http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061004/tc_nm/google_politicians_dc_2 Do you think this is all hype? Or do you think google can really come up with something that can instantly check facts? Just think it could open up a whole new market for political 'optimazation'.
Google installs spy cameras in everyones house too. I'm going to get banned (from life) for saying that.
Well, in 5 years, we can use Google's tech to check if the article posted was factual.. If we can't check it then it must have been a lie !!
I'd agree with scriptnest... how can you possibly test against historical data when the data available will be a mix of truth, myth, hypothesis and plain old media hype... I guess any algo that could sift through the crap and come up with some kind of truth score would be pretty impressive... although I dunno how credible such a system could be
We don't need Google, we already have GTech, the librarian of all historical political fact and defender of truth.
They'll never produce a machine that could check politician's 'facts' - if they did, then George W. Bush's press-conferences would be nothing more than a single, long, uninterrupted buzzer going off, while all the reporters cupped their ears to prevent them from bleeding...
What Google (or somebody else, actually...) can do is refine their scoring algorithm (using the PR as a starting point) to give a "credibility" score to sources - and then use the most credible ones to check facts and statements. So if 10 "heavy" sources say there were no WMD in Iraq (that's just an example, ok?) and Bush says there were WMD in Iraq, "Google Truth" (a bit obvious, as a name, sorry...) will say "No no no!" But isn't this what Technorati is already doing with their 'authority' blog search? Just my 0.2€...
In the future politicians will have to build backlinks to their lies so they can get a high listing in "Google Truth".
The same lie repeated over and over again becomes the truth! I'm not lying, I'm google bombing a future truth!
That's why I'm telling that "reputation" will be very important. After all that's what happens with newspapers or the TV: you always hear people saying "Ah, it is TRUE because the NEWS said it!". The difference is that with the Internet this reputation mechanism *should* (SHOULD!!!) be more "democratic" - while with TV and other traditional medias the only thing that counts is money.
Yes, in theory such a system should be pretty accurate, but what I and others have been jokingly suggesting is that the system could be manipulated to show certain results. Just like how todays search engines can be manipulated to make sites show up for a particular keyword. As far as being democratic. How democratic is it when the only source of information and truth comes from a company like Google? It's not like that today, but if the media continues to consolidate like it's been doing such a scenario could become reality.
Google is a bad company, bad news for everyone. Of course Adsense for the win, but the rest of it, Gmail etc...pfft, don't touch it, they are shady.
LOL. I mean just look at Gmail, the whole "No conversations in the Trash. Who needs to delete when you have over 2000 MB of storage?!" - well, because you obviously sift through my mail to make yourself money etc. Nah man, Google is bogus.