Emphasis, mine. I'm sure that using "perception" instead of actual, tangible metrics for trustworthiness of the reporting will totally work just fine in effectively ranking news organizations....
"the company has gathered data on how consumers perceive news brands"
Emphasis, mine.
I'm sure that using "perception" instead of actual, tangible metrics for trustworthiness of the reporting will totally work just fine in effectively ranking news organizations. There is no way this could possibly make the fake news situation worse. /s
Really it's probably the simplest way to get started - since it doesn't involve the collection of any 'real' metrics. It would be interesting to see that data overlain with how many retractions an...
Really it's probably the simplest way to get started - since it doesn't involve the collection of any 'real' metrics. It would be interesting to see that data overlain with how many retractions an organization issues (after damage has been done), or whether they do at all. I could see this being the first step in a longer plan.
You can also use correlation there to potentially identify suspicious or incompetent users whose trust scores could/should be devalued, or the like, thus bringing it back around to an aggregate user-based trust.
I agree about using retractions as a metric, but they're a bit tricky though. Often the worst news sources simple don't issue them or do so infrequently and good orgs issue them every time they...
I agree about using retractions as a metric, but they're a bit tricky though. Often the worst news sources simple don't issue them or do so infrequently and good orgs issue them every time they make a mistake, so you can't just do a raw numbers comparison. An organization's willingness to issue them when they do fuck up and their visibility on the site/paper/etc is a better indicator of trustworthiness but much harder to determine.
But either way I don't think perception is a good foundation for this ranking system... and Facebook has proved time and time again they shouldn't be trusted themselves... so them attempting to rank trustworthiness of new organizations is not only suspect, but even if they are doing so in good faith I don't trust them to do it effectively.
Surely this will go smoothly without any kind of controversy.
Emphasis, mine.
I'm sure that using "perception" instead of actual, tangible metrics for trustworthiness of the reporting will totally work just fine in effectively ranking news organizations. There is no way this could possibly make the fake news situation worse. /s
Really it's probably the simplest way to get started - since it doesn't involve the collection of any 'real' metrics. It would be interesting to see that data overlain with how many retractions an organization issues (after damage has been done), or whether they do at all. I could see this being the first step in a longer plan.
You can also use correlation there to potentially identify suspicious or incompetent users whose trust scores could/should be devalued, or the like, thus bringing it back around to an aggregate user-based trust.
I agree about using retractions as a metric, but they're a bit tricky though. Often the worst news sources simple don't issue them or do so infrequently and good orgs issue them every time they make a mistake, so you can't just do a raw numbers comparison. An organization's willingness to issue them when they do fuck up and their visibility on the site/paper/etc is a better indicator of trustworthiness but much harder to determine.
But either way I don't think perception is a good foundation for this ranking system... and Facebook has proved time and time again they shouldn't be trusted themselves... so them attempting to rank trustworthiness of new organizations is not only suspect, but even if they are doing so in good faith I don't trust them to do it effectively.
This is actually hilarious!