U.S. patent application number 15/252196 was filed with the patent office on 2016-12-22 for fact checking search results.
The applicant listed for this patent is LinkedIn Corporation. Invention is credited to Lucas J. Myslinski.
Application Number | 20160371321 15/252196 |
Document ID | / |
Family ID | 48611060 |
Filed Date | 2016-12-22 |
United States Patent
Application |
20160371321 |
Kind Code |
A1 |
Myslinski; Lucas J. |
December 22, 2016 |
FACT CHECKING SEARCH RESULTS
Abstract
A fact checking system is able to verify the correctness of
information and/or characterize information by comparing the
information with one or more sources. The fact checking system
automatically monitors, processes, fact checks information and
indicates a status of the information. Fact checking results are
able to be validated by re-fact checking the fact check
results.
Inventors: |
Myslinski; Lucas J.;
(Sunnyvale, CA) |
|
Applicant: |
Name |
City |
State |
Country |
Type |
LinkedIn Corporation |
Mountain View |
CA |
US |
|
|
Family ID: |
48611060 |
Appl. No.: |
15/252196 |
Filed: |
August 30, 2016 |
Related U.S. Patent Documents
|
|
|
|
|
|
Application
Number |
Filing Date |
Patent Number |
|
|
14804187 |
Jul 20, 2015 |
9454563 |
|
|
15252196 |
|
|
|
|
13763831 |
Feb 11, 2013 |
9087048 |
|
|
14804187 |
|
|
|
|
13565013 |
Aug 2, 2012 |
|
|
|
13763831 |
|
|
|
|
13528563 |
Jun 20, 2012 |
8321295 |
|
|
13565013 |
|
|
|
|
13448991 |
Apr 17, 2012 |
8229795 |
|
|
13528563 |
|
|
|
|
13287804 |
Nov 2, 2011 |
8185448 |
|
|
13448991 |
|
|
|
|
61736181 |
Dec 12, 2012 |
|
|
|
61495776 |
Jun 10, 2011 |
|
|
|
Current U.S.
Class: |
1/1 |
Current CPC
Class: |
G06F 16/90328 20190101;
G06Q 30/0279 20130101; G06Q 50/01 20130101; H04L 51/32 20130101;
A63F 13/828 20140902; G06F 16/24578 20190101; G06F 16/248 20190101;
G06Q 10/10 20130101; G06Q 30/0241 20130101; G06F 16/951 20190101;
G06F 16/2365 20190101; G06F 16/285 20190101; G06F 40/40 20200101;
G06F 16/245 20190101; G06F 11/3065 20130101; A63F 13/795 20140902;
A63F 13/79 20140902; A63F 13/95 20140902; A63F 13/46 20140902; G06Q
30/02 20130101; H04L 63/1408 20130101 |
International
Class: |
G06F 17/30 20060101
G06F017/30; G06F 11/30 20060101 G06F011/30 |
Claims
1. A system comprising: one or more processors; one or more storage
media storing instructions which, when executed by the one or more
processors, cause: performing a search including searching for an
inputted search string in search sources and returning search
results grouped into relevance groups according to relevance; fact
checking the search by comparing each of the search results with
source information to determine a factual accuracy of each of the
search results, wherein fact checking affects the search results
within a relevance group but does not cause a search result to be
removed from the relevance group; providing a combined result of
the search and the fact checking.
2. A method comprising: parsing web pages into fact checkable
portions and comparing the fact checkable portions with source
information to determine a factual accuracy of each of the web
pages; while performing a search, retrieving search results,
wherein the search results comprise the fact checked web pages; and
causing the search results to be displayed based on the factual
accuracy of each of the web pages; wherein the method is performed
by one or more computing devices.
3. A system comprising: one or more processors; one or more storage
media storing instructions which, when executed by the one or more
processors, cause: receiving a search string to perform a search;
performing the search using the search string, the search including
searching for the search string in one or more search sources;
obtaining search results associated with the search string based on
the search; automatically fact checking the search results by
comparing each of the search results with source information from
one or more sources to determine a factual accuracy of each of the
search results and generating fact checking results based on the
factual accuracy determined for the search results; providing a
combined result for the search string, wherein the combined result
includes at least a portion of each of the search results and the
fact checking results.
4. The system of claim 3, wherein the search results are grouped
into relevance groups according to relevance.
5. The system of claim 4, wherein fact checking affects the search
results within a relevance group but does not cause a search result
to be removed from the relevance group.
6. The system of claim 3, wherein fact checking includes processing
each of the search results by parsing each result of the search
results.
7. The system of claim 3, wherein the combined result includes less
accurate search results presented lower than more accurate search
results.
8. The system of claim 3, wherein the combined result includes a
search result without factual inaccuracies on top of a list of the
search results.
9. The system of claim 3, wherein fact checking includes changing a
position of a search result in a list of the search results if the
search result has a number of factual inaccuracies above a
threshold.
10. The system of claim 3, wherein the search and the fact checking
are equally weighted.
11. The system of claim 3, wherein the search has a higher
weighting than the fact checking.
12. The system of claim 3, wherein the search has a lower weighting
than the fact checking.
13. The system of claim 3, wherein fact checking comprises
determining bias of a search result.
14. The system of claim 3, wherein each source of the source
information includes a reliability rating, wherein higher rated
sources are used before lower rated sources, and sources below a
threshold are not used.
15. The system of claim 3, further comprising automatically sending
the combined result to a second device.
16. The system of claim 3, wherein the source information is ranked
by popularity, and fact checking utilizes a most popular source
information first and less popular source information in a
descending order.
17. The system of claim 3, wherein fact checking is performed using
cloud computing.
Description
CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATION(S)
[0001] The present application is a continuation of U.S. patent
application Ser. No. 14/804,187 filed Jul. 20, 2015, which is a
continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/763,831 filed
Feb. 11, 2013; now U.S. Pat. No. 9,087,048 issued Jul. 21, 2015,
which is a continuation-in-part of U.S. patent application Ser. No.
13/565,013 filed Aug. 2, 2012, now abandoned; which is a
continuation-in-part of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/528,563
filed Jun. 20, 2012, now U.S. Pat. No. 8,321,295 issued Nov. 27,
2012; which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No.
13/448,991 filed Apr. 17, 2012, now U.S. Pat. No. 8,229,795 issued
Nov. 24, 2012; which is a continuation of U.S. patent application
Ser. No. 13/287,804 filed Nov. 2, 2011, now U.S. Pat. No. 8,185,448
issued May 22, 2012; which claims priority to U.S. Provisional
Patent Application No. 61/495,776 filed Jun. 10, 2011, all of which
are hereby incorporated by reference in their entireties for all
purposes. U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/763,831 also claims
priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/736,181
filed Dec. 12, 2012, which is hereby incorporated by reference in
its entirety for all purposes.
TECHNICAL FIELD
[0002] The present disclosure relates to the field of information
analysis. More specifically, the present disclosure relates to the
field of automatically verifying the factual correctness of a
statement.
BACKGROUND
[0003] Information is easily dispersed through the Internet,
television and many other outlets. One major problem is that the
information dispersed is often not correct. Although there are fact
checking websites available online, these websites check facts in a
slow manner; typically not truly providing a fact check response
for several hours or even days.
SUMMARY
[0004] A fact checking system verifies the correctness of
information and/or characterizes the information by comparing the
information with one or more sources. The fact checking system
automatically monitors, processes, fact checks information and
indicates a status of the information.
[0005] The fact checking system includes many embodiments, some of
which are summarized herein. The fact checking system is able to be
used to provide supplemental information, for example, information
regarding a communication, information about a person or other
entity, information about a user, information about an item, media
analysis, commercial analysis, bias classification, a follow-up
question for a host, arguments and opposing arguments, and
information based on the importance to a user.
[0006] The fact checking system is able to be implemented using
rated sources, classified sources, a recognition system, learning,
context determination, auto-correction, parallel computing and/or
many other features.
[0007] The fact checking system will provide users with vastly
increased knowledge, limit the dissemination of misleading or
incorrect information, provide increased resource streams for
content providers, increase displaying opportunities, and support
many other advantages.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
[0008] FIG. 1 illustrates a flowchart of a method of implementing
fact checking according to some embodiments of the present
invention.
[0009] FIG. 2 illustrates a block diagram of various
implementations of fact checking according to some embodiments.
[0010] FIG. 3 illustrates exemplary screenshots of various
implementations of fact checking according to some embodiments.
[0011] FIG. 4 illustrates a block diagram of an exemplary computing
device configured to implement fact checking according to some
embodiments.
[0012] FIG. 5 illustrates a diagram of a network of devices
configured to implement fact checking according to some
embodiments.
[0013] FIG. 6 illustrates exemplary implementations according to
some embodiments.
[0014] FIG. 7 illustrates exemplary source ordering according to
some embodiments.
[0015] FIG. 8 illustrates an example of providing supplemental
information based on information from a television where the
supplemental information is displayed on a user's mobile device
according to some embodiments.
[0016] FIG. 9 illustrates a flowchart of a method of providing
additional or supplemental information according to some
embodiments.
[0017] FIG. 10 illustrates an exemplary table of arguments and
counter arguments according to some embodiments.
[0018] FIG. 11 illustrates an exemplary table of brands according
to some embodiments.
[0019] FIG. 12 illustrates an exemplary data structure implementing
selections and content display according to some embodiments.
[0020] FIG. 13 illustrates an exemplary listing of headlines with
an importance rating according to some embodiments.
[0021] FIG. 14 illustrates a flowchart of a method of determining
an importance of information according to some embodiments.
[0022] FIG. 15 illustrates a flowchart of a method of presenting a
viewing schedule according to some embodiments.
[0023] FIG. 16 illustrates an exemplary viewing schedule according
to some embodiments.
[0024] FIG. 17 illustrates a flowchart of a method of performing
television analysis according to some embodiments.
[0025] FIG. 18 illustrates an exemplary user interface for
receiving search information for television analysis according to
some embodiments.
[0026] FIG. 19 illustrates an exemplary screenshot of an alert
using television analysis according to some embodiments.
[0027] FIG. 20 illustrates an exemplary screenshot of search
results according to some embodiments.
[0028] FIG. 21 illustrates a flowchart of a method of using
opposing arguments by an opposing entity according to some
embodiments.
[0029] FIG. 22 illustrates an exemplary user interface for
receiving user selections for information analysis according to
some embodiments.
[0030] FIG. 23 illustrates an exemplary user interface for
receiving opposing argument selections according to some
embodiments.
[0031] FIG. 24 illustrates a flowchart of a method of implementing
a fact checker fantasy game according to some embodiments.
[0032] FIG. 25 illustrates a flowchart of a method of presenting a
single click purchase implementation according to some
embodiments.
[0033] FIG. 26 illustrates an exemplary single click purchase
implementation on multiple devices according to some
embodiments.
[0034] FIG. 27 illustrates a flowchart of a method of implementing
a candidate fact checker according to some embodiments.
[0035] FIG. 28 illustrates a flowchart of a method of implementing
a controversy tracker according to some embodiments.
[0036] FIG. 29 illustrates a flowchart of a method of performing
analysis of a user according to some embodiments.
[0037] FIG. 30 illustrates a flowchart of a method of utilizing
fact checking to determine search engine results according to some
embodiments.
[0038] FIG. 31 illustrates a flowchart of a method of utilizing
cloud computing for fact checking and providing supplemental
information according to some embodiments.
[0039] FIG. 32 illustrates a diagram of fact checking glasses
according to some embodiments.
[0040] FIG. 33 illustrates an exemplary chart comparing the
accuracy of several entities according to some embodiments.
[0041] FIG. 34 illustrates a flowchart of a method of fact checking
the fact checking system according to some embodiments.
[0042] FIG. 35 illustrates a flowchart of a method of rating
sources according to some embodiments.
[0043] FIG. 36 illustrates a vehicle with fact checking
capabilities according to some embodiments.
[0044] FIG. 37 illustrates a flowchart of a method of using fact
checking with autofill information according to some
embodiments.
[0045] FIG. 38 illustrates a flowchart of a method of fact checking
and summarizing according to some embodiments.
[0046] FIG. 39 illustrates a flowchart of a method of detecting
manipulation of sources according to some embodiments.
[0047] FIG. 40 illustrates a flowchart of a method of implementing
a checklist of campaign promises according to some embodiments.
[0048] FIG. 41 illustrates an exemplary voting fact checking app
according to some embodiments.
[0049] FIG. 42 illustrates an exemplary table of a candidate
comparison according to some embodiments.
[0050] FIG. 43 illustrates a flowchart of a method of voting fact
checking according to some embodiments.
[0051] FIG. 44 illustrates a flowchart of a method of voting fact
checking according to some embodiments.
[0052] FIG. 45 illustrates an exemplary table of news coverage
analysis according to some embodiments.
