google had already told the Commission that it didn't plan to comply. Google will "pull out of all fact-checking commitments in the Code before it becomes a DSA Code of Conduct," he wrote. He said Google will continue to invest in improvements to its current content moderation practices, which focus on providing people with more information about their search results through features like Synth ID watermarking and AI disclosures on YouTube.
Walker said Google's current approach to content moderation works and pointed to successful content moderation during last year's "unprecedented cycle of global elections" as proof. He said a new feature added to YouTube last year that enables some users to add contextual notes to videos "has significant potential." (That program is similar to X's Community Notes feature, as well as new program announced by Meta last week.)
The EU's Code of Practice on Disinformation, introduced in 2022, includes several voluntary commitments that tech firms and private companies, including fact-checking organizations, are expected to deliver on. The Code, originally created in 2018, predates the EU's new content moderation law, the Digital Services Act (DSA), which went into effect in 2022.
The Commission has held private discussions over the past year with tech companies, urging them to convert the voluntary measures into an official code of conduct under the DSA. Walker said in his letter Thursday that Google had already told the Commission that it didn't plan to comply. Google will "pull out of all fact-checking commitments in the Code before it becomes a DSA Code of Conduct," he wrote. He said Google will continue to invest in improvements to its current content moderation practices, which focus on providing people with more information about their search results through features like Synth ID watermarking and AI disclosures on YouTube.
Real reason (Score:3, Insightful)
Their fact checkers are either going to be biased or simply misinformed often enough for fact checking to be irrelevant (and potentially harmful).
Re:Real reason (Score:5, Insightful)
The real reason is that in the US, facts stopped to matter and anyone who even toys with the idea of limiting lies and fakery on the interwebs is bound to draw the ire of the post-truth cabinet of donold.
So, US companies will try to abstain.
Re:Real reason (Score:4, Interesting)
Indeed. But the EU will not let this pass and eventually make things mandatory. Google is being stupid here. They could fix their act and stay without mandatory rules. Well, I guess the kid-gloves need to come off on this one.
Re:Real reason (Score:4, Interesting)
Indeed. But the EU will not let this pass and eventually make things mandatory. Google is being stupid here. They could fix their act and stay without mandatory rules. Well, I guess the kid-gloves need to come off on this one.
I doubt it, and I'm a big supporter of the EU pushing this. The reason being is that search is a search. It looks for things. I'm all in favour of social media having fact checking where algorithms push content purely based on engagement factors, but if you search for something you are ... searching for something. The results should not be filtered based on perception of correctness.
I would actually like to see the EU go the other way on this one, and make a rule saying that search results need to be presented plainly and equally to all parties. There shouldn't be different results depending on your browsing history. This would achieve the same result of not pushing people down a path of misinformation.
Re:Real reason (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't know about you, but when I search for things I search for facts.
Google already deliberately edits it's search results based on who is paying them to advertise in that space, and that is a large reason I use other search engines.
However, to get back to the point. If your search engine knows that a piece of information you are looking for is non-factual, it should show you the information you are looking for along with the facts. Clearly labeled somehow. ie: this is what you were looking for. It has been clearly established that this is false information, here are the facts too: bla bla foo bar
Re: Real reason (Score:4, Interesting)
When I search for things I am searching for things which exist.
What I expect from a search engine is to show me the best match for what I searched for.
Unfortunately, that means that Google NEEDS to be able to show both accurate and inaccurate information. I might be looking for lies in order to expose them.
Governments need to make smarter citizens if they want people to care about facts, not force search engines to only show a subset of what is on the web, because that harms legitimate uses.
If they want to regulate facts, they should chase popular sites that spread falsehoods, not force Google to censor results.
Re: (Score:3)
Ha, what exactly do you think the EU can even do?
You're joking right? As it stands the result you get searching in the EU are not the same as outside of it.
The thing is your post fundamentally doesn't understand what is going on in Europe. People in Europe do not "not want to use Google". We do, and what we want is to push it towards being a better product to use than it already is.
Re:Real reason (Score:4, Informative)
No, the folks in the EU think that they've been fed a bit too much lies and propaganda through the irresponsible US social media and are telling them to be more careful.
"Peddling propaganda on behalf of our adversaries is no way to go through life, son" is the message.
