This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
sumojumo · 36-40, M
You should never just believe - the fact-checking sites must have a rigorous process of verification put in place, the explanations should be clear, the sources respectful, systematic, and possibly with a great history of impactful results. And all the explanations need to be checkable so that anyone can follow the trail of their research and double-check their results.
Fact-checking is hard, but the mechanisms behind them are easy enough to understand so that at least you can quickly pinpoint bad "fact-checking". And if enough people are aware of these criteria, the information might become better.
Fact-checking is hard, but the mechanisms behind them are easy enough to understand so that at least you can quickly pinpoint bad "fact-checking". And if enough people are aware of these criteria, the information might become better.
ididntknow · 51-55, M
@sumojumo don’t you think fact checking sites, can have their own agendas?
sumojumo · 36-40, M
@ididntknow sure, many have - that is why they have to provide a very rigorous trace of their reasoning. It is the same as the science process - the scientists are people, and are thus biased by definition (everyone is sure they are right). But a very strict process minimizes the probability of that bias crawl into the results. Bias and agenda is something that we cannot avoid, so we have to be careful what the process is. We have to be careful that when we say: "Everyone has an agenda" - people jump to the conclusion that thus all the information is equally bad. That is simply not true.