[0053] FIG. 46 illustrates a flowchart of a method of fact checking
contacts according to some embodiments.
[0054] FIG. 47 illustrates a diagram of a graphical user interface
of fact checked contacts according to some embodiments.
[0055] FIG. 48 illustrates a block diagram of furniture used in
conjunction with fact checking.
[0056] FIG. 49 illustrates an exemplary changing of a window size
according to some embodiments.
[0057] FIG. 50 illustrates a flowchart of a method of myth
clarification according to some embodiments.
[0058] FIG. 51 illustrates a flowchart of a method of implementing
an interactive fact checking system according to some
embodiments.
[0059] FIG. 52 illustrates a diagram of a smart phone display with
a list of icons representing detected characterizations.
[0060] FIG. 53 illustrates a flowchart of a method of determining
if a respondent answers a question according to some
embodiments.
[0061] FIG. 54 illustrates a flowchart of a method of providing
content appropriate for children based on content directed at
adults according to some embodiments.
[0062] FIG. 55 illustrates a flowchart of a method of classifying
information by political party according to some embodiments.
[0063] FIG. 56 illustrates a flowchart of a method of detecting and
highlighting loaded words according to some embodiments.
[0064] FIG. 57 illustrates a flowchart of a method of detecting
accusations of bias by one entity against another according to some
embodiments.
[0065] FIG. 58 illustrates a flowchart of a method of using a
search engine in cooperation with social network information and
fact checking information according to some embodiments.
[0066] FIG. 59 illustrates a flowchart of a method of fact checking
a message board according to some embodiments.
[0067] FIG. 60 illustrates a block diagram of fact checking
interactions with a message board according to some
embodiments.
[0068] FIG. 61 illustrates a screen shot of an exemplary message
board implementing fact checking according to some embodiments.
[0069] FIG. 62 illustrates a screen shot of an exemplary message
board implementing fact checking before allowing a user to post
according to some embodiments.
[0070] FIG. 63 illustrates a flowchart of a method of fact checking
product reviews according to some embodiments.
[0071] FIG. 64 illustrates a flowchart of a method of monitoring
for criticism of the fact checking system according to some
embodiments.
[0072] FIG. 65 illustrates a flowchart of a method of calculating
the amount of time or number of times an entity or topic is
discussed according to some embodiments.
[0073] FIG. 66 illustrates a flowchart of a method of implementing
selective fact checking according to some embodiments.
[0074] FIG. 67 illustrates a flowchart of a method of implementing
fact checking using multiple thresholds according to some
embodiments.
[0075] FIG. 68 illustrates a block diagram of various
implementations of fact checking according to some embodiments.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENT
[0076] A fact checking system verifies the correctness or accuracy
of information by comparing the information with one or more
sources. Although the phrase "fact checking" is used, any sort of
information analysis is to be understood (e.g. determining a phrase
is "spin" or sarcasm).
Monitoring
[0077] The fact checking system monitors any information including,
but not limited to, text, video, audio, verbal communications or
any other form of communication. Communications include, but are
not limited to email, word processing documents, Twitter (tweets),
message boards, web pages including, but not limited to,
Facebook.RTM. postings and web logs, any computing device
communication, telephone calls, television audio, video or text,
other text, radio, television broadcasts/shows, radio broadcasts,
face-to-face conversations, VoIP calls (e.g. Skype.TM.), video
conferencing, live speech and any other communication that is able
to be analyzed. In some embodiments, monitoring includes recording,
scanning or any other type of monitoring. In some embodiments,
monitoring also includes capturing and/or transmitting the data. In
some embodiments, monitoring includes determining if a portion of
the information is fact checkable.
[0078] Processing
[0079] To perform fact checking, the monitored information is
processed including, but not limited to, transmitted, converted,
parsed, formatted, analyzed and reconfigured using context
determination and/or any other processing. For example, voice data
is converted to text, screen text is converted to usable text,
graphics are converted to a usable form of data, or any other data
conversion is able to be implemented to enable fact checking. For
some types of monitored information, little, if any, processing is
performed. For example, text which is already properly formatted is
able to be fact checked without any conversion. In another example,
when comparing audio to searchable audio records conversion may not
be needed. In some embodiments, processing also includes capturing
and/or transmitting the data. Formatting is able to include
changing the order of words deleting unnecessary words and/or any
other formatting to enable the information to be searched.
[0080] Verification/Fact Checking
[0081] The information including, but not limited to, phrases,
segments, numbers, words, comments, values, graphics or any other
data is analyzed or verified using the fact checking system. In
some embodiments, a phrase is first located or determined, and then
it is analyzed. The verification or fact checking process compares
the data to be verified with data from one or more sources. In some
embodiments, the sources are web pages on the Internet, one or more
databases, one or more data stores and/or any other source. In some
embodiments, the source is a personal source including, but not
limited to, an online log or diary.
[0082] In some embodiments, the data verification or fact checking
is a straight text comparison, and in some embodiments, another
implementation including, but not limited to, natural language,
context/contextual comparison or intelligent comparison is used. In
some embodiments, a combination of search implementations is
used.
[0083] An example of a straight text comparison is comparing the
phrase, "Texas is the largest state" with text to find "Texas is
the largest state." When the text is not found because Alaska is
the largest state, a result of false is returned. An example of a
context comparison is: "Texas is the largest state" where a list of
states by size is found, and Texas is located in the list; when
Texas is not #1, a result of false is returned, or the location in
the list is returned, e.g. #2. In another example of context
comparison: "Texas is the largest state," the land mass of Texas is
compared with land masses of the other 49 states, and since Texas
does not have the largest land mass, the result is false. An
example of an intelligent comparison is: X criticizes Y because Y
had an affair, then the intelligent comparison locates a story that
indicates X had an affair two years ago. An indication of hypocrisy
by X is presented.
[0084] In some embodiments, previously checked facts are stored
(e.g. in a database on a server) to prevent the perpetration of a
false statement or story, or other characterization. In some
embodiments, the facts are first checked manually or automatically
which is able to occur in real-time or non-real-time, but then when
a repeat occurrence happens, the results of that fact check occurs
in real-time. For example, a story that Candidate X is a communist
is presented by one commentator. The story is fact checked, and the
result of the fact check (e.g. not true) is stored, including the
original comment and any context related. Then, when another
commentator or anyone else says, "Candidate X is a communist," the
fact checker uses the previously stored result to immediately
inform a viewer/user that the story is not true. Thus, commentators
and others will not bother perpetuating a false story as they will
not only be proven wrong immediately but will also damage their
credibility.
[0085] In some embodiments, the sources are rated using a rating
system so that sources that provide false or inaccurate information
are rated as poor or unreliable and/or are not used, and sources
that rarely provide misinformation are rated as reliable and are
used and/or given more weight than others. For example, if a
source's rating falls or is below a threshold, that source is not
used in fact checking. In some embodiments, users are able to
designate the threshold. For example, a user specifies to fact
check using only sources with an "A" rating or higher. In some
embodiments, sources' ratings are available or shown to users. In
some embodiments, users are able to rate sources. In some
embodiments, sources are rated based on previous fact checking
results to determine computer-generated ratings. For example, if a
source is proven wrong by comparing the data with other sources or
the results with other sources' results, that source would be rated
as poor. For further example, Source X indicates that Z is true,
but twenty other reliable sources indicate that Z is false. Such a
result would affect Source X's reliability rating negatively.
Examples of very reliable sources include a dictionary and an
encyclopedia. An example of a potentially very unreliable source
includes a biased, opinion web log that fabricates stories. In some
embodiments, an impartial group or organization rates the sources,
or any other method of rating the sources is used. In some
embodiments, sources are reviewed by an agency (e.g. an independent
rating agency) to obtain a reliability rating. In some embodiments,
a combination of user ratings, computer ratings and/or other
ratings is implemented. In some embodiments, there are separate
classes of ratings or reviews including, but not limited to,
general users, experts, friends, co-workers, news organizations or
any other groups. The rating system is able to be numeric
including, but not limited to, 1-10, by grades including, but not
limited to A-F or any other rating or grading system. Furthermore,
the rating system is able to be incorporated into a mathematical
equation to provide higher quality results. For example, if a
statement is being verified, and two different sets of results are
found such that one set of results verifies the statement as fact
and the other set verifies the statement as fiction, the one from
the higher rated sources is selected. A sample equation is:
[0086] Source Result Value=Number of Sources*Average Rating of
Sources, where the search path with highest Source Result Value
determines the verification result. For example, "Person X is
running for president," results in 10 sources with an average
rating of 9 (where 1 is untrustworthy and 10 is very trustworthy)
saying "True," and 20 sources with an average rating of 2 saying
"False," the result would be "True" since (10*9)=90 is greater than
(20*2)=40. Another sample equation is: Source Result Value=(Source
Rating1+Source Rating2+ . . . Source Ratingn)/number of
sources.
[0087] In some embodiments, the sources are classified in one or
more classifications including, but not limited to, comedy,
opinion, fact, fiction, and/or political. Any other
classifications, groupings, sub-classifications, and/or
sub-groupings are possible. In some embodiments, sources are rated
in political terms including, but not limited to, independent,
ultra-liberal, leaning left, neutral/moderate, leaning right,
ultra-conservative, green, and libertarian.
[0088] In some embodiments, a user is able to customize which
sources are used and/or not used. For example, if a user believes
Source Z provides inaccurate information, the user is able to mark
that source so that it is not used. In some embodiments, sources
are clustered, so that a user is able to select a cluster instead
of individual sources. For example, a user is able to select to use
all dictionary and encyclopedic references. In some embodiments, a
user is able to select sources based on characteristics including,
but not limited to, a political characterization (e.g.
conservative). Any other user selection or exclusion of sources is
possible.
[0089] In some embodiments, a phrase to be fact checked may not
have an exact answer, the answer may not be known at the time, or
the fact checking system may not be able to find the answer. If
this occurs, a "best guess" is able to be selected and presented.
In some embodiments, each result from a source that is checked is
able to include a result accuracy rating. For example, if a fact to
be checked is, "the U.S. has 50 states," many sources should return
a 100% accuracy rating for the result since it is easily searched
for and determined within the sources. However, if a fact to be
checked is not easily determined, the results may be less than 100%
accurate and could therefore be labeled as a "best guess" including
a confidence/accuracy/certainty percentage, instead of a fact.
[0090] In some embodiments, for example, where the facts are not
certain, a collective determination system is used. For example, a
determination that 40 sources (e.g. sites) agree with the statement
and 5 disagree, allows the user to make a judgment call and look
further into the statement.
[0091] In some embodiments, where a subjective statement is made or
asked, ratings, objective information, and/or subjective
information is located to determine the accuracy of the statement
or question. For example, if a person says, "Star Wars is better
than Star Trek," ratings information giving Star Wars an 8.5 and
Star Trek and 8.0 would verify the validity of the statement, and
the fact checker would return the statement "True." The ratings
information is able to be any ratings information including, but
not limited to, user ratings, critic ratings, other ratings or a
combination thereof. In some embodiments, if an opinion is detected
(e.g. by recognizing, "in my opinion," "I think" or another opinion
phrase), the statement is not ruled as valid or invalid, but
supporting information is able to be detected and presented (e.g.
10 sites agree with your opinion and 5 disagree). In some
embodiments, if an opinion without basis/justification is detected,
an indication of "unfounded opinion" is indicated or the basis is
presented. In some embodiments, pros and cons of each are provided
so that the user is able to make the determination of which is
better. In some embodiments, when a user submits a subjective item,
one or more results are presented that answer the subjective item.
For example, if a user searches using a search engine for "the best
restaurant in San Francisco," a single restaurant is presented
which has the highest rating for restaurants in San Francisco. In
some embodiments, since there are several rating agencies/sites,
multiple restaurants are presented, and a description such as
"highest rated by X" is presented next to each result. For example,
Restaurant X is highest rated by source A, Restaurant Y is highest
rated by source B and Restaurant Z is highest rated by source C. In
some embodiments, all of the rating agencies/sites are compared,
and a single entity is presented. For example, if there are 10
sites that rate songs, and 8 agree that Song J is the best ever,
while 2 agree that Song L is the best ever, Song J is presented as
the best song ever. In some embodiments, users are able to select
how they want the results presented including, one ultimate result,
a list of results, a graph of results, and/or any other
presentation.