Re: Real reason (Score:2)
Google has offices in and sells advertising in/to the EU so that is incorrect at best
Re:Real reason (Score:5, Insightful)
Your condescending attitude towards our nation's allies is ridiculous. If a person talked shit about their friends the way cretins like you do about ours they wouldnt have any friends left. This is where people like you are taking our country and the US versus the world is not anything anyone would win.
The EU has every right to regulate American companies when they are doing business in their countries just as we do for their business'. There is nothing inappropriate about this.
Re: (Score:2)
We apply regulations to all sorts of products and services from other countries including Europe. ALL countries do this. You people are being ridiculous.
Re: (Score:2)
We apply regulations to all sorts of products and services from other countries including Europe. ALL countries do this. You people are being ridiculous.
Sure, and if they do not comply, then they aren't sold here. Simple.
Which is why I say to the EU - if you don't like Apple or Google or facebook or twitter or any internet product that offends, block it off. The posts they don't want people to see are then not seen, and the EU has protected its citizens from the American cancer.
I geoblock the EU from the sites I run. The only way they can see the content is by VPN'ing in. If they have a complaint, I'll tell them to stop using the VPN.
Re: (Score:2)
Why cut off a company who's services most of your citizenship use if you can coerce them into playing by the rules? We fine companies all the time rather than jumping straight to shutting them down. Jumping straight to cutting them off doesnt make sense, there's a process at work here.
Re: (Score:2)
If you do business in another country then you have to follow their rules, that's the way the world works and is most definitely how things go in our own country. The EU is under no obligation to create a competing company.
Re: (Score:3)
Let's talk about the subject at hand rather than your tangents. Google offers their services in Europe so their services are subject to European regulation. This is how it works in every country in the world including our own. You can cry about how they "don't have the right" to do that all you want, that wont change reality.
I'm sorry you want the world to revolve around the US and for everyone to kowtow to us but the US trying to create that is a great way to end American dominance in the world because whe
Re:Real reason (Score:5, Informative)
The EU has no right to try to dictate how American companies are run.
Nobody cares how US companies are run in the US. They are free to feed you as much bullshit as you can swallow.
If they want to operate in the EU, then they need to obey our laws.
It is, of course, also fine if they decide to leave the market. There's a shitton of US companies that do not provide service in the EU because they believe handling user data responsibly, as required by GDPR, is too burdensome.
They haven't been missed at all.
Re:Real reason (Score:5, Informative)
Given that Trump has literally, on record, threatened media that publish (or refuse to publish) in accordance with his desire with government intervention to destroy them and now he's POTUS with people in place to actually do at least some of that... yeah.
So you're about to see Fox News-style 'facts' everywhere, unrestricted.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And, apparently, on Slashdot we're going to continue to see statements of fact marked 'troll' by MAGAs.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, that may be unfair. There's a mentally ill Slashdotter who keeps following my posts calling me a Nazi and recently posted that he has mod points.
Probably him. But he's probably a MAGA, so I think the original supposition stands.
Re: (Score:2)
It was front page news for weeks, part of Trump's campaign.
I presume your request for citation is disingenuous.
Re: Real reason (Score:2)
It is not at all an extraordinary claim because evidence abounds and is trivial to locate with the search engine of your choice, Google or no.
It is an extraordinary fact because it is unusual in this country, but it remains a fact, and any person who belongs on this site has no trouble finding a citation.
Re: (Score:2)
The real reason is that in the US, facts stopped to matter and anyone who even toys with the idea of limiting lies and fakery on the interwebs is bound to draw the ire of the post-truth cabinet of donold.
So, US companies will try to abstain.
If the EU desires fact checking every video on Youtube, is it not the EU's duty to intercept every video and fact check every video on youtube? It then becomes a version of Youtube that reflects what the EU decides is true. Europeans have a perfect record of not deviating from actual facts - they never promote anything that is a lie.
Re: (Score:2)
If the EU desires fact checking every video on Youtube, is it not the EU's duty to intercept every video
No.
It then becomes a version of Youtube that reflects what the EU decides is true.
This isn't the point. Hence, it isn't implemented this way.
Europeans have a perfect record of not deviating from actual facts - they never promote anything that is a lie.
Quite the non-sequitur.
Re: (Score:2)
If the EU desires fact checking every video on Youtube, is it not the EU's duty to intercept every video
No.
