Thank you. For example, one of the worst forms of evidence, that is not permitted as science, is eye witness testimony. People are too fallible be relied on. We only forget that because of our judicial system, unfortunately. But what's even worse than that is what's next in line: a collection of testimonial opinions, or a democracy on truth, especially one run by a non-opensource algorithm.

Maybe nothing bad will come of this, but every step Google makes has me worried that they will abuse their power. There's something that seems dangerous about a nation of people fact checking primarily via a single corporation.

Remember when NASA burned up the Challenger space shuttle because of the groupthink that prevented a couple engineers from letting everyone know that they knew this would happen? And NASA is not evil, nor have incentives to allow this, which is why we need to work together to be dilligent to protect ourselves from these problems--they easily sneak in.

Otherwise known as "common sense". If this in an engine to promote common sense then we're just digging ourselves a bigger hole.

I'm not sure what your point is. If a thing is true but nobody believes it, then there is no way to determine that truth from Google searches in the first place.

That's exactly my point. Google is advertising this as a truth-telling mechanism, but it's a "majority belief" telling one instead.

Did you actually read the link? It's clear that this Google feature is designed to identify fact checks from websites, as opposed to providing an authoritative fact check itself.

If you run a website that hosts fact checks, you are now encouraged to annotate these fact check articles with "ClaimReview" elements that describe the fact in question and your website's verdict on the fact.

In the search results, users see "Fact check by Example.com". Google does not present fact checks as a "truth-telling mechanism" in any way, shape, or form.

> In the search results, users see "Fact check by Example.com"

Correction, the users sees "Fact Check by example.com: False"

https://developers.google.com/search/docs/data-types/images/...

If that is Google is not "presenting as truth-telling mechanism", it's a hell of a dark pattern.

It is completely clear that the fact check comes from a particular source. Stop calling it a "dark pattern" when this element is not deceptive in any way, shape or form.