[0092] In some embodiments, context determination is used such that
the context of the comment is checked in determining the validity
of the comment. For example, if someone says, "he wasted billions
of dollars," the "he" is determined based on additional context
surrounding the statement. In another example, the question is also
analyzed to determine if the response is valid. For instance, if a
question asks, "Did you receive any money illegally?," and a
respondent answers, "I have not been convicted of a crime," that
comment is able to be flagged as "spin," "unresponsive,"
"questionable" or the like, since technically the answer to the
question is true, but the point of the question has not really been
answered. Other forms of context checking are able to be
implemented as well to provide more information to the viewer. In
some embodiments, when "spin," a nonresponsive response or any sort
of questionable response is detected, a host is notified, so that
he is able to press the issue. For example, a television show host
asks a guest if the guest has ever "cheated on his taxes," and the
guest responds with, "I have never been convicted of tax fraud." A
yellow light is displayed to signal the host to ask the question in
a different manner or further press the issue to try to get to the
truth. As described herein, in some embodiments, an additional
question is automatically presented (e.g. on a teleprompter or in
his earpiece), so that the host does not have to formulate the
additional question. In some embodiments, a follow-up question is
presented to the host after every response by the guest. In some
embodiments, the question is based on the guest's answer.
[0093] Context is able to be used in many ways to find an answer.
For example, if Person A says Person B is biased, there may not be
an exact statement to be found that says, "Person B is biased."
However, using context, biased quotes, pictures, stories, audio,
video or other data may be found from Person B which would indicate
he is biased. Additionally, when there may be a gray area such as
someone being biased, both sides are able to be found and presented
for the viewer to determine the truth. For example, audio with
Person B denigrating a specific group would indicate bias, but
video of that same person helping that specific group would
indicate non-bias or a change of view.
[0094] In some embodiments, hyperbole, sarcasm, comedy and other
linguistic styles are checked and/or detected, and the information
is indicated as such. Detection occurs using any contextual
qualities including, but not limited to, the tone, the
channel/station/type of web site (e.g. a news channel), and/or type
of person (e.g. comedian).
[0095] In some embodiments, causation is analyzed and fact checked.
For example, if Z makes the statements, "A is Russian, Russia in
the past was communist, therefore A is a communist," an indication
that the causation is weak is presented. Weights of causation are
able to be indicated including, but not limited to, weak causation,
strong causation or a number rating including, but not limited to,
1 through 10. In some embodiments, causation is able to be analyzed
by determining links between items, and the greater the number of
links and/or the severity of the links, the greater the causation.
Where causation is difficult to analyze and/or establish, an alert
questioning causation is indicated. For example, if a commentator
makes the statement that prices of goods went up in the under
President Z, if there is insufficient data to indicate that the
prices went up because of actions President Z took, an indication
of "questionable causation" is able to be presented. In some
embodiments, causation (or lack thereof) is determined by logical
flaws or incorrectness. For example, if a commentator makes the
claim that President Z harmed businesses by lowering taxes, an
indication of "poor causation" is able to be made since it is
logically inconsistent for lowering taxes to harm businesses. In
some embodiments, sources supporting and/or contradicting the
information are displayed. In some embodiments, a list or another
description is displayed indicating other possible causes for the
result. For example, if a commentator says the economy is in
trouble because of the President, a list of other possible causes
could be displayed such as Congress, a credit collapse, and others,
including percentages next to each indicating percentages based on
previous polling.
[0096] In some embodiments, when the data verification or fact
checking occurs, one or more dedicated sources are used. In some
embodiments, one or more non-dedicated sources are used. In some
embodiments, a combination of dedicated and non-dedicated sources
is used. In some embodiments, the reliability of the data
verification depends on the number of sources used. For example, if
a story has 5 independent sources that verify the story, then that
would be considered and denoted more reliable than a story with 1
source. The reliability of the sources is also able to affect the
reliability of the story. For example, although 5 sources verify a
story, if the sources are all poorly rated sources in terms of
reliability, then that story may be considered less reliable than a
story that has 1 very reliable source. In some embodiments, an
implementation is used to determine if the same story/article is
used more than once as a source. For example, if there is only one
source for an article but the same story is posted on ten different
websites, in some embodiments, that repetition is recognized and
only counts as one verification source.
[0097] In some embodiments, a user performs a check of the
automatic fact check results.
[0098] In some embodiments, checks are performed to ensure sources
or source data are not stale, or that stale sources or source data
are not used when fact checking. For example, if the statement, "X
is running for President" is made regarding the 2016 election, and
several sources have data that show X ran for President in 2000,
that data is ignored since it does not prove that X is running in
the 2016 election. Checking for stale sources and source data is
able to be done by comparing a creation date of the data or other
characteristics or landmarks of the sources or data or any other
manner.
[0099] In some embodiments, via social networking, contacts'
sources' search results or other related information is used when
performing a user's search. For example, a user fact checks the
"Tiger is the best golfer," and a contact (e.g. friend) had already
done this fact check. The results from that fact check are given to
this user. This is able to improve search speed and accuracy.
Indicating Status
[0100] After fact checking is performed, an indication or alert is
used to indicate/inform/alert a user of a status of the information
including, but not limited to, correct/true/valid or
incorrect/false/invalid. In addition to correct and incorrect,
other gray area indicators are possible including, but not limited
to, "unknown," "depending on the circumstances" or "close to the
truth." Additionally, any other status indicators are possible. The
indicators are able to be any indicators including, but not limited
to, lights, sounds, highlighting, text, a text bubble, a scrolling
text, color gradient, headnotes/footnotes, an iconic or graphical
representation (e.g. a meter, Pinocchio's nose or thumbs up/down),
a video or video clip, music, other visual or audio indicators, a
projection, a hologram, a tactile indicator including, but not
limited to, vibrations, an olfactory indicator, a Tweet, an email,
a page, a phone call, or any combination thereof. For example, text
is able to be highlighted or the text color is able to change based
on the validity of the text. For example, as a user types, the true
statements are displayed in green, the questionable statements are
displayed in yellow and the false statements are displayed in red.
Similarly, when a commentator speaks on a television program, true
statements are displayed in a first color and false statements are
displayed in a second color. Additional colors or shades of color
or brightness of colors are able to be used to indicate other items
including, but not limited to, hyperbole, opinions, and other
items. In some embodiments, sources to the verification data are
provided (e.g. using hyperlinks or citations). In some embodiments,
the text itself includes a hyperlink. The source enables the user
to verify the statement himself, for example, by reviewing an
original source for an article. In some embodiments, a phrase
itself is not affected or labeled, but additional information is
provided in close proximity. For example, if a politician on a talk
show says, "the President raised the deficit by $1T this year," the
fact checking system presents data showing the deficit from last
year and this year, so that users are able to compare what the
politician said and what an independent source said. In some
embodiments, indicating includes transmitting and/or broadcasting
the indication to one or more devices (e.g. televisions).
[0101] In some embodiments, the fact checking system is implemented
such that responses, validity determinations and/or indications are
available in real-time or near real-time. By real-time, it is meant
instantaneously, for example, such that when a politician makes a
comment on a political show, within a second or a few seconds, the
comment is fact checked, and an indication of the validity of the
comment is presented. Furthermore, since the monitoring,
processing, fact checking and indicating are all able to be
performed automatically without user intervention, real-time also
means faster than having a human perform the search and presenting
results. Depending on the implementation, in some embodiments, the
indication is presented in at most 1 second, at most several
seconds (e.g. at most 5 seconds), at most a minute, at most several
minutes or by the end of a show. In some embodiments, the time
amount (e.g. at most 1 second) begins once a user pauses in typing,
once a phrase has been communicated, once a phrase has been
determined, at the end of a sentence, once an item is flagged, or
another point in a sequence. For example, a commentator makes the
comment, "Z is running for President." As soon as that phrase is
detected, the fact checker checks the fact, returns a result and
displays an indication based on the result in less than 1
second--clearly much faster than a human performing a search,
analyzing the search results and then typing a result to be
displayed on a screen.
[0102] FIG. 1 illustrates a flowchart of a method of implementing
fact checking according to some embodiments of the present
invention.
[0103] In the step 100, information is monitored. In some
embodiments, all information is monitored; in some embodiments,
only some information is monitored; or in some embodiments, only
explicitly selected information is monitored. In some embodiments,
although all information is monitored, only some information (e.g.
information deemed to be fact-based) is utilized for the fact check
analysis. Monitoring is able to be implemented in any manner
including, but not limited to, storing or recording the
information, transmitting the information, and any other method of
monitoring. The information to be monitored is any information
including, but not limited to, television audio, video or text,
other text, radio, television broadcasts/shows, radio broadcasts,
word processing data and/or documents, email, Twitter (tweets),
message boards, web pages including, but not limited to,
Facebook.RTM. postings and web logs, any computing device
communication, telephone calls, face-to-face conversations, VoIP
calls (e.g. Skype.TM.), video conferencing, live speech and any
other information. In some embodiments, monitoring includes, but is
not limited to, observing, tracking, collecting, scanning,
following, surveying and/or overseeing.
[0104] In the step 102, the information is processed. In some
embodiments, processing includes converting the information into a
searchable format. During or after the information is monitored,
the information is converted into a searchable format. Processing
is able to include many aspects including, but not limited to,
converting audio into text, formatting, parsing data, determining
context and/or any other aspect that enables the information to be
fact checked. Parsing, for example, includes separating a long
speech into separate phrases that are each separately fact checked.
For example, a speech may include 100 different facts that should
be separately fact checked. In some embodiments, the step 102 is
able to be skipped if processing is not necessary (e.g. text in
word processor may not need to be processed).
[0105] In a more specific example of processing, broadcast
information is converted into searchable information (e.g. audio is
converted into searchable text), and then the searchable
information is parsed into fact checkable portions (e.g. segments
of the searchable text; several word phrases). Parsing is able to
be implemented in any manner including, but not limited to, based
on sentence structure (e.g. subject/verb determination), based on
punctuation including, but not limited to, end punctuation of each
sentence (e.g. period, question mark, exclamation point), based on
search results and/or any other manner. In some embodiments,
processing includes, but is not limited to, calculating, computing,
storing, recognition, speaker recognition, language (word, phrase,
sentence, other) recognition, labeling, and/or characterizing.
[0106] In the step 104, the information is fact checked. Fact
checking includes comparing the information to one or more sources
of information to determine the validity, accuracy, quality,
character and/or type of the information. In some embodiments, the
comparison is a straight word for word text comparison. In some
embodiments, the comparison is a context comparison. In some
embodiments, an intelligent comparison is implemented to perform
the fact check. Any method of analyzing the source information
and/or comparing the information to the source information to
analyze and/or characterizing the information is able to be
implemented. An example implementation of fact checking includes
searching (e.g. a search engine's search), parsing the results or
searching through the results of the search, comparing the results
with the information to be checked using one or more of the
comparisons (e.g. straight text, context or intelligent) and
retrieving results based on the comparison. The results are able to
be any type including, but not limited to, binary, Boolean
(True/False), text, numerical or any other format. In some
embodiments, determining context and/or other aspects of converting
could be implemented in the step 104. In some embodiments, the
sources are rated and/or weighted. Although the phrase "fact
checking" is used, any sort of information analysis is to be
understood (e.g. determining a phrase is sarcasm).
[0107] In the step 106, a status of the information is indicated.
The status is indicated in any manner including, but not limited
to, transmitting and/or displaying text, highlighting, underlining,
color effects, a visual or audible alert or alarm, a graphical
representation, and/or any other indication. The meaning of the
status is able to be any meaning including, but not limited to,
correct, incorrect, valid, true, false, invalid, opinion,
hyperbole, sarcasm, hypocritical, comedy, unknown, questionable,
suspicious, need more information, deceptive, and/or any other
status. The status is also able to include other information
including, but not limited to, statistics, citations and/or quotes.
Indicating the status of the information is also able to include
providing additional information related to the fact checked
information. In some embodiments, indicating includes pointing out,
showing, displaying, recommending, playing, presenting, announcing,
arguing, convincing, signaling, asserting, persuading,
demonstrating, denoting, expressing, hinting, illustrating,
implying, tagging, labeling, characterizing, and/or revealing.
[0108] In some embodiments, fewer or more steps are implemented.
Furthermore, in some embodiments, the order of the steps is
modified. In some embodiments, the steps are performed on the same
device, and in some embodiments, one or more of the steps, or parts
of the steps, are separately performed and/or performed on separate
devices.
EXAMPLE 1
[0109] A news channel broadcasts a show with political commentary.
The show allows a host and guests to discuss various political
issues. As the host and guests make comments, their comments are
monitored, converted from speech to text and automatically fact
checked using online data sources. Based on the results of the fact
check, a status of the comments is shown. For example, if the
guests respond with factually accurate statements, no alert is
displayed. However, when a guest or host makes an untrue statement,
an alert is displayed at the bottom of the screen including a quote
of the incorrect statement and a correction to the statement. If a
guest "spins" a comment, the fact checker is able to determine
"spin" and indicate "spin" for the comment and provide data that
explains why it is spin. This ensures the guests provide valid data
and arguments, as well as maintains the integrity of the show.
