Re: A Credibility Use Case: Lessig v New York Times ("Clickbate Defamation")

Should the individual author own the credibility metrics, with the
publisher being one of the inputs?

So the NYT as a publisher would increcrement Ross Douthat's credibility
score, but his byline/this article would carry a discrete, probably lower
score than assigned to the NYT editorial board, alumni like Abramson,
etc.... This would also allow op-eds to inherit a score from a known author.

The only other scalable signal I think would be useful is if one could flag
that part of the image is an original work being used out of the original
context. This could warn viewers that memes, quotes, and image mosaics like
the Isis Jima photo are derivatives.

drew


On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 11:01 AM Daniel Schwabe <dschwabe@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On 30 Aug 2021, at 02:29, <scsankaran@gmail.com> <scsankaran@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> I feel this example, while valid, is peripheral to the central problem.
>
> Just numerically, the misinformation problem is to some degree about
> journalists and readers of institutional journalism but to a vastly larger
> degree about the millions of casual information broadcasters and consumers
> on social media and messaging that form the information supply chain.  See
> the recent example posts below that came into our platform.
>
> Sorry, I’m confused by your examples.
>
> Credibility signals need to surface the reasons for a consumer to be
> anxious (or not) about these posts below at the point they encounter it.
> These posts were seen by tens of thousands of people.
>
> The sort of credibility signals we’d care about to solve this problem are
> very different than the ones being discussed in this email thread. This
> can’t be a discussion about awards won, or anything you might use to rate
> an established journalism organization.  Ratings such as those done by
> NewsGuard, Media Bias Fact Check, etc begins to provide some value, but
> barely so, in this situation.
>
> https://twitter.com/ClayTravis/status/1429174503930613764
>
> In the first one, is it being contested that the Taliban did not take this
> picture, or that it is staged (is there any claim it is from an actual
> fight?), or what are their intentions in releasing it?
> According to Snopes, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/taliban-iwo-jima/,
> it was first released in July 27, in a post by apparent Taliban
> spokesperson Hemat Mohammad along with a message that praised the Badri 313
> unit's strength. This information could certainly be provided through
> credibility signals.
> Other than this,  it’s reuse at a later date, the apparent reference to
> the famous Iwo Jima (staged) photo, and all the parallels and implications
> that can be drawn between them, would fall beyond the scope of credibility
> signals, no?
>
> https://twitter.com/SmartAssJen/status/1431793390224429056
> <image002.png>
>
>
> This post has several claims that evidently need to be better supported,
> and fact checkers would do this, at least the quantitive one. The second
> statement “…the same people…" is more  of a “ideological/moral” nature (The
> other posts in the thread seem to confirm this perception).
> Even if one could somehow verify the accuracy of them being the same
> people (anti-vexers = supporters of criminalization of exposure to HIV), I
> believe it would be less relevant to the actual (moral) message being
> conveyed.
> Beyond the provenance of the author, what credibility signals would
> address this?
>
> Cheers
> D
>
>