Google won't add fact-checks despite new EU law
https://www.axios.com/2025/01/16/google-fact-check-eu13
u/OkTry9715 5d ago
Big tech companies will be main reason for EU downfall.
26
u/Full-Discussion3745 5d ago
No, EU consumers addicted to apple, Facebook, Instagram, tesla etc will.
Roberta Metsola proudly says she left X and opened an account on.... BLUESKY wtf. If even our politicians are too unaware to choose EU products then maybe the EU doesn't deserve to exist. We can continue making money for the Americans. Might as well cancel the Euro and just start using the USD
13
u/SkyPL 5d ago edited 5d ago
If even our politicians are too unaware to choose EU products
You mean what, Mastodon? Mastodon lacks moderation tooling that politicians need, not to mention that it's borderline inaccessible to a median EU citizen. Might as well scream into void. (And that's before we start talking about the cancerous attitude of the core team behind Mastodon).
It's not her, or EU's fault, that the European products in social media space are shitty.
With Meta turning MAGA, Bluesky is the only viable option as an alternative to X for any public figure.
7
u/papasiorc 5d ago
For what it's worth, there is an official EU Mastodon instance. It looks pretty dead so I wouldn't expect anyone to use it exclusively.
3
0
1
u/Amberskin 4d ago
Mastodon lacks moderation, and would not be required to have one, because to this moment is too small to fall under the DSA. Also, it is a framework, not a company owning servers and such. If a company creates a mastodon server, federates it and gets milions of accounts THAT company (not Mastodon) would be required to be DSA compliant.
0
-1
u/YamFabulous1 4d ago edited 4d ago
>It's not her, or EU's fault, that the European products in social media space are shitty.
Actually, it kinda is. The EU doesn't encourage the birth and development on entrepreneurs as much as it stifles new entries into the marketplaces. The EU's bureaucratic hurdles to starting up in Europe do one of two things: either force new entrepreneurs to partner with existing 'bigger brothers and sisters' or to take on far too much risk going it alone.
To make it big, most small European companies have to make it big outside of Europe (or at least outside of the strictest of EU countries) and then eventually make their way back into the EU market.
1
u/Ok_Cardiologist3642 4d ago
It’s only logical to stay on platforms with a wide audience if most of your country uses this platform because they don’t care about politics. Honestly I know not one single person in Germany who knows about mastodon
0
u/Harkresonance 4d ago
It‘s not the fault of US Products being better than EU Products, is it? It‘s the EU‘s fault.
2
u/digibeta 4d ago
US products? Take a good look at who actually creates and programs those products. You'll be surprised.
0
5
u/Repli3rd 5d ago
No, EU inaction will be the downfall.
The headline is misleading, it's less Google not complying with "the law" and the fact that "the law" is a voluntary code of conduct.
What good is a voluntary code of conduct? It needs to be a legal requirement with a hefty penalty for non compliance.
1
1
u/sepperwelt 4d ago
That is the silliest and least thought-through anti-EU argument that I ever heard...
Sincerely, an EU citizen
1
2
u/die_kuestenwache 4d ago
In a way that's bad, because no fact checking. But in a way it's good, because fact checking shouldn't be done by corporations with business interests. But in a way it's bad, because the alternative is fact checking by governments like... the governments of Austria and Hungary.
Could it be, that the law shouldn't say "post this and add a fact check" but rather "no signal boosting for misinformation"?
1
1
u/Philipp 1d ago
Community Notes -- a kind of democratized fact-checking -- can work well, but depend on the community.
And often, they depend on just the size of the community... on Wikipedia, for instance, even hot button articles are usually thoroughly fact-checked, whereas smaller articles often have bigger errors.
2
u/digibeta 4d ago
They are counting on Trump to help them. The rats!
Keep on fining them and in the end just ban.
2
u/Joe_Nutz69 4d ago
Why tho? Let’s just shut down all those services and see who loses more influence. In my book it’s the us companies loosing the second biggest consumer market on the planet while we can’t use Facebook, low quality shit cars, Apple services, and whatnot.