EXAMPLE 2
[0110] A user is typing a report using a word processor. As the
user is typing, the word processor monitors the information being
input. Depending on the format of the information, the information
may not need to be converted. The information, such as segments of
the report, is fact checked. For example, a user is typing a report
on the history of New Jersey and types, "Newark is the capital of
New Jersey." The fact checker would compare this segment with an
online source such as Wikipedia.org and determine that Trenton is
the capital of New Jersey. As a result, the word processor would
strikethrough "Newark" and next to it, insert Trenton, underlined.
Any other means of indicating that the information is wrong is able
to be used. In some embodiments, supplemental information and/or
citation information is provided. For example, regarding the
capital city, information such as Trenton became the capital in
1790, and the state flower is the Common Violet. In some
embodiments, the fact checker is used as a citation finder. For
example, if a user types in a statement, regardless of whether it
is correct, the user is able to select the text and click "cite
finder" where the fact checker provides sources that verify the
statement. The "cite finder" is not limited to word processing
applications and is able to be applied in any implementation.
EXAMPLE 3
[0111] A user posting information to his Facebook.RTM. page types
commentary regarding his favorite golfer, and says, "I can't
believe Tiger came in eighth this week." Using additional data such
as knowing when the commentary was written and that the user is an
avid golf fan, after monitoring this information, converting the
information including adding the context of Tiger Woods (the famous
golfer), at the Masters, in 2011, the fact checker is then able to
compare this information with the results of that specific
tournament for that specific golfer. Then, a blurb with a citation
is able to be posted on the user's Facebook.RTM. page to indicate
that Tiger actually finished fourth, or the user is informed so
that he is able to correct the page himself.
EXAMPLE 4
[0112] A user searches using a search engine by inputting "Alaska
is the largest state." The search engine provides a response of
True and also displays one or more links to the sources that
support the result. In another example using the search engine, a
user searches using the phrase, "Magic Johnson is taller than
Michael Jordan." The search engine determines that Magic Johnson is
6' 9'' and Michael Jordan is 6' 6'' and then compares the heights
with a mathematical operator to provide the result of True. In some
embodiments, the heights of each are displayed, and in some
embodiments, one or more cites providing the information used in
the comparison are displayed.
[0113] FIG. 2 illustrates a block diagram of various
implementations of fact checking according to some embodiments. As
described herein, some specific implementations are shown
including, but not limited to, a word processing component 200 for
incorporation with a word processing application, an advertising
component 202 for advertising, an entity validity rating component
204 for rating entities, a source rating component 206 for rating
sources, a flagging component 208 for flagging items, a
voice/facial/biometric recognition component 210 for recognizing
entities, a self-checking component 212 for checking a user, a
learning component 214 for learning, an auto-correction component
216 for implementing auto-correction, a search engine component 218
for implementing a search engine fact checker, an audio/video/text
component 220 for fact checking audio, video, text and any other
information, a translator component 222 for translation-fact
checking, a text component 224 for fact checking an email, instant
message, text messages, tweets or other text communications, an
item determination component 226 for determining an item, a media
analysis component 228 for analyzing media including but not
limited to, television and radio, a re-broadcast component 230 for
applying fact checking analysis to re-broadcasted information, a
supplemental information component 232 for providing supplemental
information to content, an action component 234 for taking an
action against an entity based on the fact checking, an opposing
arguments component 236 for providing opposing arguments to
content, a parallel component 238 for implementing parallel
monitoring, processing, fact checking and/or indicating, an
importance rating component 240 for determining the importance of
content, and a medical fact checker component 242 for fact checking
medical information. The various implementations shown are not
meant to be limiting in any way and are merely examples of some of
the possible implementations.
[0114] FIG. 3 illustrates exemplary screenshots of various
implementations of fact checking according to some embodiments.
[0115] Screenshot 300 shows a word processing display where a user
typed a statement, the statement has been fact checked, and a
notification appears with a suggestion to correct the incorrect
statement. Although a bubble with the correction is shown, any form
of indicating an error and/or correction is possible including, but
not limited to, underlining, strikethrough, highlighting, an icon,
and/or an audible alert. When there are multiple ways of correcting
a statement, a user is able to be given options as described
herein.
[0116] Screenshot 302 shows a television screen where a commentator
is making statements. Since the commentator made a false statement,
text is displayed at the bottom of the screen indicating the
statement is false and providing a correction of the false
statement.
[0117] Screenshot 304 shows multiple forms of rating speakers on a
television broadcast. Statistics for the guest speaker in the
window are shown below the window indicating the number of true
statements he has made and the number of false statements he has
made. A rating is displayed under the host of +10 which, for
example, is a positive rating of +10 on a -10 to +10 truthfulness
scale. These ratings enable users to determine how trustworthy the
speaker is based on past results.
[0118] Screenshot 306 shows a smart phone which monitored a user's
comments and informed him that he misspoke by saying the U.S. has
51 states.
[0119] Screenshot 308 shows a search engine search and result. In
the example, the user searches for the fact, "Texas is the largest
state." The result presented is "False," a correction is shown, and
citations (links) of supporting websites or other sources are
shown. In another the example, the user searches for the fact,
"Alaska is the largest state." The result presented is "True" and
citations (links) of supporting websites or other sources are
shown. The displayed results are able to vary from simple (e.g.
merely presenting True or False) to more detailed (e.g. presenting
True or False, providing a correction if false, providing specific
information, and providing citations).
[0120] The various implementations illustrated in FIG. 3 are not
meant to be limiting in any way and are merely examples of some of
the possible implementations.
[0121] FIG. 4 illustrates a block diagram of an exemplary computing
device 400 configured to implement the fact checking method
according to some embodiments. The computing device 400 is able to
be used to acquire, store, compute, process, communicate and/or
display information including, but not limited to, text, images,
videos and audio. In some examples, the computing device 400 is
able to be used to monitor information, process the information,
fact check the information and/or indicate a status of the
information. In general, a hardware structure suitable for
implementing the computing device 400 includes a network interface
402, a memory 404, a processor 406, I/O device(s) 408, a bus 410
and a storage device 412. The choice of processor is not critical
as long as a suitable processor with sufficient speed is chosen.
The memory 404 is able to be any conventional computer memory known
in the art. The storage device 412 is able to include a hard drive,
CDROM, CDRW, DVD, DVDRW, flash memory card, solid state drive or
any other storage device. The computing device 400 is able to
include one or more network interfaces 402. An example of a network
interface includes a network card connected to an Ethernet or other
type of LAN. The I/O device(s) 408 are able to include one or more
of the following: keyboard, mouse, monitor, display, printer,
modem, touchscreen, touchpad, speaker/microphone, voice input
device, button interface, hand-waving, body-motion capture,
touchless 3D input, joystick, remote control, brain-computer
interface/direct neural interface/brain-machine interface, and
other devices. In some embodiments, the hardware structure includes
multiple processors and other hardware to perform parallel
processing. Fact checking application(s) 430 used to perform the
monitoring, converting, fact checking and indicating are likely to
be stored in the storage device 412 and memory 404 and processed as
applications are typically processed. More or less components shown
in FIG. 4 are able to be included in the computing device 400. In
some embodiments, fact checking hardware 420 is included. Although
the computing device 400 in FIG. 4 includes applications 430 and
hardware 420 for implementing the fact checking, the fact checking
method is able to be implemented on a computing device in hardware,
firmware, software or any combination thereof. For example, in some
embodiments, the fact checking applications 430 are programmed in a
memory and executed using a processor. In another example, in some
embodiments, the fact checking hardware 420 is programmed hardware
logic including gates specifically designed to implement the
method.
[0122] In some embodiments, the fact checking application(s) 430
include several applications and/or modules. Modules include a
monitoring module for monitoring information, a processing module
for processing (e.g. converting) information, a fact checking
module for fact checking information and an indication module for
indicating a status of the information. In some embodiments,
modules include one or more sub-modules as well. In some
embodiments, fewer or additional modules are able to be included.
In some embodiments, the applications and/or the modules are
located on different devices. For example, a device performs
monitoring, converting and fact checking but the indicating is
performed on a different device, or in another example, the
monitoring and converting occurs on a first device, the fact
checking occurs on a second device and the indicating occurs on a
third device. Any configuration of where the applications/modules
are located is able to be implemented such that the fact checking
system is executed.
[0123] Examples of suitable computing devices include, but are not
limited to a personal computer, a laptop computer, a computer
workstation, a server, a mainframe computer, a handheld computer, a
personal digital assistant, a pager, a telephone, a fax machine, a
cellular/mobile telephone, a smart appliance, a gaming console, a
digital camera, a digital camcorder, a camera phone, a smart
phone/device (e.g. a Droid.RTM. or an iPhone.RTM.), an iPod.RTM., a
tablet (e.g. an iPad.RTM.), a video player, an e-reader (e.g.
Kindle.TM.), a DVD writer/player, a Blu-ray.RTM. writer/player, a
television, a copy machine, a scanner, a car stereo, a stereo, a
satellite, a DVR (e.g. TiVo.RTM.), a home entertainment system or
any other suitable computing device.
[0124] FIG. 5 illustrates a network of devices configured to
implement fact checking according to some embodiments. The network
of devices 500 is able to include any number of devices and any
various devices including, but not limited to, a computing device
(e.g. a tablet) 502, a television 504, a smart device 506 (e.g. a
smart phone) and a source 508 (e.g. a database) coupled through a
network 510 (e.g. the Internet). The source device 508 is able to
be any device containing a source including, but not limited to, a
searchable database, web pages, transcripts, statistics, historical
information, or any other information or device that provides
information. The network 510 is able to any network or networks
including, but not limited to, the Internet, an intranet, a
LAN/WAN/MAN, wireless, wired, Ethernet, satellite, a combination of
networks, or any other implementation of communicating. The devices
are able to communicate with each other through the network 510 or
directly to each other. One or more of the devices is able to be an
end user, a media organization, a company and/or another entity. In
some embodiments, peer-to-peer sourcing is implemented. For
example, the source of the data to be compared with is not on a
localized source but is found on peer sources.
[0125] For example, a news company uses its computers to monitor
and process information presented on its broadcast. The processed
information is then fact checked with one or more sources (on site
and/or external), and then the results are presented to the user's
home device such as a television. The monitoring, processing, fact
checking and presenting are all able to occur locally at the news
company, externally by another entity, or parts occur locally and
parts occur externally. In a modified example, the results are sent
to and presented to a user on her computer, smart phone or tablet
while she is watching television.
[0126] In another example, when a user is watching television, the
user's smart phone monitors and processes information from the
television and sends the information to be fact checked, and then
the results are presented on the user's smart phone.
[0127] In another example, when a user is watching television, the
user's computing device monitors and processes information from the
television and sends the information to be fact checked, and then
the results are presented on the user's computing device.
[0128] In another example, when a user is watching television, the
user's smart phone monitors and processes information from the
television and sends the information to be fact checked, and then
the results are sent from the user's smart phone to the television
to be presented.
[0129] Any combination of devices performing the fact checking
system is possible.
Implementations
Advertising
[0130] In some embodiments, advertising is incorporated with the
fact checking system. For example, a fact checking result includes,
"This fact check is brought to you by: Company X." In some
embodiments, the advertising is related to the item being checked
or the result of the fact check. For example, if the fact to be
checked is "California is the most populated state," an
advertisement about California is presented. In some embodiments,
the advertising is based on other information instead of or in
addition to the fact to be checked including, but not limited to, a
user's age, sex, location, occupation, industry of the fact,
location of a subject, or any other information. In some
embodiments, personal networking information is used including, but
not limited to, Facebook.RTM. information. In some embodiments,
coupons are presented with the fact checking. For example, if a
fact to be checked is whether "Ice Cream Z is gluten-free," a
coupon for Brand Z ice cream is presented to the user. Another
example is pay per click or click-through money-making. Any other
implementation of making money using the fact checking system is
able to be implemented. FIG. 6 illustrates exemplary
implementations including an advertisement 600. Additional
advertising implementations are described herein, for example, in
the Supplemental Information section.
Entity Validity Rating and Recognition
[0131] In some embodiments, an entity including, but not limited
to, a speaker, author or another entity (e.g. corporation) has a
validity rating that is included with the distribution of
information from him/it (for example, see FIG. 3, screenshot 304).
For example, if a politician has been found to have misstated the
truth, an indication of such is able to be displayed when he
appears on a television program. In another example, when a
commentator appears, statistics of how many factually accurate
statements have been made by him and/or factually inaccurate
statements have been made by him are presented during the show. In
some embodiments, parameters related to the statistics are able to
be selected (e.g. specific to a show or a time period). In some
embodiments, a running tally is presented throughout the show. The
indication is able to include any information including, but not
limited to, statistics, highlighting, the other indications
described herein and/or any indication to further inform the
audience of his trustworthiness. In the example further, text
appears on the television screen, such as at the bottom, which
states, Senator A has misstated the truth 10 times, but has been
truthful 20 times. The severity of the misstatement is also able to
be factored in when rating a person or entity. For example, stating
that something occurs 90% of the time but in reality it occurs 89%
of the time is a minor and possible ignorable mistake. However,
stating something occurs 90% of the time when it occurs 20% of the
time is not likely a rounding error or a slip of the tongue.
