Google to Samurai fake news with Fact Check Label

Image result for Google Fact Check Label
Google is all set to implement its fact check label to Google News editions globally after introducing the feature in October for the U.S and U.K. The label will further appear in searches in all languages supported by Google.
It works like this - When you search for a topic that's answered by a source using the fact check label, Google's results page will add a snippet with three major elements: information about the claim being made, who made the claim, and whether the claim is true, false or anywhere in between. Further it may also appear in a Google News cluster with the term "Fact check" before the headline.


Google alerted that the fact check label won't be visible for every possible conspiracy or crazy news story you can predict. For instance, a search for "the Earth is flat," does not provide any provision for fact check labels at this writing.  Disagreeably it shouldn't as the claim is irrational and doesn't call for any genuine examination.
For a site to have the fact check label, it must include Scheme.org's ClaimReview markup in their HTML.
Unfurling story behind the story: The issue is that flat earthers and other conspirary theorists may be able to manage Googe's new fact check label, may be in the short term. Fulfilling the requirement of proper HTML markup, a site may try to get a fact check label for a false story. But, Google, as most compelling and sovereign popular search engine, it can counteract any shenanigans.  The company's support pages confirm that if a site fails to meet Google's standards for fact checking,  the search engine may ignore the publisher's markup or remove the site from Google News.
In another scenario, when users confront two fact-check labels offer different conclusions, Google confirms that this is possible under its new framework.
“There may be search result pages where different publishers checked the same claim and reached different conclusions,” Google stated in a blog post. 
“We think it’s still helpful for people to understand the degree of consensus around a particular claim and have clear information on which sources agree.”

Comments