UK Politics

3094 readers

325 users here now

General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

!ukpolitics@lemm.ee appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

tom

GreatAlbatross

flamingos

Relevant idea for an election campaign (self.uk_politics)

submitted 5 months ago by JohnSmith to c/uk_politics

4 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Let me describe an idea I heard from a very innovative person, which I think would be really useful right now in midst of the general election campaign.

The basic idea is to interpret politician’s or basically any talking head’s speech realtime and check the semantics against the Internet. Imagine a banner at the bottom of a TV screen with a line being drawn as the person talks.

If what the person says correlates positively with what can be found in reputable Internet sources, the line goes up and is green. There is evidence they are speaking the truth.

If what the person says correlates negatively with the sources, the line goes down and is red. There is evidence they are lying.

If what the person says does not correlate with the sources, the line is flat and brown, because they are spewing unadulterated bullshit.

I’d pay for this service.

top 4 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] GammaGames@beehaw.org 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

What you’re describing is fact checking

[–] JohnSmith 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I think the idea is quite a bit more than fact checking. It is how you could package real-time fact checking as a service.

[–] GammaGames@beehaw.org 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

There are already people employed at news orgs that do live fact checking, including a ticker along the bottom. Though this could be useful for smaller news orgs

(I’m also US based, it might be more common over here (depending on the station 😭))

[–] Tagger@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

I like the idea, but it would have to work perfectly otherwise politicians would get very very upset when it didn't work correctly and it could never work perfectly enough live.

We just need interlocutors who are willing to break in and say, "What you have just said has been proven to not be true, please try to be truthful to the electorate." every time they lie.