Additionally, the subject of the mistake is also able to be taken
into account in terms of severity. For example, if a person makes
an untrue statement about the country of origin of baseball, that
is a minor mistake, whereas making an untrue statement about tax
information is a major mistake, and the major mistake is weighted
more than the minor mistake. In some embodiments, an independent
agency determines what is major and what is minor. In some
embodiments, individual users are able to indicate what is
important to them and what is not. In some embodiments, another
implementation of determining what is major, minor and in between
is implemented. The context of the situation/statement is also able
to be taken into account. In some embodiments, entities are able to
fix their validity rating if they apologize for or correct a
mistake, although measures are able to be taken to prevent abuses
of apologies. Another specific form of indication includes
gradients of coloring such that a truthful person is highlighted
with a border in bright green, and the green becomes less bright as
the truthfulness of the person decreases and becomes red when they
are viewed as less than truthful, ultimately reaching bright red
when considered completely untruthful. Any combination of colors is
able to be used, or any other indication described herein is able
to be used. In some embodiments, in addition to or instead of a
validity rating, an entity is able to include another rating,
including, but not limited to, a comedic rating or a political
rating. In some embodiments, an entity includes a classification
including, but not limited to, political, comedy or opinion.
Examples of information or statistics presented when an entity
appears include, but are not limited to the number of lies,
misstatements, truthful statements, hypocritical statements or
actions, questionable statements, spin, or any other
characterizations. In some embodiments, the information or
statistics are available through a link, mouse-over,
picture-in-picture or other implementation. In some embodiments,
specifics of the statements are able to be viewed; for example, by
clicking on "hypocritical statements," a list of the hypocritical
statements is presented to the user. In some embodiments, both the
hypocritical statement and the source statement are shown. In some
embodiments, the source for one or both of the statements is shown.
Additional statistical information is available too, including, but
not limited to, the severity of the statement (e.g. egregious lie
versus minor mistake). In some embodiments, users are able to
specify an amount of statements shown: by number of statements, by
time period of statements (e.g. last 6 months) or by any other
implementation. For example, Person X's last 5 hypocritical
statements (out of 30) are shown. In some embodiments, dates or
time frames are used in determining the relevance of fact check
comparison. For example, if a hypocritical statement was made 30
years ago, the fact checker may realize that it was more likely a
change of view rather than a hypocritical statement; whereas, a
contradictory statement made 2 weeks ago is likely due to hypocrisy
not a change of view. In some embodiments, friends, family members,
co-workers, users and others have validity ratings.
[0132] In some embodiments, the entity rating is implemented using
a database or other data structure. For example, the database
includes a column or row with names and their corresponding entity
rating. In embodiments where additional information is stored,
additional column(s) include specific information such as
hypocritical statements, severity of the mistakes, and any other
information. The database is then used to look up the entity's
information for indicating the information.
[0133] In some embodiments, people/face recognition is implemented.
For example, a politician is on a talk show, and the face
recognition identifies the politician. Once recognized, information
about the politician is displayed including, but not limited to,
the validity rating described herein, statistics, and/or other
information. In some embodiments, the information posted includes
quotes of most outrageous things said, most truthful things said,
or other specific quotes. Similarly, other recognition is able to
be implemented including, but not limited to, voice recognition or
biometric recognition. For example, a mobile application recognizes
who is talking by voice recognition and posts a validity rating
and/or other information on the phone. In other examples, at a
dinner party the mobile application is able to identify a person
who tells tall tales, or at a negotiation, the application is able
to indicate if the opposing side is honest. Voice recognition is
also able to identify someone on a television show or radio show.
In some embodiments, users' online/screen/usernames are identified.
In some embodiments, a person's identity is input by a user, and
then information is displayed about that person. FIG. 6 illustrates
exemplary implementations including facial/people recognition
602.
[0134] In some embodiments, when an entity is displayed (e.g. on a
device screen), the entity's positions on topics are displayed. For
example, political positions are displayed (e.g. pro-life,
pro-choice, anti-tax, others). The positions are able to be
regarding a lighter material than political positions such as
personal preferences regarding foods, entertainment and any other
information. In some embodiments, different magnitudes regarding
the positions are able to be displayed. For example, if someone is
a fervent anti-war activist, the person's fervor is indicated. In
some embodiments, evidence is provided showing the entity's
position. For example, a voting record is shown to indicate that
the person may be saying she is against raising taxes, but voted 10
times to raise taxes while in Congress. FIG. 6 illustrates
exemplary implementations including entity information 604.
Flagging
[0135] In some embodiments, users are able to flag statements. FIG.
6 illustrates exemplary implementations including flagging
information 606, where highlighting text is shown. Users are able
to flag the statements using Twitter, polling, text messaging (e.g.
SMS or MMS), audio texts, video texts, phone, voice, selecting
(e.g. with a mouse, keyboard, remote control, hand-waving,
body-motion capture, touchless 3D input or joystick), highlighting,
copying, or any other implementation of flagging a statement. In
some embodiments, a flagged statement is then highlighted or
another effect is applied. Flagging is also able to include a
"thumbs up"/"thumbs down" or "happy face"/"frown" representation,
for example, users who feel the statement is valid would give a
"thumbs up." Although the word "flag" is used, the strict
definition is not implied. Any form of highlighting, pointing out,
commenting on, selecting, or linking to is able to be implemented.
Comments are able to be flagged as valid/true, invalid/untrue,
questionable, unverifiable, depending (on context) or using a scale
including, but not limited to, 1-10, where 1 is blatantly false and
10 is definitely true. Comments are also able to be flagged as
spin, comedy, sarcasm, hyperbole, hypocritical and/or any other
characterization. Comments are able to be flagged to force them to
be fact checked (e.g. manually forced fact checking). Additionally,
comments are able to include support for the flag, including, but
not limited to, a citation supporting or proving the user's
position. In some embodiments, the users who flag statements are
rated. For example, the users are rated by comparing their flagging
with results of a fact check. In some embodiments, if a user is
wrong often, then his flag is not used. In some embodiments, if a
user's rating is or falls below a threshold, the user is ignored.
In some embodiments, separate classes of users are implemented for
flagging, including, but not limited to, media, viewer, and
professional. In some embodiments, if a user is correct often, his
flag is used and is able to have a stronger value. In some
embodiments, a weighting scheme is used such that a value of a
user's flag is proportional to the correctness of previous flags.
For example, if User A flags 100 items as wrong, and after a fact
check, the user is found to have wrongly flagged 95 items, that
user's future flags will have little weight or will possibly be
ignored; whereas, if User B flags 100 items as wrong, and after a
fact check, the user is found to have correctly flagged 95 items,
that user's future flags will have weight and possibly additional
weight compared to others. In some embodiments, a competition is
implemented using flagging where users are asked to assess the
validity of statements, and the user who is correct the most often
wins the competition. Any other competitions involved with fact
checking are possible as well.
Structure, Execution and Sources
[0136] In some embodiments, a site is specifically designed (e.g.
formatted) for data verification or fact analysis. For example,
common quotes and/or data are appropriately formatted to be
compared with other text, speech or any other communication. In an
example, speech checking occurs such that if a commentator says,
"Person A said X, Y and Z," a digital version of the transcript
would be located and compared to determine if Person A actually
said X, Y and Z.
[0137] In some embodiments, the fact checking system has the
ability to learn. The learning is able to be in terms of context,
detecting items like sarcasm, cheating or manipulation of data
sources and other items that would help the fact checking process.
In some embodiments, a database is used to track people's comment
habits or history and other information. For example, if Person X
is known for using hyperbole, the fact checking system is able to
recognize that and then provide future indications using such
knowledge. In some embodiments, new sources are able to be found
using learning. For example, a crawler, data miner, bot, and/or
other implementation is able to search for and utilize additional
sources of information for fact checking. Learning is also able to
include analyzing archived data of sources to determine the
reliability of the sources. In some embodiments, if a
characterization or other item has not been learned, an expandable
list of options is presented to a user for the user to select an
option.
[0138] In some embodiments, an auto-correction feature is
implemented. For example, if text is being monitored, when a
factual statement is inaccurate, the text is automatically changed.
In some embodiments, the user is asked if they want to correct the
statement. In some embodiments, the flawed text is merely indicated
including, but not limited to, underlined, highlighted or change in
font/color. In some embodiments, in video, the auto-correction
feature automatically posts text on the video with the
correction.
[0139] In some embodiments, specific phrases known to be true or
false are added to a database and/or a website, so that the fact
checking system is able to indicate the correctness of the phrase.
For example, if one news organization is known for misquoting
someone and continuing to use the misquote instead of the correct
quote, that is able to be determined, and the quote is indicated as
incorrect. In some embodiments, the correct quote is displayed or
is accessible (e.g. through a hyperlink).
[0140] In some embodiments, determining which phrases to be fact
checked is performed automatically (e.g. by a computing device). In
some embodiments, determining which phrases to be fact checked is
performed manually. For example, while a television broadcast is
occurring, one or more individuals select segments of the broadcast
to be fact checked. As a further example, if a person says, "we
need to do something about taxes, unemployment is at 10%," the
first part of that sentence probably does not need to be fact
checked or is labeled an opinion, but "unemployment is at 10%" is
an easily verifiable fact. In some embodiments, manual and
automatic fact checking are implemented together. For example, a
user selects a sentence to be fact checked out of a paragraph, but
a device automatically parses the sentence for separate phrases to
be fact checked.
[0141] In some embodiments, information is checked for being stale
or outdated. For example, if a news organization runs a story that
occurred many months ago but presents the story as occurring
recently, the fact checking system is able to alert the user by
presenting a date of when the story initially occurred. Determining
if the information is stale is able to be performed in any manner
including, but not limited to, a date comparison. In some
embodiments, fact checking is updated as information changes. For
example, saying X is running for President may be labeled as
"uncertain" at one point, but then when X officially declares that
he is running, the label is changed to "true."
[0142] In some embodiments, the source of the information to be
checked and/or the organization presenting the information to be
checked are related to and/or are working in cooperation with the
fact checking system. For example, a news organization implements
its own fact checking system to present results to viewers. In some
embodiments, the source of the information to be checked and/or the
organization presenting the information to be checked are unrelated
to and/or are not working in cooperation with the fact checking
system. For example, a company independent from the news
organization implements the fact checking system on a user's mobile
device so that when the mobile device receives information from the
news organization, the mobile device performs the fact
checking.
[0143] In some embodiments, caching is implemented to speed up the
fact checking process. Caching is able to be implemented in any
manner. In an example, if Commentator X is known to spread the same
lie, that specific lie is not re-checked; rather, when that lie is
made, an indication that the statement is a lie is presented based
on cached analysis of the statement. In some embodiments, cached
data is re-checked periodically to ensure the data does not become
stale. In some embodiments, the re-checking occurs in the
background to avoid interruption of any other processing.
[0144] Any search algorithm, sorting algorithm, data structure
and/or other data organizational or analysis scheme is able to be
used to implement the fact checking system and any other systems
described herein. For example, advanced search algorithms, advanced
search text algorithms, indexing and searching by indices,
including combinations of search implementations, are able to be
used. Data structures including, but not limited to, arrays,
queues, maps, buffers, tables, matrices, lists, trees, heaps,
graphs, classes and subclasses, databases, and other structures,
including combinations of data structures are able to be used. The
search, sorting, data structure and/or other data organizational or
analysis scheme is able to be used in any aspect of the fact
checking system including, but not limited to, locating sources,
organizing sources, comparing information with source information,
searching within sources, storing sources and any other aspect. In
another example, a data structure is used for implementing the fact
checker and/or providing supplemental information by storing
relationships and/or related items, including, but not limited to,
arguments/opposing arguments, misquotes/correct quotes,
brands/competitors, and/or any other items.
[0145] In some embodiments, pattern recognition of recognizing a
pattern is implemented in any aspect of the fact checking system.
For example, the pattern recognition is implemented in monitoring
information. In another example, the pattern recognition is
implemented in processing the information. In another example,
pattern recognition is implemented in fact checking including, but
not limited to, locating sources, organizing sources, comparing
information with source information, searching within sources,
storing sources and any other aspect.
[0146] In some embodiments, a queue or other structure is
implemented to store facts or other items to be checked when a
connection is not available.
[0147] In some embodiments, sources are rated based on popularity
or "trending." For example, if Site X has 1,000,000 individual hits
per day, and Site Z has 50 individual hits per day, Site X has a
higher popularity. Popularity is able to be established using any
method including, but not limited to, total hits per time frame,
unique hits per time frame, quantity of links to the source,
quality of linking items to the source, duration of existence of
the source, any other method and/or any combination thereof. Any of
the sorting, filtering and applying of thresholds described
regarding reliability ratings and sources is able to be applied to
popularity and sources. For example, the fact checker is able to be
limited to sources with a popularity above a specified threshold.
