News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Fact Checks by darawk on Sunday October 22, 2017 @06:23PM (#15529328)
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.
Re:Fact Checks by trendia on Sunday October 22, 2017 @06:37PM (#15529399)
That's exactly my point. Google is advertising this as a truth-telling mechanism, but it's a "majority belief" telling one instead.
Re:Fact Checks by themacguffinman on Sunday October 22, 2017 @07:58PM (#15529746)
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.

Re:Fact Checks by JetSpiegel on Sunday October 22, 2017 @08:25PM (#15529829)
> 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.

Re:Fact Checks by themacguffinman on Wednesday October 25, 2017 @03:15AM (#15548136)
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.