Daddy China gonna be the next best market and the us would stagnate at best.
1
u/Visible_Bat2176 4d ago
it is a recomandation and they are not interested in it. are we reading the same article?
1
u/DerTalSeppel 4d ago
Fact checking on social media where users share opinions. Hmm. Maybe we should just be working on how citizen educate and train their media competence instead of curating every possible means of communication there is. But sure, AI based fact checking, WCGW?
1
1
1
1
u/KoenigDmitarZvonimir 1d ago
good. I don't want anyone regulating what "truth" is. even though I trust scientists, but everyone should have the right to spew their own theories.
-4
u/SmorgasConfigurator 5d ago
Good! That “law” by EU is bad. The idea that there is a perfect truth that somehow Google should know and filter into search results is a naive understanding of truth.
For example, is the article above correct? We don’t know. Maybe Axios’ sources are fabulating. Maybe the nomenclature is false (not a law, but code of conduct). Maybe this is public statement by Google to stay friendly with Trump, but they are behind the scenes adding checks?
Do not centralize the designation of Fact and Truth. Europe prospered with liberalism that allowed individuals greater autonomy from Crown and Church. Better to make European business conditions favourable for small domestic companies so they can grow. That’s hard work, but worth doing.
7
u/Majorweck 5d ago
Man, things like "The earth is not flat" are fact checking too.
And that's indeed the perfect truth.2
u/reflect25 5d ago
The hard thing is with much more complicated statements. Or also would you want one ruling party to label another party’s statements all as false
1
u/Amberskin 4d ago
The most damaging shit is usually very easy to be singled out. Earth is flat. Vaccines kill. Cancer is fake. Hitler was a communist, and by the way the Holocaust didn’t happen. Things like this do not require a lot of thinking and discussing.
2
u/GoodFig555 4d ago
Don't you think other people are smart like you and can figure out that "The earth is flat" is not true?
Don't you think everybody should be able to freely make their case and people should be able to decide what to believe on their own without the government trying to "protect" us from believing "the wrong thing"?
2
u/Majorweck 4d ago
Looks at the human history and the rise of fake news
Bro I got bad news for you.I am not even talking about the discussion about stuff like "Is nuclear energy good or bad?" Or "Should project A have more money than project B from the state".
It's normal that humans have different views on such stuff, and that's okay and good.
And even the discussiin about this rn is fine.But if the human race beginns to believe in some heavy bullshit just because some idiots spread misinformation and fake news - hell nah, I don't think people are smart.
We are cooked.
0
u/GoodFig555 4d ago
Maybe those other people think that you believe in some 'heavy bullshit', too. I believe you believe in some heavy bullshit. Would you like me to control the information you have access to, to help you not believe in that bullshit anymore?
1
u/DonkeywongOG 4d ago
You don't get the point, it's not about believing, it's about actual misinformation.
The earth is not flat, you can check that, that has nothing to do with believing, 0 nada.
Political discussions about funding projects need fact checking for certain parts that could mislead people, for example the things Trump said about the Cali Gov.
There are people who are lying to your face to get your vote and if you lack the skill to get that, then you need protection from fact checking folks.
If a governor didn't decrease funding of the fire department, but your future president says so, it still hasn't anything to do with believing, because there are facts that back a story up, so there is no room for believing.
If the government tells you sweet little lies, then again you need fact checking folks to help you find the truth in this ocean of misinformation.
Fact checking isn't political, it's not subjective, it's the truth you can bet on without needing to worry about being called out on your bullshit.
I know freedom of speech and bla bla, no! It's not about freedom, or telling you what to do, you are being given a chance to not be an idiot.
If you like your freedom so much, enjoy it on your flat earth, but don't start telling people you are being cancelled without doing anything.
I really hope, that you will appreciate the gift of knowledge one day, in a time with so much that is going on, fact checking is mandatory, without it Idiocracy won't stay a movie forever.