In some embodiments, both popularity and reliability are
implemented in determining which sources to use. In some
embodiments, other reliability determinations are used with the
popularity rating to determine the reliability of a source.
[0148] In some embodiments, the sources are ordered by reliability
(for example, as shown in FIG. 7), and when information is fact
checked, the process of fact checking starts the search with the
most reliable source and continues to less reliable sources. In
some embodiments, a structure such as a tree, list or any other
structure includes pointers to the sources ordered by reliability.
In some embodiments, the order is descending order from most
reliable to least reliable. In some embodiments, the order is
ascending order from least reliable to most reliable. In some
embodiments, the order is configurable. In some embodiments, a fact
checking search stops after N (e.g. N=2) sources verify the
fact.
[0149] A short version of an exemplary list of sources ordered by
reliability includes:
[0150] 1. a link to the Random House Dictionary website with a
reliability rating of 100% reliability,
[0151] 2. a link to the Britannica Online Encyclopedia website with
a reliability rating of 100% reliability,
[0152] 3. a link to the XYZ News website, with a 90% reliability,
and
[0153] 4. a link to Bob's made-up-opinion-on-all-things website,
with a 1% reliability.
[0154] In some embodiments, multilevel fact checking is
implemented. For example, a phrase is fact checked, but before the
fact check is completed, the source is fact checked to determine if
the source is reliable. The multilevel fact checking is able to
continue until a reliable source is found, and then the fact check
of the phrase is completed with the reliable source.
[0155] In some embodiments, sources are classified as
fact/objective and opinion/subjective. For example, a data
structure such as a tree is implemented with objective sources on
one side of the tree and subjective sources on the other side of
the tree. In another example, as one goes left to right at the
bottom of the tree, the sources go from most objective to most
subjective. The sources are able to be classified by determining
what the majority of their content is, by being classified by a
user, by including a classification tag, or any other method.
[0156] In some embodiments, a determination of whether information
is taken out of context is made. The determination is made by
comparing the audio, video, text and/or other content used with the
original or full version. For example, if a news organization shows
a clip (e.g. portion of a video), the entire video is made
available to a user for a period of time before and/or after of the
clip is shown. For example, 30 seconds of the video before the clip
started is shown.
[0157] In some embodiments, the data verification or fact checking
occurs on a remote server including, but not limited to, a central
server. The results are able to be cached and/or sent to users'
local machines. In some embodiments, the data verification or fact
checking occurs at a user's local machine. In some embodiments, the
data verification or fact checking occurs using cloud
computing.
[0158] The fact checking system is able to be implemented on a
separate device that couples or communicates with a television; as
part of a television, radio or Internet broadcast or any other
broadcast; on a mobile device including, but not limited to, an
iPhone.RTM. or Droid.RTM.; on a computer; on a tablet including,
but not limited to, an iPad.RTM.; or any other device.
[0159] In some embodiments, the fact checking system is a
smartphone application including, but not limited to, an
iPhone.RTM., Droid.RTM. or Blackberry.RTM. application. In some
embodiments, a broadcaster performs the fact checking. In some
embodiments, a user's television performs the fact checking. In
some embodiments, a user's mobile device performs the fact checking
and causes (e.g. sends) the results to be displayed on the user's
television and/or another device. In some embodiments, the
television sends the fact checking result to a smart phone.
[0160] In some embodiments, parallel monitoring, processing, fact
checking and/or indicating is implemented. For example, two or more
implementations of a fact checker are used. In the example, the two
or more implementations are able to be on the same device or on
different devices. In a further example, each implementation is
different, and then the results of each are compared to determine a
"best" result and/or to provide several results. For example, one
implementation of a fact checker excludes certain sources, while
another fact checker uses all sources, and their results are able
to be different, and in some embodiments, the different results are
presented to a user and/or ratings are provided with the results
and/or other information is provided. In some embodiments,
monitoring and processing are implemented in parallel with fact
checking. For example, one device monitors and processes
information and a second device performs the fact checking while
the monitoring and processing occurs. In some embodiments,
pipelining is implemented. In some embodiments, distributed
processing is implemented. For example, multiple devices perform
fact checking (e.g. searching, comparing and returning results) and
return a composite result. In some embodiments, separate fact
checkers are implemented to fact check multiple data providers
(e.g. broadcasters, newspapers, websites and/or any other
communications/information). In some embodiments, the fact checking
multiple data providers occurs at the same time, and in some
embodiments, the fact checking occurs at different times. For
example, 3 fact checkers are implemented to fact check 3 major
cable news networks. In some embodiments, one fact checker is able
to fact check multiple data providers at the same time. When fact
checking multiple data providers, the information from each is able
to be shared, compared, and/or any other processing/analysis is
able to be performed. For example, if 5 out of 6 data providers
lead with Story A, but the 6th data provider leads with Story B, an
indication is able to be made that Story B is presenting different
information. In some embodiments, multiple fact checkers are used
to fact check different aspects of a show. For example, a first
fact checker is used to fact check historical information, a second
fact checker is used to fact check charts and graphics, and a third
fact checker is used to provide supplemental information.
Supplemental Information
[0161] FIG. 8 illustrates an example of providing supplemental
information based on information from a television 800 where the
supplemental information is displayed on a user's mobile device
802. In some embodiments, the fact checking system provides
clarifying comments or additional (or supplemental) information to
assist a user or viewer. For example, if a commentator makes a
general statement that the cost of a cleanup will cost X dollars,
the fact checking system is able to find specifics regarding the
cost and provide a detailed explanation of each component of the
total cost.
[0162] FIG. 9 illustrates a flowchart of a method of providing
additional or supplemental information according to some
embodiments. In the step 900, information is monitored. For
example, broadcast information (e.g. a television program or
advertisement) is monitored. In the step 902, the information is
processed. For example, the information is parsed. In the step 904,
additional or supplemental information is searched for and
returned. For example, a database is searched to find opposing
arguments to an argument, or supporting arguments are searched for
on web pages, or a competitor's advertisement is located in a
database, or any other supplemental information is found and
returned. The amount of information returned depends on the
implementation. For example, a link to a webpage could be returned,
a link to a video, the video itself, text, and/or any other
information is returned. In the step 906, the supplemental
information is indicated or displayed. For example, an opposing
argument is displayed on a mobile device. As described herein,
monitoring, processing, searching and indicating are able to be
implemented in many different ways and are able to include many
different items.
[0163] In some embodiments, supplemental information is provided
without performing the step of fact checking. For example,
monitoring, processing and indicating still occur, but instead of
fact checking, supplemental information is found and returned. As
an example, a news show is monitored, processed (e.g. converted and
parsed), and then supplemental information is determined (e.g.
located) and indicated. For example, a person discusses a new
candidate from North Dakota, North Dakota is searched for and is
found in an encyclopedic source, some or all of the encyclopedic
information is retrieved, and supplemental information providing
statistics about North Dakota is shown. In another example, a
person states, "the U.S. debt has been growing significantly under
this President;" supplemental information is able to be displayed
showing U.S. debt growth under some or all of the previous
Presidents. In another example, if a complex issue is discussed,
clarification is provided. For instance, if a complex economic
issue is discussed, the issue is broken down into simpler parts. In
yet another example, if something is explained incorrectly or not
clearly, clarification is provided. For example, during the
Presidential race, national polls are displayed regularly; however,
national polls mean very little due to the Electoral College
election system of the U.S. Therefore, supplemental information
providing battleground state polling is able to be shown to
supplement the national polls. In some embodiments, supplemental
information is provided for both sides of an argument. Any of the
other steps and implementations described herein are applicable to
provide supplemental information without fact checking.
[0164] In some embodiments, supplemental information includes an
advertisement. In some embodiments, a price comparison is
displayed. In another example, a viewer is watching an awards show
and on the red carpet, celebrities are wearing designer brands of
attire, and an advertisement for each
dress/suit/shoe/clothing/jewelry/items is displayed (or a similar
knock-off item is displayed). In some embodiments, the supplemental
information is presented on the same device the user is watching
(e.g., television). In some embodiments, the supplemental
information is presented on a separate device such as mobile device
and/or another device. In some embodiments, the supplemental
information is a Tweet, an email, a text message and/or any other
communication. In some embodiments, the advertisement is presented
during the program being viewed, and in some embodiments, the
advertisement is presented after the program is viewed.
[0165] In some embodiments, supplemental information is provided
based on a headline, title, caption, talking point and/or other
short phrase. For example, titles (or any other short phrases) are
monitored, processed, fact checked and a result is indicated. In
some embodiments, the step of fact checking is replaced with
finding supplemental information. By focusing on just the title,
less processing takes place. For example, if a news program begins
the show with "Nasdaq Hammered," statistical information of the
worst days for the Nasdaq are indicated for the user. In another
example, if a headline states, "Taxes Going Up," supplemental
information that specifies which taxes are going up, by how much
and when the taxes are going up is indicated. Or in some instances,
rebuttal supplemental information that indicates taxes are not
going up (e.g. if the information is outdated or new information
showing taxes are not going up) is presented. The amount of
supplemental information is able to be as short as a single word
(e.g. False!) or as detailed as a 200+page study or anywhere in
between and including any kind of information to provide the user
with more information. In some embodiments, analysis of only the
title (or other heading) is used for an opposing view to be
presented. For example, if a headline states, "Global Warming
Causing Wildfires," supplemental information of an opposing view
that discusses how the wildfires are caused by La Nina is
presented.
[0166] Supplemental information is found and returned in any
manner, including, but not limited to, the same or similar
manner(s) described regarding fact checking. For example,
information is searched for by comparing the information with
sources, and information related to the searched for information is
returned. In another example, the supplemental information is
stored in a data structure such as a database or table.
[0167] In some embodiments, one or more opposing arguments are
indicated in response to content or information. In some
embodiments, the opposing arguments are based on fact checking
information. In some embodiments, the opposing arguments are
indicated without fact checking the information; rather, opposing
arguments are determined and presented. For example, an argument is
determined, the argument is classified, an opposing argument is
determined, and then the argument is presented. In some
embodiments, a table (or other data structure) contains arguments
and matching opposing arguments. In some embodiments, the opposing
argument or supplemental information is based on political
classification. In some embodiments, a set of links of arguments
are coupled with opposing arguments. For example, a pro-life
argument is detected, which finds that argument in the table, and
then the counter-argument coupled with the argument is found. FIG.
10 illustrates an exemplary table of arguments and
counter-arguments according to some embodiments. Sub-arguments and
sub-counter-arguments are also able to be included. In another
example, if a person makes a comment with a position, an opposing
position is indicated without fact checking the position. To
further the example, if a guest on a political show makes a
comment, an opposing position is indicated on the television screen
in text. Indicating the opposing position is able to be in any
manner as described herein (e.g. text on a television screen or
text on a mobile device). In some embodiments, determining the
opposing argument is able to be based on keywords detected, based
on the speaker/author/entity of the position, based on political
leanings of the speaker/author/entity, based on context, based on
metadata, and/or based on any other detection described herein. For
example, if a keyword of "abortion" is detected, and the speaker is
a strict conservative, a description of a liberal view is
presented. In another example, if keywords of "President" and
"economy" are detected by a liberal commentator, context is able to
be used such as the current date to determine which President is
being discussed, and economic data, past and present, including
comparisons, is able to be presented to the user. Such additional
information would help guarantee a balanced presentation of
information to users.
[0168] In some embodiments, an opposing advertisement is presented
when an advertisement is presented. For example, if there is a
commercial for Beer X displayed on the television, a commercial for
Beer Y is displayed on the user's mobile device, on a smaller
section of the television (e.g. bottom of the screen), or another
device. FIG. 11 illustrates an exemplary table with Brand X and
Brand Y, where when a Brand X commercial is detected, a Brand Y
commercial is displayed on the user's device, or vice versa. In
some embodiments, a fee scheme is implemented with this to collect
advertising money from Brand Y. In some embodiments, multiple
companies/products are included within the table (e.g. Brand X,
Brand Y and Brand Z), and when one is detected one or more of the
others is displayed (e.g. in a random manner, in an alternating
manner, based on advertising fees by the brands, or in any other
manner). In another example, when an advertisement for a new
medicine is detected, supplemental information providing the side
effects and other negatives is displayed. In another example, an
opposing political advertisement is displayed. In some embodiments,
the groupings of the arguments or commercials/products/companies
are generated automatically (e.g. based on searches), and in some
embodiments a user inputs groupings, or both are implemented. In
another example, an advertisement for Candidate X is displayed, and
an advertisement for Candidate Y is displayed on the same device or
another device. In some embodiments, a correction or contradiction
to an advertisement is displayed. For example, an advertisement
says, Candidate X raised taxes N times, and a correction and/or
advertisement explains Candidate X never raised taxes. As described
herein, an automatic rebuttal is able to be implemented. For
example, if Candidate X knows of the advertisements run by
Candidate Y which attack Candidate X, Candidate X is able to
generate advertisements that directly refute the attacks which are
then run at the same time or in response to the Candidate Y
advertisements (for example, using a table similar to FIG. 11 where
Candidate X and Candidate Y are in the same row of the table or
another form of linking). In some embodiments, the original content
(e.g. advertisement) and the opposing content are displayed on the
same device, and in some embodiments, the original content and the
opposing content are displayed on different devices (e.g. original
on television, opposing on mobile device or vice versa). As
described herein, in some embodiments, a commercial or
advertisement is detected based on a product, a company and/or
language in the commercial/advertisement, metadata, or any other
method. For example, an advertisement for Soda Brand X by XYZ Corp.
is detected based on monitoring for "Soda Brand X," "XYZ Corp."
and/or a catch-phrase or other language used in
commercial/advertisement. In some embodiments, a
commercial/advertisement is detected using another
implementation.
