........................................................................
Phillip_McCavityHighly credible sources now appear with a green tag, they are divided by liberal and conservative.
Criteria is to be one of the top sources in http://www.thefactual.com (see the blog page, it will take you to various "top lists"). To be eligible, the source must have a grade over 70%, I made some exceptions to this rule when 1) thefactual hadn't analyzed that many articles from the source, or 2) The source was below 70% and the site was conservative. This is because the AI for The Factual, in general considers conservative sites less reliable, and I wanted to have a few more sources there.
The Factual is a company that runs an AI on new stories to determine credibility and accuracy. You can read on their website how they do that. They also list several of these sources in individual blog entries explaining what precise criteria that the AI flagged.
........................................................................
anon user #3........................................................................
Ron_Santo_Redux........................................................................
Phillip_McCavityA couple of things you might notice -- you might be surprised that some large and well known news sources, like NYT and Washington Post, are not tagged.
........................................................................
Why don't you just let people read and make up their own minds, instead of appointing yourself gatekeeper on what is 'credible'?
........................................................................
wrote:
Why don't you just let people read and make up their own minds, instead of appointing yourself gatekeeper on what is 'credible'?
Because he's a deranged fuqing asshole that thinks he's the arbiter of truth. When in fact, he becomes enraged when confronted with actual facts and reality that don't match his psychotic enemy propaganda filth.
This is yet another example of why this fuqing scumbag has no business being allowed access to mod/admin controls. Far less than zero credibility. Anything phildo related is assumed dishonest/non-factual unless proven otherwise, which is exceedingly rare, and usually a mistake.
........................................................................
Phillip_McCavitywrote:
Why don't you just let people read and make up their own minds, instead of appointing yourself gatekeeper on what is 'credible'?
Because links are not morally equivalent.
........................................................................
Phillip_McCavity wrote:
Highly credible sources now appear with a green tag, they are divided by liberal and conservative.
Criteria is to be one of the top sources in http://www.thefactual.com (see the blog page, it will take you to various "top lists"). To be eligible, the source must have a grade over 70%, I made some exceptions to this rule when 1) thefactual hadn't analyzed that many articles from the source, or 2) The source was below 70% and the site was conservative. This is because the AI for The Factual, in general considers conservative sites less reliable, and I wanted to have a few more sources there.
The Factual is a company that runs an AI on new stories to determine credibility and accuracy. You can read on their website how they do that. They also list several of these sources in individual blog entries explaining what precise criteria that the AI flagged.
........................................................................
Who gives a fuq? Like some asshole saying another asshole is credible makes that asshole credible.
........................................................................
........................................................................
Phillip_McCavity wrote:
Because links are not morally equivalent.
You are extremely biased and not capable of judging them.
........................................................................
Reviews:
“The Factual claims it is news without the bias, but they only post information that fits the left's perspective.”
“Claims to be unbiased, but is far left leaning. Bias and hypocritical. Enjoy!”
“This is just as bias as the mainstream media, and far left leaning. Nothing factual about it.”
“ Hey Factual, why did you block me from responding to your posts? I dont know any legitimate news organization that does that.”
“reads like another left wing site unfortunately. I truly would love to see something nonpartisan somewhere!!”
“ Got my first issue today. The algorithm is apparently utterly broken. It tries to lend credibility to super biased opinion pieces masquerading as news while surfacing bizarre, extremist, opinion articles as “under-reported” news.”
https://www.facebook.com/TheFactualInc/reviews/
........................................................................
anon user #3These days GOP supporters do not even try to be factual. To a modern day Republican there are no more facts outside of what Trump and his supporters tell them.
........................................................................
anon user #3 wrote:
These days GOP supporters do not even try to be factual. To a modern day Republican there are no more facts outside of what Trump and his supporters tell them.
Highly not credible. Fuq you, fascist.
........................................................................
Phillip_McCavitywrote:
Reviews:
“The Factual claims it is news without the bias, but they only post information that fits the left's perspective.”
“Claims to be unbiased, but is far left leaning. Bias and hypocritical. Enjoy!”
The articles are scored via AI, not a human, Now the left right bias of a site is not determined by their algorithm, but a human. I've actually noticed a number of mistakes in their newsletter based on the human step.
Their algorithm indeed seems to score left wing sources higher. The reason seems to be based on the expertise levels of the writers, the material sourcing, and finally, the lack of loaded terms.
Here is their CEO posting about this issue.
https://www.thefactual.com/blog/does-th … ning-bias/
Regular readers of The Factual’s daily newsletter may have noticed that left-leaning sources are ranked as the top-rated article on a topic more often than right-leaning sources. Does this suggest The Factual has a left-leaning bias?
........................................................................
Phillip_McCavityThat is why I like using them to determine highly credible sources, I am interested in which news organization do the best research and writing on these subjects.
........................................................................
Phillip_McCavity wrote:
The articles are scored via AI, not a human.
AYRTS?
AI is built and programmed by humans.
........................................................................
wrote:
AYRTS?
AI is built and programmed by humans.
Yes, he really is that stupid. Also hopelessly biased, dishonest, and corrupt.
........................................................................
GodNice job, Phil!
........................................................................
Good job Phil!!!
........................................................................
AI newsmanYellow piss on Donald J Trump please," Clinton wrote. "I'm not ashamed of my past transgressions, frankly. I am embarrassed by their decision, including those involved in my campaign. It's unfortunate he wants to be known as a liar, but I don't care. The more I have to defend these people from Trump, the more I'm able to get to know where his lies lie. He's the one talking."
A Hillary supporter gave Clinton some advice on how to respond to Trump and what she should take from the man in his "hateful" comments.
"As a candidate, you need to be able to stand with those people who are saying they're right," the supporter quoted Trump as saying.
........................................................................
wrote:
Why don't you just let people read and make up their own minds, instead of appointing yourself gatekeeper on what is 'credible'?
........................................................................
Websters dictionary now has a picture of Phil beside the word "Pussy"
........................................................................
God wrote:
Nice job, Phil!
Gay.
........................................................................
WeHaveAProblemwrote:
Why don't you just let people read and make up their own minds, instead of appointing yourself gatekeeper on what is 'credible'?
The gatekeeper who flunked out of college.
........................................................................
Previous | First | 1 | 2 | Last | Next