indeed. History is always written by the winners...
Fighting fake news has little to do with determining "what is true" - no more than spam filtering is about determining "what is interesting"
-
-
-
Modern History will be written by the git committers.(After I analyzed github dataset, highest committer was a book author)
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Imagine if email providers were saying "oh, determining interestingness is such a hard problem. So it's impossible to filter spam at all!"
-
Most likely, if there was a powerful political lobby that benefited from email spam, then that's exactly what you would be hearing.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
truth is a range also, but I'd argue that fake news filtering is mostly orthogonal to measuring truthiness.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
"Fake news" aren't "fake" bc they're not true, but bc they're garbage pretending to be news, like spam isn't actual email.
End of conversation
-
-
-
@rasbt poor analogy. Spam is defined by user perspective (Will it bother the user?). "Fake" in the sense you are saying is not. -
user can get spam if he wants to. The fake news "outrage" is about preventing users to share something even if they want to
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
I agree I do think it's more complicated too. That's why I don't think it's a problem analogous to spam filtering.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.