<story><title>Fact Checks</title><url>https://developers.google.com/search/docs/data-types/factcheck</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>patrickaljord</author><text>I wonder how far they are willing to go with this. How about these kinds of claims:&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Increasing the minimum wage helps improve the economy&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;* Fact check by Conservative-example: false&lt;p&gt;* Fact check by Progressive-example: true&lt;p&gt;Another good one:&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;God exists&amp;quot;:&lt;p&gt;* Fact check by Conservative-example: true&lt;p&gt;* Fact check by Progressive-example: false&lt;p&gt;This is going to be fun. This is typical of Google, providing a technical solution to a human problem that can&amp;#x27;t be solved  easily. Not everything can be tweaked with an algorithm.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>dvdhnt</author><text>&amp;gt; “God exists
...
&amp;gt; Fact check by Progressive-example: false&lt;p&gt;I know you’re making an observation so this isn’t directed at you, but to those who got us to this segregation - so no offense intended towards you friend.&lt;p&gt;It makes me so sad that this is the assumption. Yes, the traditional definition of God is not one many of us subscribe to, but to generally group progressives and atheists together, conservatives and religion together is just as much the problem as “fake news”.&lt;p&gt;Reference, myself, a progressive who found his spirituality in his late twenties while working at a startup and finding the church of consumerism unacceptable. Yet, look at that, still progressive.</text></comment>
<story><title>Fact Checks</title><url>https://developers.google.com/search/docs/data-types/factcheck</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>patrickaljord</author><text>I wonder how far they are willing to go with this. How about these kinds of claims:&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Increasing the minimum wage helps improve the economy&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;* Fact check by Conservative-example: false&lt;p&gt;* Fact check by Progressive-example: true&lt;p&gt;Another good one:&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;God exists&amp;quot;:&lt;p&gt;* Fact check by Conservative-example: true&lt;p&gt;* Fact check by Progressive-example: false&lt;p&gt;This is going to be fun. This is typical of Google, providing a technical solution to a human problem that can&amp;#x27;t be solved  easily. Not everything can be tweaked with an algorithm.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>smsm42</author><text>That is the best case scenario. The worst case scenario is when one of those is prohibited from publishing &amp;quot;fact checks&amp;quot; because they &amp;quot;don&amp;#x27;t meet our high standards&amp;quot; (which Google is free to set as they see fit) and the other is free to declare &amp;quot;false&amp;quot; anything opposing tribe says because everybody knows they&amp;#x27;re the bunch of damn liars anyway.&lt;p&gt;Also, &amp;quot;fact checkers&amp;quot; are free to misinterpret the content of the article, i.e.:&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Increasing the minimum wage helps improve the economy&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;* Fact check by Conservative-example:&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;&lt;/i&gt; Claim: &amp;quot;we should take all the money away from successful people and give it free to drug addicts and moochers&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;&lt;/i&gt; Verdict: false&lt;p&gt;* Fact check by Progressive-example:&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;&lt;/i&gt; Claim: &amp;quot;we should let poor people to just die from hunger&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;&lt;/i&gt; Verdict: false&lt;p&gt;etc. Neither of that contributes to the discussion much, in fact, it makes it harder by caricaturising positions of opposing sides and making it harder to discuss arguments on the manner, while wearing the veil of &amp;quot;objective fact checking&amp;quot;. The expression &amp;quot;fact checking&amp;quot;, which once meant verifying objective facts, has already been hijacked by propagandists to make their propaganda more plausibly sounding. I predict more such abuse is going to happen and the term would be further eroded until it&amp;#x27;s completely meaningless.</text></comment>