On: Expanding Fact Checking at Google

[leereeves]

So you're arguing in favor of censorship?

Who decides who gets ignored in "vile, pernicious, institutionalized ways"?

[maxerickson → leereeves]

Let me know when it becomes illegal to start up a news aggregator.

Until then, it's whoever makes better news aggregators.

[leereeves → maxerickson]

'Better' meaning?

Popular? Then you're deciding truth by popularity.

[maxerickson → leereeves]

And?

The alternative is to ban sorting news articles at all.

[leereeves → maxerickson]

And you'll end up with a liberal echo chamber and a conservative echo chamber, and never the two sides shall read the same story.

[maxerickson → leereeves]

Maybe. In the US I think the more partisan media operations are pandering at least as much as they are influencing (I guess probably quite a bit more). The opinion bubble exists whether they sell ad space on it or not, they have some effect of making it bigger.

There's also the fun problem where the sorting and other display choices of a news aggregator are speech. Why should that speech be suppressed?