I see, I have to admit you make a very good argument, with salient points and impressive logic. And deliver it with rapier with too!
For you see, despite their greatest wishes, the EU does not control the world. Their biggest enemy, the USA is not subservient to them - they lost their attempts do define truth in 1945.
So a risk vs reward analysis might show that it is still profitble to follow their dictates and still make money, at some point, the demand that other countries hire the people and fact che
Re: (Score:2)
Or, just perhaps....we're going back more towards the origins of the internet, and people said/presented what they wanted, and it was up to the CONSUMER to sort out the chaff from the wheat....and decide what was factual themselves, rather than being force fed "the truth" according to other "authorities".
Re: (Score:2)
Or, just perhaps....we're going back more towards the origins of the internet, and people said/presented what they wanted, and it was up to the CONSUMER to sort out the chaff from the wheat....and decide what was factual themselves, rather than being force fed "the truth" according to other "authorities".
Algorithms are basically those "other authorities" and make that virtually impossible these days, especially on social media. You get fed what they think will engage you (and rage is a good engager), not what is factual.
Re: (Score:2)
Or, just perhaps....we're going back more towards the origins of the internet
No, we aren't going back towards the origins of the Internet. Back when the Internet originated, the CONSUMER wasn't a part of it and it was a completely different environment.
Otherwise...who is the arbiter of truth?
The issue here isn't "the truf", but the incessable spread of outright bullshit by the "algorithms" of the US "social media". If someone's business model is based on peddling propaganda, they should be held in check.
Re: (Score:2)
The real reason is that in the US, facts stopped to matter and anyone who even toys with the idea of limiting lies and fakery on the interwebs is bound to draw the ire of the post-truth cabinet of donold.
So, US companies will try to abstain.
I agree with what you're saying, but would point out that Google probably has the choice of adding fact checking only in EU countries. There would be some spillover into non-EU regions via VPN and such, but I think the American backlash against that would be limited.
My first thought on reading TFS was that I agree with Google here. I thought that fact-checking search results - as opposed to outsmarting SEO - is just wrong. But then I thought about libel, and how a book publisher can be held to account if an
Re: (Score:2)
Singapore? The tax evasion haven across from Johor Bahru? Is it important to anyone except high-ranking chicoms who try to stash some dough away from the reach of Chairman Pooh?
Re:Real reason (Score:4, Informative)
Heh, tovarisch maior is right here with the stale russkie propaganda about the "EU fashizm". Anonymously, of course.
Re: (Score:3)
torvarisch? What does Linus Torvalds have to do with this?
Re: (Score:2)
Will you stop and think about this for a second?
Re: (Score:2)
You're literally shifting your own goalposts so much that I'm tired just watching you do it.
Have a nice day.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Their fact checkers are either going to be biased or simply misinformed often enough for fact checking to be irrelevant (and potentially harmful).
You: Drinking bleach will cure you of respiratory infections!!
Fact checker: Bullshit ...
You: The fact checkers are biased!!
Re: (Score:2)
That simply is not true [translate.goog].
Re: Real reason (Score:2)
"we have investigated ourselves and found ourselves, if anything, to be under-respected and under-paid."
Wow, and that's coming from a "fact checker!" So you know it's true!
Re:Real reason (Score:4, Insightful)
There are numerous examples of fact checking being very helpful and preventing harm. For example, several times when there have been terrorist attacks/mass murders, lies have been spread about the perpetrator being transgender, or an immigrant. Debunking that stuff is important for protecting those groups.
It may be imperfect, but it's better than not having it. Just because the fire brigade can't save every house that an arsonists sets on fire, and occasionally maybe even makes mistakes that make things worse, that doesn't mean you don't want a fire department.
Re: (Score:2)
It was widely reported. It actually felt excessive - would it matter if the shooter was gay, or had ginger hair? Obviously if it turns out that it had something to do with the crime, like revenge for bullying or something, okay, but I haven't seen anything like that.
But what does that have to do with fact checking? It was accurate and reported by reputable sources that do generally check their facts before publishing. It's the cases where people on social media, often claiming to be journalists, made false
Show us proof of a factchecker being wrong... (Score:3)
Oh you can't. Literally tens of thousands of factchecks and you can't find a single one that's wrong or misinformed, yet you pretend most of it is.
Children can cope with being wrong. Why can't you?
