These fact checks are not Google’s and are presented so people can make more informed judgements. Even though differing conclusions may be presented, 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.
It seems that (my emphasis):
For publishers to be included in this feature, they must be using the Schema.org ClaimReview markup on the specific pages where they fact check public statements … . Only publishers that are algorithmically determined to be an authoritative source of information will qualify for inclusion.
- it was “the algorithms” wot dun it originally; now there’s another “algorithm” to make it better… So that’s all right then. What can possibly go wrong?
- remember when you absolutely had to put third party anti-virus applications onto your computer because the systems were so insecure? Isn’t that what Google’s resorting to? Third party help to flag that your machine (the Google results listing) may be infected.
Also bear in mind: Google isn’t a publisher, isn’t a broadcaster,
has no editorial control (as Ian Knopke pointed out via the Twitterz, they do have editorial control. Okay.. but the way they apply it and justify that application is intended to keep them away from being recognised as a publisher in the way that news media organisations, or me as a blogger, are publishers…)
(You do know Google owns YouTube, right…?)