[0169] In some embodiments, opposing arguments are presented by an
opposing entity including, but not limited to, a website,
television company/network/station, person, company and/or other
entity. Information is able to be monitored, processed, compared
with/searched for (e.g. in a lookup table or database) and then the
opposing argument is presented. For example, a first entity is able
to fact check and/or respond to another entity with the first
entity's analysis (possibly biased analysis). The first entity
makes selections of how to fact check, analyze and/or respond. The
selections include but are not limited to the
site/station/network/show to analyze, keywords or arguments to look
out for, responses to arguments, sources to use, styles of
responses, format of output, and/or any other selections. For
example, a conservative blogger selects a liberal news organization
to monitor, specifically indicates to automatically monitor for
"global warming" and indicates a set of links to books and articles
to be displayed that present an opposing view of global warming.
Then, when a viewer is watching programs from that organization,
any time global warming is discussed, the viewer is presented the
set of links. In some embodiments, the arguments and opposing
arguments are stored in a data structure such as a table. In some
embodiments, the selections are grouped by political classification
(e.g. liberal, conservative or any others) and/or grouped by other
classifications, for example, so the user only has to select his
political classification without specifying other details. In some
embodiments, a user makes selections (e.g. specifying that he is a
conservative), and in some embodiments, the selection is automatic.
The automatic selection is able to be based on analysis of websites
the user visits (e.g. browser history shows he goes to liberal
websites, so automatically select liberal), based on purchases the
user makes (e.g. buys "green" products, so automatically select
liberal), based on television/radio shows watched/listened to
(watches conservative talk show, so automatically select
conservative), and/or any other automatic selection. In some
embodiments, a database or other data structure is used to classify
and store the website names/links, television shows, and any other
information. In some embodiments, a user's selection is
automatically generated based on social networking information such
as associations (e.g. if Facebook.RTM. friends are conservative,
assume user is conservative). In some embodiments, users are able
to make several selections to further specify their orientations
(e.g. selecting: socially liberal, fiscally conservative, and
environmental). The selections are able to be very broad, very
specific, somewhere in between, and are able to be many selections
or a single selection.
[0170] In some embodiments, advertising is presented based on a
user's selection(s) and/or classification(s). In some embodiments,
advertising is presented based on the monitored language. For
example, if a user is indicated as liberal and a global warming
topic is monitored, a Prius advertisement is presented. Additional
information regarding the user is also able to be incorporated in
determining the advertisement to be presented. For example, if the
user is a new mom and liberal, and an environmental topic is
presented, an advertisement for "green" diapers is presented. FIG.
12 illustrates an exemplary data structure (e.g. a database or a
table) implementing selections and advertising. In the example,
user selections/information, keywords to monitor and advertisements
are maintained, as well as any other relevant information. Further
in the example, user information includes that the user is a
liberal and an environmentalist, therefore the keyword/phrase
"Global Warming" is monitored for, and when detected, an
advertisement for a Hybrid X Vehicle is displayed. In some
embodiments, recent search history of the user is also included in
the data structure.
[0171] In some embodiments, supplemental information is indicated
for entertainment shows. For example, if a television show is about
teen pregnancies, then educational videos, images, links,
statistics, games, advertisements, or any other information is
indicated. The supplemental information is able to be found using
any implementation such as by the searching and comparison
described herein including searching a data structure (e.g. a
database) which stores the information to be presented in response
to the entertainment information. In another example, if the show
appears to glorify teen pregnancies, information regarding the
negatives of teen pregnancy is presented. Similarly, if a
television network is promoting purchasing housing or even
"flipping" housing, negatives of owning housing or the dangers of
"flipping" housing are presented. In some embodiments, specific
details about the "flipped" house are shown, for example, the
purchase price, the expenses, and the sales price. For sports
shows, statistics and/or other information is shown. For example,
if a user is watching a football game on television or on his
mobile device, and the game is in the fourth quarter, and the
quarterback just threw a completion, additional information is
presented on the user's television or mobile device which shows
statistics (e.g. game statistics, historical statistics, other
statistics, personal information, other information) of the
quarterback. For example, to increase the viewing audience, the
personal information could be information that would interest a
person not interested in football itself, including, but not
limited to, the player's girlfriend, age, alma mater, home town,
likes/dislikes, and other information to entice other viewers to
watch. In some embodiments, the supplemental information explains
the sport/game including, but not limited to, what just happened,
why there was a penalty, the rules of the sport/game (e.g. how to
play Texas Hold'em), the purpose of the sport/game and/or any other
explanation to help the audience. In some embodiments, the
supplemental information provides an easy way to purchase items.
For example, a football jersey advertisement is presented for the
jersey of the player who just had an exciting play. The way to
purchase the item(s) could be a link to a store to purchase the
items, a single button purchase or any other way of providing
sales. The supplemental sales information could be related to a
commercial or advertisement. For example, if a commercial is
displayed for X Brand mountain bikes, then a store locator is
displayed on a user's device indicating where to purchase the X
Brand mountain bike, or an online site with a link to purchase the
item (e.g. bike) is presented. In some embodiments, when a movie is
being played, related movies are presented or information
including, but not limited to, a description, rental information,
and purchase information is presented. In some embodiments, if a
movie or other item is referenced in another movie, television
show, or other content, a clip, transcript or other information of
the movie or other referred item such as a book or a poem is
presented. For example, when George sings "Master of the House"
from Les Miserables in "Seinfeld," a clip of the musical is shown
or lyrics are displayed on the user's device.
[0172] In some embodiments, the supplemental information is related
to sports betting/play-along including, but not limited to, fantasy
football and college basketball brackets, where a user's fantasy
team or bracket is updated automatically in sync with the game
results. For example, if a basketball game ends, the user's bracket
is automatically updated and presented on the user's device
including the current standings. In another example, as the
football games occur, a player's fantasy team information is
updated during the games and presented on the user's device.
[0173] In some embodiments, news, weather, traffic and/or other
information is fact checked by comparing the information with other
stations' results (e.g. fact checking by comparison with peers is
performed). For example, if News Company A states Candidate X paid
$0 in taxes last year, but News Company B, News Company C and News
Company D all say, Candidate X paid $100,000 in taxes, the
additional information is presented to the user. In another
example, if meteorologist at Channel A says it will be 80 degrees
today, but meteorologists at Channels B through D and online sites
Y and Z say it will be 90 degrees today, the additional information
is presented to the user. In some embodiments, if a story (e.g.
news story) is incomplete on one station, or another station has
supplemental information, that information is presented to the
user. For example, if one station does not indicate the victim's
race, but another station does provide this information, that
supplemental information is presented (e.g. as text at the bottom
of the screen with credit given to the providing source).
Determination of the missing information is able to be by comparing
keywords in the information, processing and formatting the
information (e.g. by searching for specific items in a story and
determining if any information is missing) or any other
implementation. For example, for a news story about a homicide, a
data structure contains elements for race of the attacker and
victim, age of the attacker and victim, motive, location, weapon,
and any other information. And if any of the information is unknown
from one channel/site/network, other sources of information are
able to be used to fill in the missing information.
[0174] In some embodiments, supplemental information is provided by
the same source that is providing the original content (e.g. XYZ
Network broadcasts a political show and also provides supplemental
information). In some embodiments, supplemental information is
provided by a third party (or independent party). For example, XYZ
Network broadcasts a political show, and TTT App provides
supplemental information to be displayed with the political show,
where TTT App has no affiliation with XYZ Network.
[0175] In some embodiments, supplemental information is provided
when the fact checker is used for print articles. For example,
after a user acquires content of an article in a magazine,
supplemental information related to the article is provided
including, but not limited to, where to buy an item in the article,
what the latest study says about the content of the article, and
any other information.
[0176] In some embodiments, a running log of supplemental
information is kept. In some embodiments, the running log is
user-specific and/or device-specific. For example, the supplemental
information for Bob is based on what Bob has been viewing, reading
and/or receiving. In some embodiments, by keeping a log of the
supplemental information, repeated indication of supplemental
information is avoided. For example, if a viewer of a television
show has already been provided with supplemental information about
a character, that supplemental information is not automatically
shown again. In an additional example, a data structure stores
information indicating what supplemental information has been
displayed to a specific user, and then that information is used to
determine what supplemental information to display, if any. In some
embodiments, updated supplemental information is shown based on the
previous supplemental information. For example, if character
information has previously been shown to a user, but there is new
information since the user missed a week, only the new information
is shown. In some embodiments, a history of supplemental
information is kept, so that the user is able to search and/or look
through this information on demand.
[0177] In some embodiments, when numbers or charts are described in
words (e.g. in a broadcast), supplemental graphics are displayed.
In some embodiments, when a trend or statistics are mentioned,
graphics are displayed to show the trend. For example, a reporter
says, "housing prices have decreased for 5 months," and then
supplemental information is shown that includes a chart of the past
5 months of housing prices by retrieving 5 months of data and
generating a chart using a chart generation application. Providing
the supplemental information is performed in any manner; for
example, by finding the data and generating a chart and/or finding
the chart. In some embodiments, context is used; for example, if
the comment is "over the past 6 months," then today's date is used
to find data going back 6 months.
[0178] In some embodiments, supplemental information is generated
in advance of a broadcast based on a guest list for the show or
other knowledge of the show. For example, the guest information
such as views, biases, political party and/or any other information
is able to be located and prepared beforehand for a political
guest. Or for an actor appearing on a late night show, recent
movies, events in the personal life of an actor, or other
information is prepared in advance. In some embodiments, the
advanced generation of information is performed automatically, and
in some embodiments, the advanced generation of information is
performed manually.
[0179] In some embodiments, supplemental information is based on
personal conditions, personal traits, recent events and/or other
information. In some embodiments, the information is able to be
taken from a social networking site (e.g. Facebook.RTM.) or a
site/implementation such as Twitter. For example, if a user
indicates his mood on a social networking site, that information is
able to be used in providing supplemental information. In some
embodiments, the supplemental information is used in generating a
suggested list of channels and/or programs for the user. For
example, if the user indicated "depressed," a list of comedies is
presented to the user. In another example, if the user indicated
"depressed" and "conservative," comedies with a conservative slant
are presented (or at least presented first in a descending order
starting with the most conservative). The supplemental information
is able to be used in presenting advertisements to the user in
combination with or without other elements described herein. In
some embodiments, the information (e.g. mood) is fact checked.
[0180] In some embodiments, when a word or phrase is mentioned
(e.g. in a movie, on the news, in a television show, in person, in
a discussion, on the Web and/or elsewhere), supplemental
information is provided regarding that word or phrase. In some
embodiments, only words or phrases that are included in a data
structure (e.g. database) to provide supplemental information are
used. In some embodiments, common phrases (e.g. don't look a gift
horse in the mouth) are used. In some embodiments, only words and
phrases deemed to be "not well known" are used. For example, if a
movie makes a reference to an obscure object or person,
supplemental information is provided so that the user understands
what or who that object or person is. As described herein, the word
or phrase is able to be searched for in a data structure, the web
and/or any other source, and the result of the source is returned
(e.g. a definition of the word).
[0181] In some embodiments, a data structure, for example a
database, a table or any other data structure, is used to search
for and present supplemental information. In some embodiments,
supplemental information is based on subsequent searches.