Yep, that will go well (Score:3, Insightful)
Content "moderation" on YouTube is deeply broken at this time. And Google thinks it is above the law? Time for a $500M fine and repetition of said fine until they comply. Well, at the moment it is still voluntary, because the EU gives enterprises a change to fix their act and self-regulate. But expect this to get mandatory if the large ones fail to fix things.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
They are. And that does not go well with the EU, were anti-trust and consumer-protection exists and is taken pretty seriously.
Re: (Score:3)
There is no law.
The EU is refusing to legislate and trying to get Google to contractually obligate themselves to be arbitrarily beaten.
Re:Yep, that will go well (Score:4, Interesting)
To be fair, the EU isn't saying you must have a specific type of content moderation and misinformation control. It sets out a standard that it expects companies to meet, with examples of how they could do it, but if Google can do the same thing some other way then that is allowed.
The question is if Google's proposal is good enough. Based on how YouTube is going, I'd say not.
Re: (Score:2)
Content "moderation" on YouTube is deeply broken at this time. And Google thinks it is above the law? Time for a $500M fine and repetition of said fine until they comply. Well, at the moment it is still voluntary, because the EU gives enterprises a change to fix their act and self-regulate. But expect this to get mandatory if the large ones fail to fix things.
The solution is simple. Block Youtube and all social media. Problem fixed, and the EU is now safe from lies. Like they have been forever.
The problem with "fact Checking" is that it becomes opinion checking very quickly. And Is the fact checker presenting facts? Who watches the watchmen?
Take the China approach, not the EU rules the world approach.
Re: (Score:2)
Google would sue against such a block and win. Blocking is a last resort.
Re: (Score:2)
Google would sue against such a block and win. Blocking is a last resort.
I hope they do it. the EU uses fines as a money generation scheme. And when outfits see a revenue source, they usually want to expand the sources of money.
Google drawing a line in the sand, might help. Besides, if the EU wants total control over what is posted on Social Media - as people who know better about how to do these things, can implement their own fact checking. Then they can block anything they want. And provide many jobs.
Re: (Score:2)
Content "moderation" on YouTube is deeply broken at this time.
What kind of 'moderation' do you desire? I have not found anything even mildly 'wild' on YouTube, not even in the comments sections.
Honestly, I think there should no moderation on YouTube at all. Post kiddy porn and Nazi ideals all you want. If it is illegal, the police can come get your ass. If not, moderation is Prior Restraint.
Re: Yep, that will go well (Score:5, Insightful)
And lose, what, 25% of their revenue ? That'll do wonders for their stock price.
Not gonna happen.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Indeed. And they are being _really_ stupid here: The EU is giving them a chance to self-regulate, and they say "no". What will happen hence is that they get regulated by law and that will be far less pleasant. The morons behind that decision at Google probably only understand deeply corrupt US politics and think having enough money puts them above the law.
Re: Yep, that will go well (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed. And they are being _really_ stupid here: The EU is giving them a chance to self-regulate, and they say "no". What will happen hence is that they get regulated by law and that will be far less pleasant. The morons behind that decision at Google probably only understand deeply corrupt US politics and think having enough money puts them above the law.
Google is caught between a Trump and a hard-place and Google is just more afraid of Trump at the moment. Let's see how high the EU fines will get before they start putting a dent in Google's fear of Trump. At least Meta was pragmatic about this, they didn't hesitate to put the USA on a list with a bunch of dictatorships where fact-checking is disabled because facts are not welcome there but kept the fact-checking for the rest of the planet.
Re: Yep, that will go well (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Yep, that will go well (Score:4, Informative)
That is if the Trump administration does not reach its stated goal of making Trump the Big Fuehrer for life. Trump is clearly not smart enough to mastermind this, but he can do a lot of damage. Of course, this could also end in civil war or economic collapse.
Re: (Score:2)
That is if the Trump administration does not reach its stated goal of making Trump the Big Fuehrer for life. Trump is clearly not smart enough to mastermind this, but he can do a lot of damage. Of course, this could also end in civil war or economic collapse.
What makes you think Trump will settle for anything other than a hereditary imperial god monarchy? Once the infighting after his death over who gets to sit on the golden throne [royaltoiletry.com] has been settled you guys may end up being ruled by God Empress Tiffany.
Re: (Score:2)
Haha, that would dhow China how to do it right!
