Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

It turns out that fact-checker “credibility” ratings don’t affect people’s views of news much


Nor should it:

Labeling the credibility of information sources does not shift the consumption of news away from low-quality sources or reduce belief in widely circulated inaccurate claims among average internet users, but providing an indicator of sources’ quality may improve the news diet quality of the heaviest consumers of misinformation, shows a new study by New York University’s Center for Social Media and Politics.

Notably, the researchers also found that a majority of people rely on credible sources of information, with two-thirds completely avoiding unreliable news sites.

The study, which appears in the journal Science Advances, centered on credibility ratings determined by NewsGuard, a browser extension that rates news and other information sites in order to guide users in assessing the trustworthiness of the content they come across online.

New York University, “Does presenting credibility labels of journalistic sources affect news consumption? New study finds limited effects” at Phys.org (May 6, 2022)

It’s actually just the first stage of censorship.

When nonsense news is really a problem, there are better ways to deal with it.

The paper is open access.

Stolen election: 2000 Mules documentary provides compelling evidence that the 2020 election was stolen via massive, organized fraud. https://www.bitchute.com/video/NDtBoPTjfw4X/ William J Murray
Most people ignore stuff around the edge of the screen. Cable TV has been running nonsense on the banners for decades, and we've learned to ignore similar banners on FB or YT. If we do pay attention, it's often the opposite of the alleged purpose. Movies rated R sell better than movies rated G. Clicking through the warning is parallel to asking for "those magazines behind the glass" in the old paradigm. polistra
News could provide source references. Opinion needs to be sorted out from fact. ID is a scientific inference that is considered "fake" - by Wikipedia fact-checkers. The same people will expect to be taken seriously. Silver Asiatic
Like the old country western song goes, there's three sides to every story, darlin', yours, mine, and the cold, hard facts. It has always struck me as odd that as obsessed with censorship and "credibility" that this blog is, that it has one of the most extensive and restrictive comment policies I've seen on the web, especially the "put a sock in it" prohibitions. Evolution News and Mind Matters don't even allow comments. chuckdarwin
Lol no kidding I experienced firsthand the supposed credibility of these fact checkers when they fact check not one, not two, but three posts of satire of mine When you fact check satire because you can’t tell the difference between news and satire you have no business fact checking the real thing AaronS1978
News, the problem, first, is to have objective standards to evaluate sources, including those with Min Tru seal of approval. KF kairosfocus
You first, Seversky. Belfast
When nonsense news is really a problem, there are better ways to deal with it.
Okay. Such as? Seversky

Leave a Reply