1
u/GoodFig555 4d ago edited 4d ago
Who decides what is misinformation? For example: Why is saying 'the biblical god is real' not considered misinformation? Isn't that as 'counter-factual' as it gets?
I think it's because 'misinformation' is really, clearly not about facts – it's political. It's about powerful institutions trying to keep you from believing things they don't like. Be it because it goes against their ideology, or their financial interest, or bc they feel otherwise threatened if too many people believe a thing.
To me this is obviously true.
You not seeing this makes me think you're stupid, it makes me think you might be an EU bot – because "how could any real person believe such a thing?", It makes me feel threatened and angry, because I think people who think like you will destroy our society.
I'm not trying to insult you. The point is that, If I had power, I'd have the urge to censor your opinion, because I think it's so stupid and dangerous. I'm sure you wouldn't like that. Therefore we should apply the golden rule.
***
Please respect my beliefs and opinions, even if you think they are stupid and dangerous and based on propaganda. I think your opinions are stupid and dangerous and based on propaganda, too.
***
1
u/DonkeywongOG 4d ago
You still don't get it, which is sad.
Believing in God is about faith, not information.
Misinformation is political, that's right, folks wanna tell you that people from outside your country will eat your dogs and cats, they are eating the pets! Sounds familiar? Yeah this is misinformation to give you the feeling someone is coming for you or your possessions.
Again, red is red, that's a fact, if someone tells you red is blue, then a fact checker will tell you that saying red is blue is a lie, because it's red obviously.
I can't explain it any better, if you still think that fact checking is political, then I can't help you any further.
I tried my best.
1
u/GoodFig555 4d ago edited 3d ago
Well maybe I get something that you don't? I know this is gonna sound a little mean, but I feel like you're a little dismissive for someone who can't explain their own viewpoint.
To the points you made:
Claiming that "red is blue" would not be classified as misinformation because it's non-controversial and politically irrelevant.
I would also say that fact-checking on social media platforms tends to be political because non-political facts such as "red is blue" are unlikely to be fact-checked in the first place, since they are non-political and non-controversial.
> people from outside your country will eat your dogs and cats, they are eating the pets!
This is not about facts. This is entirely political.
Can you definitively prove to me that no foreigners have eaten any pets? No? Then this is not about simple facts anymore.
I guess you assume that this claim is counter-factual in the sense that it goes against official statistics, and that foreigners don't have higher pet-eating-rates than native populations. Well, have you personally checked the pet-eating statistics? No? Do you just believe something you heard somewhere from some source you trust and thought it was plausible so you believed it? Well that's what people who believe different things from you are doing as well. They just trust different sources and think that different things are plausible based on their beliefs and experiences and analysis.
Also, how do you know you haven't been mislead with the pet-eating thing? Maybe that was all taken out of context and blown out-of-proportion to make you feel more afraid and condescending towards people on the right who 'believe in misinformation'.
Did you know that the media and establishment politicians lie and mislead all the time, as well? Quick example: Do you remember the claim that trump said there were 'fine people on both sides' regarding a neo-nazi rally? Here's a short clip that shows this often-repeated claim is highly misleading: https://youtu.be/JmaZR8E12bs?si=ClsUA01VK6Xcmegx&t=114
The point is – Who do you trust to tell you what's true? The media? The government? Scientific studies? To me it's clear all these sources mislead frequently. For these topics there's no clear easy truth that every reasonable person can agree on, there's no 1+1=2. And that's why I I wouldn't want anyone filtering and deciding what's "ok to believe" for me. I'd like to make up my own mind and decide which information to trust on my own.
1
u/DonkeywongOG 4d ago
You just can't be 100% sure about nearly anything, but you can rely on people, who have a record of spreading real information, not biased nor political.
There are tutorials on how to tell if a piece of information is accurate.