Re: (Score:2)
Haha, that would dhow China how to do it right!
China had god emperors while your ancestors still lived in mud huts and killed each other with stone axes in a dispute over a stolen goat.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure we will be allowed to vote (Score:2)
A common tactic is to close polling locations and major cities which are likely to vote for Republican party opposition. Another common tactic is purging voter roles and making it hard for anyone under 30 to register to vote.
Stalin was wrong. It's not about who counts the votes. It's about who gets to vote. There's an old phrase that
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So you think this is Google just virtue-signaling to Trump? Well, possibly. In a pervading climate of stupid, you may have to do things like that.
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe it's more than that: maybe Tump's promised them tariffs and other trade sanctions against EU companies, goods and services if the EU doesn't back down and let American tech giants do as they please.
Re: Yep, that will go well (Score:2)
Apple is only less odious than Google because of scale.
Google gets data from searches from everyone including Apple users. Apple gets search data only from Apple users.
Google gets data from people reading news almost everywhere. Apple only gets it from Apple users, or people who click on Apple.News links, which is Apple's clear attempt to get more data to resell and abuse. Only the scope differs.
Apple had to admit that they were listening to people and parsing their speech when they said they weren't. Googl
Re: Yep, that will go well (Score:5, Insightful)
They would rather remove themself from EU
And lose, what, 25% of their revenue ? That'll do wonders for their stock price.
Not gonna happen.
Also this would create a protected incubator for competitors. A lot of Google's dominance is based on having gained that dominance in an environment with no real competition during the late 1990s and they have maintained it by stomping out any competitor and ensuring that anybody they could not stomp out was not able to gain more than a foothold. If they allow other American or Chinese/European competitors to grow unrestrained in a market of 450 million people that Google has abandoned Google will lose that market share forever and gain competition it does not want.
Re: (Score:3)
Altavista was the best in the late 1990s/early 2000s, IMO, until Google came around. It's been harder to find useful results with Google in recent years.
Time for some more competition.
Re: (Score:3)
When the internet was small enough in the mid-90's, Yahoo was brilliant with its curated heirarchical lists, and anything it couldn't find, Alta Vista was the way to go. I can't remember why Alta Vista wasn't my number one choice, maybe UI or speed at finding things, but it could find things nobody else could. Then the big companies started doing "portals" (including Yahoo), so Google's simple clean interface and quick and good results was a god send.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Yep, that will go well (Score:2)
1. Yes
2. Because the EU has approximately 100 millions more people than the US, and about 60 to 70% of GDP depending on the year
3. Google makes most of its revenue on ads. A large part of that is placement in the search engine results.
4. Google.eu redirects to google.uk which is funny considering Brexit.
Most of the EU countries have their own language, and have a different Google URL. For example, google.fr for France..
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Yep, that will go well (Score:2)
Google already has google.fr . Obviously, they need a search engine in the proper language. And it needs to return results in the right language, too. If they didn't do that, they wouldn't have eyeballs inbnon-english speaking countries. And thus would be unable to sell ads.
I'm not sure what any of this has to do with the original topic, which was that Google would lose a significant part of its revenue if it left the EU. And that is so unlikely that I wonder why that possibility is even being discussed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And lose, what, 25% of their revenue ? That'll do wonders for their stock price. Not gonna happen.
Unless the EU pays for the censors, the sheer number of videos on YT needing a HITL would be adding hella to their cost of operations. At some point, the produce nothing/regulate everything in the world at the world's expense concept of the EU becomes unprofitable, and the EU can join the ranks of other countries that find issues with the outside world.
Re: (Score:3)
censor =/= fact-checker
And since Google makes tons of money they can easily pay for this themselves. But that would mean less money to the shareholder, and that concept is nigh impossible to grasp (especially in the US).
Re: (Score:2)
censor =/= fact-checker
And since Google makes tons of money they can easily pay for this themselves. But that would mean less money to the shareholder, and that concept is nigh impossible to grasp (especially in the US).
Well, Truth can be different things to different people. Let us take a Very European truth. I the 1920's and up to 1945. In Germany, the truth was that there were certain groups of people like the Jews, the Slaves and some others who were degenerates. And worthy of extermination. Their truth was something different than ll are created equal.
