It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Google added a fact-check feature to help you tell if news stories are accurate

page: 2
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 15 2016 @ 06:09 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

So...click it.




posted on Oct, 15 2016 @ 06:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I might. But not for the reason that I am expecting facts or truth.



posted on Oct, 15 2016 @ 06:13 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Nothing wrong with knowing your enemies.



posted on Oct, 15 2016 @ 06:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Just denounce the Patriarchy and get it over with already.




Paparazzi 2016!



posted on Oct, 15 2016 @ 06:18 PM
link   
Duplicate
edit on 15-10-2016 by pavil because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2016 @ 06:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
Finally someone we can trust 100% without any bias.





From the people who support Clinton, toe the Chinese censorship line and have been accused of filtering search results.

Nothing to fear from the all knowing eye of Google.

Just can't wait to see what sites it counts as trusted....



posted on Oct, 15 2016 @ 06:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Byrd

I got a great laugh out of this.

Oh the conundrum to trust a questionable site to deem how accurate a cite from a site that pays another site so it's cite can be a verified site!

More CT's to come!



posted on Oct, 15 2016 @ 06:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Knowing the enemies of certain truths and facts...



posted on Oct, 15 2016 @ 06:31 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Only certain ones?
Some lies are ok while others are not?



posted on Oct, 15 2016 @ 06:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Only certain ones?
Some lies are ok while others are not?


All lies are bad where politics are concerned. I am just not willing to say these factcheckers always lie, 100% of the time.

I think they set up many strawman topics to 'debunk,' too.



Actually, I do think they publish enough truth and facts to get away with calling themselves watchdogs. But they publish enough propaganda to never, ever be taken at face value.



posted on Oct, 15 2016 @ 07:39 PM
link   
Whose truth?



posted on Oct, 15 2016 @ 07:49 PM
link   
I can see it now

Everyone knows the term "Google it"

Google with be the new truth, anything past the true or false will be a conspiracy theory

No stopping it, nice play on googles part.



posted on Oct, 15 2016 @ 07:53 PM
link   
Fact Checking in a Post-Fact World-WaPo




These problems aren’t exactly new: The question of what is propaganda and what is truth has plagued politics since politics began. But the nature of information in the social media age means it keeps getting easier for politicians, partisans, computerized “bots” and foreign governments to manipulate news, and it keeps getting harder to correct this. Fact-checkers are, for the moment, one of the best solutions. But they work only for people who want them to work, and that number may be shrinking.



posted on Oct, 15 2016 @ 07:56 PM
link   
98% of Google revenue is their website, where is the conflict of interest? They don't benefit from anything external.

This isn't how Fox.com/Cnn.com works, where different propagated information would lead to different plans of funding.
edit on 15-10-2016 by imjack because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2016 @ 08:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Fact Checking in a Post-Fact World-WaPo




These problems aren’t exactly new: The question of what is propaganda and what is truth has plagued politics since politics began. But the nature of information in the social media age means it keeps getting easier for politicians, partisans, computerized “bots” and foreign governments to manipulate news, and it keeps getting harder to correct this. Fact-checkers are, for the moment, one of the best solutions. But they work only for people who want them to work, and that number may be shrinking.


LOLOL. WaPo the posterboy for establishment media. Media has had their credibility destroyed, they now get debunked in real time. Propaganda has now been legalized.
Google has already been censoring things that damage our anointed queen.
But Guys, Governments and Corporations never lie to people, especially the ones with monopolies.

This is damage control. They are going to need it as regardless of who you want to win this election the media has given up being news. They should just admit who they are shilling for so I know what I am getting.



posted on Oct, 15 2016 @ 08:11 PM
link   
Google isn't media. You people have lost it.



posted on Oct, 15 2016 @ 08:18 PM
link   
I am not big on conspiracy theories. But if you cannot see the danger in one big brother source telling you what is true.....

Always research, verify, cross reference, and seek different points of view.



posted on Oct, 15 2016 @ 08:19 PM
link   
a reply to: imjack

news.google.com...

A news aggregate. Drudge is a news aggregate. But they get to decide what headlines show up

Google also decides the algos on what shows up in the search engine.



posted on Oct, 15 2016 @ 08:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: jellyrev
a reply to: imjack

news.google.com...

A news aggregate. Drudge is a news aggregate. But they get to decide what headlines show up

Google also decides the algos on what shows up in the search engine.

Actually, your browser also does that as well and sometimes overrides the search engine.

The search engines check your browser for cookies and deliver your preferences. This is why you can do the same search on two different machines (or on a browser that you always use vs a browser you seldom use) and get very different answers.

Yes, Google tweaks the algorithms but they're most often done when advertisers and hackers "game" the system. See www.searchenginewatch.com... for the scoop (It's geared for marketers but it's got a lot of good things and if you dig deep enough, the technical details for websmasters along with search engine rankings.)

And the article I linked went into detail about the algorithms (in one of the clickable links supplied.) Did you happen to read that?
edit on 15-10-2016 by Byrd because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2016 @ 08:56 PM
link   
a reply to: jellyrev

So what search engines do you use?

I tend to use Bing (because when I search for images, Google always brings up Pinterest stuff and I hate that) but I've used Dogpile and DuckDuckGo. There's a few relatively new ones I haven't tried out yet - most seem to return the exact same results.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join