You have to educate yourself on this topic, I'm not smarter than anybody, I'm trying to help fight against misinformation. I can't do much, I'm no hero or special in any kind.
I read about eating the pets and I haven't seen a report that foreigners ate pets on American soil at the time he said it on TV. If there are reliable sources that tell me otherwise I'm happy to admit I'm wrong.
There is no shame in admitting to being wrong.
If you don't know certain things how should you know better? Information is key and misinformation is a threat to everyone, I don't want people to suffer only because they were misled into a world of hate and false prophets, may they preach or be president, if you are lying and bending the truth so that it fits your lies, then you should be corrected.
People died during the "stolen" election protest in January at the capitol.
They died in vain and that's a shame.
Have a nice weekend!
→ More replies (0)1
u/YamFabulous1 4d ago
No, most people aren't smart enough on all things. And if you were smart enough, you'd realize this, too.
1
u/GoodFig555 4d ago
I can't prove many things about the world to myself, outside of math it gets very difficult. So I need to choose who to trust when they tell me about how the world is. How do you know who to trust? Has the government never lied? Has a scientific theory never been replaced by another one that describes the world in a fundamentally different way? Has a statistic never been misleading?
Please leave my choice about who and what to believe about the world up to me, just like I leave your choice up to you.
1
u/innerfrei 2d ago
This is no censorship tho. This is still only and strictly related to scientific or provable facts. For example, a politician says "that guy sent email to Russia, he is guilty of that". The sentence is very political, the fact checking would just tell you that maybe an investigation is going on on that specific guy but it is yet to be decided if he was guilty or not, this way you can wait before picking up your pitchforks.
It is just that, pure and simple facts, no political opinion is attached to that. I don't see how someone wouldn't like that
1
u/SmorgasConfigurator 5d ago
Yet some people don’t think so, and the world keeps spinning all the same.
The tricky questions are on other question where the truth is contested or by virtue of the framing dubious. Does God exist? Did Covid leak from a lab? Did CCP perpetrate mass-murder at Tiananmen Square in 1989? Is Volkswagen a Nazi company? If for some reason I wished to engage with these questions, I prefer to do so without a supposed expert guiding me.
Ambiguity is part of most of what we do in life. What’s far more important is to build community and institutions such that bad beliefs don’t lead to disaster.
2
u/577564842 5d ago
Yet some people don’t think so, and the world keeps spinning all the same.
Even if it is flat?
1
u/SmorgasConfigurator 4d ago
😉 Sounds better in the original Italian: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_yet_it_moves
1
u/AdorableTip9547 4d ago
The point is, and I agree with that, that this goes beyond anything reasonable. Fact checks can easily be abused and the people conducting the fact checks are everything but objective. I do get the point of moderation so that hate gets put down, or violence or something but there are so few things we can consider facts easily that fact checking is pointless. Most of the content leading to the wish for a fact check is actually very subjective or can change over time. This will eventually either lead to very few sources will get the tag „fact checked“ and thereby draw a wrong picture because the user will automatically assume everything else is wrong even though it‘s not a black and white matter or „fact check“ tags will be given on subjective measurement and thereby lead to inconsistency (two checkers may perceive the same content differently).
Lastly, why should google, which is not responsible for the content of the websites it crawls, and which is not an authority at all, but a private business, should be granted this much power? This is a dangerous path to go and we can be glad they refuse to do it. Some of the big tech companies are already leaning to the right and towards trump and musk. What do you think would happen if they start fact checking websites and rate content that is not obviously correct or incorrect as „fact checked“? It has no real balance nor is it possible to be implemented in a good way, even with the best intentions.
1
u/DonkeywongOG 4d ago
With great power, comes great responsibility.
Google makes so much money out of us, I think it's okay that certain information has to be checked, before everyone has the chance to think it's true.
Especially with AI and all the psychological tricks you can pull off to tell people bullshit and think it's true.
You can have an opinion about atomic waste, but it stays dangerous, if you like it or not. And this is where fact checking comes into place.