Let us take the mathematical concepts of 2 plus 2 equals 5 This is claimed as a truth, while foolish people believe falsely that 2+2 equals 4.
https://myassignment [myassignmenthelp.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Unlike in the EU, Google never derived significant revenue in China. Nowhere near 25%. When China hacked them, Google withdrew from China, but had little revenue to lose. Perhaps they left some money on the table by doing so, but the stock market reacted to that news a long time ago. Google also tried to re-enter China, but Chinese markets are famously open to foreign companies /s. Most of Google's services are still banned in China.
Re: Yep, that will go well (Score:2)
Yes. But even if they did, I doubt they could have made anywhere near the EU revenue in China.
Re: (Score:2)
Google made like $250 million per year in China when they left in 2010.
Re: (Score:3)
They left a even bigger market in China and is still here
No they didn't. a) they were forced out of China by very insane requirements (many orders of magnitude worse than the EU), and b) they were never really there in the first place. Google made $100bn in revenue in the EU last year. At its peak Google's revenue in China was 0.25% of that figure.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh yeah, I'm sure they would love to force hundreds of millions of people to a competitor much more than hiring some moderators.
Actually EU should steer them to that, give competition a chance that way.
Could be worse (Score:3, Interesting)
Google Won't Add Fact Checks
Jordan Klepper on The Daily Show: Immediately after President Biden's farewell speech this evening where he warned about the rise of oligarchs, searches spiked on Google for "What is an oligarch." (which is true) Google replied, "Don't worry about it."
Government proposals for fact checking (Score:2)
should require visual mockups of what that would look like if it were applied to past instances of lying by that government.
Same issue as always (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
'Fact checking' is largely pointless (Score:4, Insightful)
There is only value in 'fact checking' if
a) there is a body that can objectively evaluate claims and is sufficiently well-informed to determine if they're correct and
b) most people believe this body to be completely objective and sufficiently well-informed.
One of the problems in the current age of hyper-partisan politics is that pretty much any organisation or public body is associated with a particular ideology and so many will assume that anything they say is motivated by that ideology. In US I feel there's already been a collapse of trust in any single source of objective truth (apart from God, for those who believe in such a being). For Democrats, there's Democrat thruth and Republican lies, for Republicans, there's Republican truth and Democrat lies. And of course there's all kinds of flavours of those two versions of truth floating around the Internet, and you can always pick the one you like the most.
In Europe things are a bit better in that respect but it feels like they're heading towards the way things are in the US.
To put it another way, the purpose of fact checking is to educate the people about what is correct and what is false. And you can't educate those who actively refuse to be educated. So even assuming fact checkers will be largely correct in what they say, which is a very big assumption, if people won't believe them anyway, the excercise is largely pointless. Indeed, if you believe that fact checkers are biased towards an ideology that is opposite from yours, you may well decide that if they claim something to be false, it's probably true.
The EU governments can't dismiss those who no longer trust them as a lunatic fringe, because that fringe keeps growing by the day and in some places is no longer a minority anymore. We can't go back to the days of newspapers and TV news being the only authoritative sources of information. Internet is a Wild West and it's the only way it can be. Trying to put that genie back in the bottle will only get you accused of being authoritarian. If governments want people to trust them, the best they can do is try to convince everyone that out of all the possible sources of information out there, they are the most trustworthy.
Re: (Score:2)
Google *should* push back (Score:3)
The rules that Meta was using for fact checking was overly politicized and strayed way too far into the realm of opinions.
For instance, all the media outlets loudly proclaimed that "now Meta would let you say being trans was a mental illness." You can make the argument that being trans is not a mental illness and cite the DSM 5 as evidence, but you can also make the point that there was a lot of pushback within the psychology community against the DSM 5 because the committee that put it together and approved it was accused of caving to political pressure instead of sticking to the scientific method and evidence. Both are sound lines of reasoning. You could also make some reasonable claims about trans being a mental illness because such a large percentage of trans people seek therapy. Again, that doesn't prove it either way, but it's a reasonable thing to say. And the definition of mental illness is blurry (my wife, who is a psychologist, would say it's a disorder when it interferes with your day-to-day life). You can find psychologists who think trans people generally have a mental illness and you can find some who don't.
The most likely situation was that within the internal culture at Meta, the only possible opinion you were allowed to have was that trans is not a mental illness, and therefore there was nobody to push back against putting that on the fact checker's list of Meta-approved facts.
