What liability should there be for software that rates retracted stories as "credible"?

It would be a complete waste of money since it is free.

“Rating” a website is by definition an opinion.

Didn’t know that, so…

Why would anyone feel the need to download this software?

Thus the point about burden of proof about knowing. Try arguing that a computer knew something was false. Laughs will ensue. This thread, its premise, and everything else related to it is a waste of brain cells. Just about in line with someone elses posts here suggesting television coverage on the alphabet networks should be considered an in-kind donation to the DNC.

Yes, literally that stupid.

No one is forced to watch Alex Jones, but he has been forced to retract several stories under threat of defamation suits.

If a software company Jones’s retracted stories as “credible”, even though it knew were factually incorrect, could it face a defamation suit?

These are the elements of libel:

  1. First, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant made a false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff.
  2. Second, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant made an unprivileged publication to a third party.
  3. Third, the plaintiff must prove that the publisher acted at least negligently in publishing the communication.
  4. Fourth, in some cases, the plaintiff must prove special damages.

https://injury.findlaw.com/torts-and-personal-injuries/elements-of-libel-and-slander.html

Blaming a bad credibility rating on a software glitch might be a defense if the software company would correct the rating and send a notice of the mistake to those who received the bad rating.

On the other hand, knowingly ignoring the facts and continuing to allow the software to give incorrect ratings would appear open up the software company to liability.

If news organizations replaced reporter with AI software would they then be exempt from any defamation lawsuits?

Jesus, it would appear you have zero understanding of libel/slander laws in this country.

So quite simply the answer to the ridiculous question posed in the op… no, not gonna happen, stop wasting your last moments of life pondering it as you will be right back at the beginning where you started when and if you figure it out.

Precisely how do you prove a computer program knowing did something?

Do a Google search and find out how any times a credible news agency has been successfully Sue’s for slander or libel in this country. Good luck on that.

Sounds like Microsoft would have a legal responsibility to correct credibility ratings that are factually incorrect especially if they can result in damages.

My understanding is that the UK has substantially lower requirements for recovering damages in defamation cases. Could a news organization sue in British courts based on an incorrect rating to a user of the Microsoft software in Britain?

Doesn’t seem to hurt Fox News.

Oh, what I could say right now but it would probably get me banned. :slight_smile:

Ask yourself this. Have you ever wondered why our esteemed host hasnt been sued for all the Seth Rich nonsense?
Let me give you a hint. Burden of proof.

Another example. Rotten Tomato users give X movie a horrible rating citing it as a credible failure despite the fact that said movie posts a $1 profit. Does the movie studio have a case against the reviewers?

You’ve fallen into the trap of falsely thinking that news organizations can only say 100% truths. When in fact the only thing they cant do is print or publish something they know to be false. Another service reviewing said material isnt really under an obligation to verify its truthfulness, only to not publish that which they know isnt. Why do you think the national Inquirer has survived forever printing juicy stories about celebrity affairs that turn out not to be true.

3 Likes

:rofl:

No, it doesn’t “sound” like that. Roger Ebert had no legal responsibility to retract a review after seeing a directors cut.

It is true - the UK does have a significantly lower bar for defamation. They don’t have that pesky First Amendment to worry about.

The answer to your hypothetical is yes - anyone can sue about anything they want. Whether or not they would win depends on the specifics.

1 Like

Maybe you should call Microsoft and inform them of the problem.

One has a right to free speech.

No one has a right to someone else’s private platform.

This isn’t a hard concept to grasp.

Breitbart is fake news.

His stories have resulted in the parents of a murdered child being stalked. He deserves all the lawsuits coming his way.

You would do well my friend to learn more about the Newsguard feature and not believe that very unreliable site Breitbart. The ratings are not tied to individual stories but the sites featuring them overall.

I can understand why Breitbart would not be happy about it. Booyakasha

Breitbart has a strong political component to what it considers newsworthy. The same is certainly true for CNN, Washington Post, New York Times, etc. Point of view does not necessarily make fake news; my experience is the only way to get the full news is to read multiple sources with different points of view.

A more basic issue when alleged news organizations allow bias and sloppy reporting to create stories that are clearly not true. For example, here is a long list of retracted, apparently fake and/or misleading stories from 2018. Most come from news organizations rated “credible” according to NewsGuard:

  1. WaPo Blames Border Patrol For Death of 7-Year-Old Migrant
  2. CNN And The Hill Spread Retracted Sexual Assault Claim Against Kavanaugh
  3. Boston Globe Corrects Liz Warren Story — Makes Her Less Native American
  4. NYT Accuses Nikki Haley Of Purchasing Expensive Curtains
  5. Media Still Blaming Republicans For Steele Dossier
  6. CNN Analyst Publishes Dubious Report On Additional Kavanaugh Allegations
  7. CNN Accuses Ted Cruz Of Being Afraid To Appear On Their Network
  8. CNN Spreads False Statistic On School Shooting
  9. NBC Sat On Information That Contradicted Kavanaugh Allegations
  10. McClatchy Claims Mueller Has Evidence That Corroborates Piece Of Dossier
  11. Jim Acosta Said Illegal Immigrants Wouldn’t Climb Border
  12. WaPo Ran Kavanaugh Story With Knowingly False Information
  13. Andrea Mitchell Says Disgraced FL Election Official Is A Republican
  14. WaPo Forced To Correct Nikki Haley Misquote
  15. Chris Cuomo Shares False Story About AR-15 Purchase
  16. Media Claims Trump Called The FBI A ‘Cancer’
  17. Rachel Maddow Accuses WH Of Editing Putin Tape
  18. CNN’s Trump Tower Story Obliterated By Lanny Davis
  19. NBC’s Brian Williams Bungles Hit Piece About Trump And Dogs
  20. WaPo Claims McSally Accuses Opponent Of Treason
  21. NPR: Donald Trump Jr. Committed Perjury
  22. NBC News Misquotes Sen. Cassidy, Creates False Anti-Trump Narrative
  23. Time Magazine’s Family Separation Cover Featuring Crying Honduran Child
  24. Mic Writer Claims Russian Spy Was In The Oval Office
  25. Lawrence O’Donnell Spreads Fake Lindsey Graham Quote
  26. Jennifer Rubin Makes False Accusation About GOP’s Kavanaugh Prosecutor
  27. Media Spreads Conspiracy Theories About Melania Post-Surgery
  28. New Yorker Publishes Kavanaugh Accusation With Zero Corroboration
  29. Daily Beast Claims Migrants In Caravan Don’t Have Diseases
  30. AP Pins Immigrant Abuse On Trump Administration
  31. Kavanaugh Clerk Flashed ‘White Power’ Symbol
  32. Media Claims Obama Didn’t Separate Families At The Border
    https://dailycaller.com/2018/12/22/worst-fake-news-stories-cnn-nbc-2018/

CNN has high ratings for news credibility according NewsGuard, yet today it has been showing that the Democratic governor of Virginia is a Republican in its reporting of racist yearbook photos.

Did the Democratic governor suddenly change parties since “credible” CNN is reporting it?