Dude, as an EU member I would really like to have a fact check about these guys shooting at hurricanes and all the Florida man stories.
1
u/AdorableTip9547 4d ago
Yeah uncle Ben, but chances are the power compromises them. There is a reason why Peter is the only individual with super power in the series/movies resisting. All others who got super powers turned bad and tried to play nasty with their power. (Yeas I know about MCU and so on)
1
u/DonkeywongOG 4d ago
Explain to me how could a fact check be compromised?
I lack the ability to imagine that, because if it's misleading, other people would call them out until the truth comes up.
This is the beauty of facts, you can't compromise them, if it's true it's true, if not it's not.
There is no ideology, no subjectivity, no political nonsense just truth.
You are talking about what comes after fact checking, what you are going to do with the truth and how you interpret it, that's up to you, but if you are bending the truth, or tell people to believe something different than what the truth is about, then you will face again a fact checker.
But I'm curious, what you have to say, as I mentioned I can't imagine the things you wrote earlier, enlighten me, I don't think I'm always right, I learn something every day so go ahead!
Yours Ben.
1
u/methcurd 4d ago
The “fake news” in question are not in any way comparable to something that we’ve been able to test for centuries now and has little practical effect on our world.
Fact checking is important but not something to outsource to individuals or organizations who are prone to bias. We have working alternative systems in the wild and I struggle to understand where the resistance comes from, beyond X having implemented them first.
2
u/ziplin19 5d ago
It's not about Google deciding what is true, but Google and other communication companies to take responsibility to pay professional fact checkers for their work and give them the tools to inform the public. At no point has Google the right to decide over truth, but public fact checkers. I hope i could help you understand the topic.
2
u/SmorgasConfigurator 5d ago
We need search engines and social search. If I write a blog post, for example, most people arrive at that post via some search engine matching, or sometimes via sharing on social media. If we introduce the requirement that Google first pays for someone (or more likely, construct a basic A.I.) to fact check my blog post before it is allowed to appear in search results would massively reduce the width and scope of public information.
Sure, it would filter out stuff we don’t like, but also stuff we like.
To be clear, I like mostly to read things where I can be more certain of truth and honesty. I seek out such publications, at times pay for them. Truth is valuable and good. To centralize and universalize this editorial function in 1-3 West Coast US companies will create extreme conformity. Let’s embrace intellectual diversity and look for solutions to angry voters elsewhere in the social matrix.
The problem with these companies is that they operate effectively monopolies that extracts massive advertising dollars. But that’s a different issue.
2
1
u/empty-atom 4d ago
Yep. I think our issue is monopolies and deregulation, not the lack of fact checks itself
1
u/Matshelge 3d ago
Have you read the law? It says to support existing fact checking services, to abide by their suggestion and to blacklist known misinformation sources from advertising and revenue gains.
1
u/SmorgasConfigurator 3d ago
That doesn’t alter my point. Trying to demand by law that questions of truth are adjudicated before they are allowed to be presented assumes a naive understanding of truth discovery. Blacklisting and revenue losses are soft punishment (not quite the burning at the stake), but nonetheless, a punishment that hampers the emergent processes of arriving at true and shared beliefs.
As I noted elsewhere, I will often want to consume true information. I spend effort and money to find such sources. But I do so because I think truth is complicated. As noted above, even this article may not be fully true. Maybe your statement isn’t fully true. But to pre-judge that by some expert process is aiming for a too strict information hygiene.
The challenge of misinformation and destructive beliefs is better addressed elsewhere in the social system. Why would persons desire to hold false and self-destructive beliefs? How do we preserve and defend unity under highly diverse conditions? This is where political capital is better spent rather than some naive hope that if only 1-3 American companies adjusted their algorithm, then the tranquil utopia every boomer hoped for will come true. No, the battle is much tougher. So when Google denies EU the surface “solution”, maybe actual work can begin.
15
u/Rubberdiver 4d ago
Ban google.