So why should we trust Meta or Google for that matter to be the arbiter of what is true or not true? And even worse, why do we want these organizations to be forced by law to say something is true or not true based on a list that the government gives them? That's the worst of all possible solutions.
Re: (Score:2)
Engagement is down across social media such a
Because of the Jews and seed oil lobby (Score:2)
I was actually looking forward to fact checkers pointing out that the Jews don't control all the banks and seed oils aren't actually bad for you. GMO's, Teflon and plastic bags aren't actually killing you, and chiropractic doctors are not medical doctors.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm....
I think I'm going to pour myself a drink (scotch on the rocks), light up a cigarette and ponder all you points you have put forth.....
Europe increasingly totalitarian (Score:2)
Europe, by which I mean the EU plus the UK, is increasingly totalitarian. Germany is throwing people in jail for posting memes, and even for commenting on memes. The UK has (in one incident among many) jailed a woman for "stirring up racial hatred" for her social media posts made after an illegal immigrant stabbed three young children in her area.
Which brings us to "fact checking". The problem is that the fact checking is not (and possibly cannot be) neutral. The fact checkers may have their personal agenda
BSW - Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance (Score:2)
In Germany a former member of the Left - so a proper lefty - abandoned that party, added an anti-immigrant policy to her policy mix and is now polling 5-8%. The conniptions of the main stream media who desperately want to label her 'Hard Right' but will get laughed at if they do, is a running joke.
Re: (Score:2)
...most of the AfD's positions are centrist or even leftist by US standards. They want decentralized power, they want a higher minimum wage, they want reduced bureaucracy, they want more benefits for women during and after childbirth. Oh, yes, they also want to deport illegal immigrants - that's about the only right-wing idea they have.
In the U.S., decentralized power and reduced bureaucracy are definitely right-wing ideals.
Re: (Score:2)
Europe, by which I mean the EU plus the UK, is increasingly totalitarian. Germany is throwing people in jail for posting memes, and even for commenting on memes.
The UK has (in one incident among many) jailed a woman for "stirring up racial hatred" for her social media posts made after an illegal immigrant stabbed three young children in her area.
What is it about people posting racist stuff that you're massively in favour of?
Are you proud of your KKK?
Europe has a better history of protecting free speech than the US with their SLAPP suits. We don't have to tolerate blatant racism and the KKK. We recognise that prosecuting people trying to stir up hate protects minorities. As does every other country who didn't come up with their bill of rights whilst still owning slaves.
You presumably tolerate a felon President who has stated repeatedly he's going
Label the content (Score:2)
If they will not fact check their news/content, then they should be required to label that content as "non fact checked".
This is similar to the ethics of disclosing LLM/"ai" use in generated content.
There must be transparency in the use (or lack of use) of these technologies.
Nobody can actually trust the people (Score:2)
And the whole issue of fact checking is a demonstration of why they can't be trusted!
We didn't need fact-checkers ... (Score:2)
Until the truth started coming out
‘Fact Checkers’ only ever go in one di (Score:2)
A company implementing ‘Fact Checkers’ only ever goes one direction — to back up the state or party that grows the state; never shrinks it. The Fact Checkers don’t dispel propaganda; they are the propaganda.
fact checking content? (Score:3)
Forget youtube, how about they start by fact checking their ads.
Fact checking is tricky (Score:2)
While it's true that some things are either true or false, and can easily be checked, most other things are a bit more uncertain, especially when politics or religion are involved.
Proper fact checking should have three categories, provably true, provably false, controversial, with most topics being controversial
I believe that the statement... "The jesus myth is weaponized fiction, carefully crafted over centuries to control the believers and take their money" is provably true. A christian would disagree, an
EU will just change why they issue their fines (Score:2)
The EU just wants money from Google and the judicial process is just a means to that end.
Re: (Score:2)
The solution for speech you don't like is more speech, not "content moderation," the Orwellian term for "censorship." They might as well put MSNBC in charge.
Who remembers the last time they heard a liberal say "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it?"
Leftists here in the U.S. have spent the last 5 years putting into place various Ministries of Truth and active censorship regimes in at Google, Facebook, Twitter, and every other social media platform, and yet many right here still have the *gall* to blame even this on TRUMP! Holy fuck, you people have no self-awareness whatsoever.
Brilliantly put.