The Future of Fact-Checking Is Lies, I Guess
Posted2 months agoActiveabout 2 months ago
aphyr.comTechstory
skepticalnegative
Debate
80/100
Artificial IntelligenceFact-CheckingMisinformation
Key topics
Artificial Intelligence
Fact-Checking
Misinformation
The article discusses the potential risks of AI-powered fact-checking tools spreading misinformation, and the discussion highlights concerns about bias, manipulation, and the reliability of fact-checking organizations.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Light discussionFirst comment
7h
Peak period
5
14-16h
Avg / period
1.7
Comment distribution12 data points
Loading chart...
Based on 12 loaded comments
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Nov 10, 2025 at 4:26 PM EST
2 months ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Nov 10, 2025 at 11:18 PM EST
7h after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
5 comments in 14-16h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Nov 11, 2025 at 6:23 PM EST
about 2 months ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
ID: 45881155Type: storyLast synced: 11/20/2025, 6:45:47 PM
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
Increasingly I think that "free speech" should apply to humans only, not to humans armed with a gas-powered bullshit spewer.
Thet want to make sure you do not have any choice and at that point You Will Like It.
While I like how the concept that fact checking has tried to respond to the social media age's flood of inaccuracies and disinformation, encouraging the idea that we should try to more thoroughly verify news stories and sources to make sure they are accurate, in practice I'm not sure if they've been a major net positive.
For the target audience, who is presumably someone who has fallen for some misinformation or propaganda, fact-checking often seems to come across as condescending to that person. "Actually, that thing you believed isn't real, here's some smarty-pants reasons why you were wrong."
Either that, or it's like the community notes system where it's an endless war of clever comebacks.
I don't really have a solution in mind, just these thoughts on the present state of things.
Cute [1].
In the UK, we can rely on fact checkers from the BBC, who are impartial and would never be caught doctoring videos of presidents of ally countries [2]. The UK government would never send 100 current/past members of their party to interfere in a foreign election [3].
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20251111010701/https://aphyr.com...
[2] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/11/03/bbc-report-revea...
[3] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/10/17/labour-sends...
So it selects its sources according to their SEO-gaming proficiency?
4 more comments available on Hacker News