If you’re against vaccines, but you’ve seen the fact-checker bot be correct 99 other times, then you might give credence to its claims.
That’s subject to Goodhart’s Law. If you start judging bots by their behavior in other cases, people will take advantage of your judging process by specifically designing bots to do poor fact checking on just a couple of issues, thus making it useless to judge bots based on their behavior in other cases.
(Of course, they won’t think of it that way, they’ll think of it as “using our influence to promote social change” or some such. But it will happen, and has already happened for non-bot members of the media.)
I don’t know why someone downvoted this, unless it was out of the political motivation of desiring to promote such changes in this way. It seems obviously true that this would happen.
That’s subject to Goodhart’s Law. If you start judging bots by their behavior in other cases, people will take advantage of your judging process by specifically designing bots to do poor fact checking on just a couple of issues, thus making it useless to judge bots based on their behavior in other cases.
(Of course, they won’t think of it that way, they’ll think of it as “using our influence to promote social change” or some such. But it will happen, and has already happened for non-bot members of the media.)
Heck, Wikipedia is the prime example.
I don’t know why someone downvoted this, unless it was out of the political motivation of desiring to promote such changes in this way. It seems obviously true that this would happen.