[0182] Importance/Relevance
[0183] In some embodiments, broadcast information, stories,
articles, or other content is rated and/or classified in relation
to a user. FIG. 13 illustrates an exemplary listing of headlines
with an importance rating according to some embodiments. In some
embodiments, the content is rated based on an importance or
relevance to the user's life or based on the user's interests. In
some embodiments, the importance is selected by the user, and in
some embodiments, the importance is based on standards of a group
of people (e.g. neighborhood, town, state, country) such as
community standards. For example, a community may establish the
economy as the most important topic, followed by national security,
then taxes, and other items following. In some embodiments, a
combination of community standards and user selections is used to
determine importance. Thus, content focused on lower priority (less
important) items is rated lower than higher priority (more
important) items. In some embodiments, content is presented to
users based on the ratings (e.g. higher rated articles are
presented at the top of a list to a user). In some embodiments,
content that falls below a threshold is not presented to a user. In
some embodiments, the user sets the threshold and/or specifies
which kind of content not to show. For example, articles about
Presidential wardrobes are not displayed to users where the user's
importance ratings have such content below the user's threshold. In
some embodiments, users are able to search based on the importance
rating. In an example of a user-specified rating, a user selects
lifestyle choices as the most important topic followed by the
environment. In some embodiments, user-specified ratings are based
on social networking site information, search information,
preferences, favorites, city or state of residence, and/or other
selections. For example, if a user searches for economic data
often, then the economy is designated as an important topic for the
user. In some embodiments, content is rated using multiple topics.
For example, an article is rated as to how religious it is, how
economic-related it is and how environmentally-conscious it is. In
some embodiments, the rating in relation to importance to a user is
used in combination with other ratings to provide a more complete
rating. For example, an article is rated highly (e.g., 10) in
importance because it involves unemployment and creating jobs, but
it is rated poorly (e.g., 4) for its lack of accuracy, so the
combined rating is a 7 on a scale of 1 to 10. In some embodiments,
the separate ratings are presented separately (e.g., article is a
10 for importance and a 4 for accuracy). Any rating indication is
able to be used (e.g., 1-10, A-F, a rainbow gradient of colors, or
any other indication). In some embodiments, classification of
content is determined based on keywords found within the content
and/or any other classification. For example, if an article uses
economic terms such as unemployment, stimulus, and taxes, the
article is able to be classified as related to the economy. In some
embodiments, content is able to be classified in one or more
classifications. In some embodiments, the rating and/or
classification of content is performed by monitoring, processing,
keyword searching, and indicating. Keyword searching includes
searching within the content for keywords. In some embodiments,
monitoring or processing includes keyword searching and/or
detection. In some embodiments, the rating and/or classification is
performed automatically. In some embodiments, the rating and/or
classification includes fact checking, and in some embodiments,
fact checking is not performed. In some embodiments, there are
classifications and one or more levels of sub-classifications. For
example, a news broadcast that uses the terms: "unemployment,"
"stocks," and "taxes" is able to be included in the class "economy"
and the subclasses "stock market" and "employment." The importance
rating is indicated next to a title, displayed at the beginning of
a television program, displayed in the information of a television
program guide, displayed on a mobile device, and/or any other
indication. In some embodiments, the classifications are based on
general topics including, but not limited to, politics, sports,
entertainment, finance and others. For example, if a user has no
interest in sports, the user is able to place that at the bottom of
the importance list. Using the sports example, "sports" could be
the overall classification with specific sports (e.g., hockey,
baseball, basketball, football, golf) as sub-classifications, and
NCAA.RTM. football and NFL.RTM. football as a further level of
sub-classification. In some embodiments, the position of the
article (e.g., pro/anti) affects the importance to a user.
[0184] In some embodiments, a likelihood of importance is indicated
to a user and/or used to determine the importance of an article,
where the likelihood is based on the percentage of the population
the article affects. In some embodiments, the position of the
article (e.g. pro/anti) affects the likelihood of importance. In
some embodiments, importance is based on what is trending now
(e.g., what people are searching for, texting about, and/or other
popularity based data).
[0185] In some embodiments, importance to a user automatically
increases or decreases depending on the number of content (e.g.,
articles and television shows) presented to and/or selected by the
user. For example, a user selects many "economics" articles;
therefore, they are likely important to a user, thus the importance
rating increases with time. In another example, a user has seen 10
television clips about the royal wedding, and the importance rating
decreases with time since the user is likely tiring of the
story.
[0186] In an example of an importance rating being implemented, a
website displays titles of 20 articles. The user viewing the
website has selected taxes, environment and foreign affairs as most
important to the user. Three of the articles are rated as 100s
(scale of 1 to 100) on the importance scale since they are focused
on taxes (e.g., tax-related keywords are detected), 5 are rated as
99s since they are focused on the environment and 1 article is
rated a 98 since it is focused on foreign affairs. The remaining
articles fall below the user's threshold, and are grayed-out or not
shown, so that the user is able to focus on articles important to
him.
[0187] FIG. 14 illustrates a flowchart of a method of determining
an importance of information according to some embodiments. In the
step 1400, information (e.g., an article) is analyzed. For example,
keywords are searched for in an article. To further the example,
keywords are compared with a database that classifies the keywords.
For example, a database specifies that "global warming" is in an
environment class, and "gun control" is in a constitutional class
or a 2nd amendment class. In the step 1402, the information is then
classified based on the analysis. For example, an article which
uses the words or phrases, "pollution" and "global warming," is
classified as "environmental." In some embodiments, information is
classified in multiple classes. For example, if an article
discusses guns and the environment, the article is classified in a
"guns" classification and an "environment" classification. In some
embodiments, the information is classified in only one
classification, based on the most relevant classification. For
example, if an article contains 10 keywords related to war and only
2 keywords related to the environment, the article is classified in
a "war" classification. In some embodiments, the classification
includes a strength rating. For example, the percentage of
occurrences, number of occurrences and/or another analysis is used
to determine how strongly the article is classified. Furthering the
example, an article is 90% composed of keywords related to war,
thus, the article is given a "strong" rating of being related to
war. In another example, a lengthy article only mentions the
environment once; the article is given a "weak" rating of being
related to the environment. The strength rating is able to be used
in additional calculations in determining importance and/or
separately displayed. In the step 1404, the classification of the
information is compared with an importance, where the importance is
able to be user-defined, based on standards or a combination. For
example, a user is recognized and has defined his "important" items
to be the environment, the economy and sports. Furthering the
example, if an article (e.g., environmental article) matches the
user's most important item, the article is rated a 10 (e.g., most
important). In some embodiments, an importance rating includes a
user rating plus the strength of an article. For example, a user
rates the environment as his top priority, and an article is
focused on the environment, the article is rated as most important,
but a second article merely mentions the environment, the article
is rated as moderately important. In the step 1406, an importance
rating is indicated based on the comparison in the step 1404. For
example, since the user indicated environment as the most important
topic to him, and an article is determined to be about the
environment, the article is given an importance rating of 10, which
is displayed near the headline as is shown in FIG. 13. In some
embodiments, fewer or more steps are implemented. Furthermore, in
some embodiments, the order of the steps is modified.
[0188] In some embodiments, a channel is automatically changed when
a television program discusses a story that falls below the user's
importance threshold, for example, by determining the importance of
the story, comparing the importance rating with the threshold, and
if the importance rating is or falls below the threshold, the
channel is changed. In some embodiments, the channel is changed to
a story that is most important to the user. For example, a user has
selected 3 topics--economy, sports, weather, and the user is
watching News Channel A, when the sports segment ends, and goes to
a story about fashion, so the television automatically switches to
Channel B which is discussing the economy. To make the switch,
content on all or specified channels is monitored and given an
importance rating. In some embodiments, a video is changed in a
similar manner to changing a channel. For example, if a website
displays videos, and the current video is below an importance
threshold, the next video is presented. Similarly, a radio station
or other program is able to be automatically changed based on a
user's importance threshold.
Bias
[0189] In some embodiments, a monitor of news stories and/or
articles determines if a story and/or article is being ignored or
overanalyzed. For example, if 3 of 4 news networks cover a story,
and the fourth news network does not cover the story or barely
reports on it, a notification or alert is presented to inform the
user that he is missing the story. This is able to be implemented
by comparing the stories, for example, comparing keywords or other
information in the stories. This will help provide users with a
full scope of news knowledge. In some embodiments, the notification
includes a link or a guide to change the channel, so the user is
able to see or hear the story. In a similar but contrasting manner,
in some embodiments, stories are monitored to determine if they are
over reported. For example, if the same story is played on all
stations, every 10 minutes, a notification or alert is presented to
inform the user that the story is being over reported. In some
embodiments, users are able to rate stories under reported, over
reported or other ratings. For example, users are able to text a
rating. Other methods of rating a story are possible as well. News
networks are then able to modify the presentation of news based on
users' ratings. In some embodiments, users register to be able to
interact with a show or website. In some embodiments, users have to
qualify (e.g., pass a test) to be able to rate and/or post
comments. For example, in some embodiments, users must prove they
are not "trolls" by accurately predicting the factual accuracy of
several statements.
[0190] In some embodiments, identifying framing of data including,
but not limited to, spin, slant, bias or any other framing or
manipulation of data is implemented. Identifying framing of data is
able to be done in any manner. In some embodiments, a data
structure (e.g., a database) is used to store biases including, but
not limited to, biased information, biased entities, and other
biases. In some embodiments, the bias of the speaker is able to be
used to identify framing. For example, if a speaker is known to be
an ultra-conservative, that knowledge is able to be used to label
framing. In some embodiments, a comparison with other people's take
on a subject is used to determine spin. In some embodiments, the
comparison is based on peers or groups. For example, news reporters
are compared with other news reporters. In an example, if 9
commentators label a speech as "well done," and 1 commentator
labels the speech as "poor," the 1 commentator's comments are able
to be labeled as "unrepresentative" or "minority view." Further in
the example, the information that 9 commentators view something one
way and the 1 commentator views it another, is able to be used with
additional information (e.g., that the 1 commentator is an
ultra-liberal), and the 1 commentator's comment is labeled as
"liberal spin." In some embodiments, safeguards are able to be
implemented to prevent manipulation such as a group ganging up
against an individual. Additionally, the tone of the commentator,
the number of factual inaccuracies by the commentator, and any
other information is able to be taken into account to properly
label the comments as spin, slant, bias or some other
classification/category. In cases of subtle spin, such as where a
commentator starts off by describing a radical element of a group
and then generally applies a broad stroke to the entire group, that
is able to be detected as well. For example, antecedent basis is
monitored and checked. In an example, a commentator says, "the far
right is a bunch of warmongers," and then later, the commentator
says, "the right loves to go to war." While the first statement may
be true, the second statement is clearly an overly broad statement
and is able to be labeled as "misleading" or is able to be
clarified by adding "far" to the statement to indicate "far right."
Entities including, but not limited to, individuals, commentators,
networks, companies and any other entity are able to have labels or
other information to help determine a bias or slant. For example,
commentators, channels, networks, websites and blogs are able to be
labeled with political terms or other terms as described herein.
Companies are able to be labeled with political terms as well or
other terms including, but not limited to, anti-environment. Not
only do the labels help identify to a viewer or reader where the
information is coming from, but the labels are able to be
quantified to perform additional calculations including, but not
limited to, identifying spin. As described herein referring to the
slant rating, the labels are able to be determined using any data
including, but not limited to, the number of errors, types of
errors, statistical analysis, surveys, analysis of content,
analysis of past performance, and any other information.
[0191] In some embodiments, the fact checker monitors a news story
for bias or one-sidedness and presents helpful information to
provide a full story. For example, if a news report discusses a
police shooting of a suspect but leaves out the aspect of the story
that the suspect fired at the police first, the fact checker is
able to determine the incompleteness of the story and provide
supplemental information in any of the manners described herein
(e.g., a text message of the missing information to the user's
mobile device, an alert that there is more to the story, an email,
or any other method). In an exemplary implementation, a database
with full details of a story is maintained to compare with the
presented story, and any information not mentioned in the presented
story is able to be supplemented. In some embodiments, the full
detail database is compiled by searching sources. In another
example, if a news program only discusses negative aspects about an
issue, or if a news program only discusses positive aspects about
an issue, such one-sidedness is detected. In some embodiments, to
determine the one-sidedness, the underlying data of the story is
monitored (e.g., the stock market) and the show/program is
monitored, and then they are compared so that if the underlying
data changes but the show/program does not report the change,
one-sidedness is detected. Furthering the example, if a show, for 3
days in a row, mentions the stock market is down, and then the show
is subsequently silent when the stock market is up for 4 days in a
row following that, such a characterization is able to be detected.
In some embodiments, the information is also presented to users
(e.g., scrolling text saying, "although this program mentioned the
stock market being down 3 days, the stock market has been up 4 days
since then"). In some embodiments, such information is able to be
tracked and used to rate the news program.
[0192] In some embodiments, a caller (e.g., of a radio show) or
commenter (and/or his comments) is fact checked to determine the
quality of the caller/commenter. For example, the arguments of the
caller are classified as good/poor arguments, the grammar is
classified, and other information is taken into account to
determine the quality of the caller. Multiple callers are able to
be analyzed to determine if the callers are being selected to
poorly represent one side of an argument or a group of people. For
example, if a radio show selects callers with outrageous arguments
for one side, and reasonable arguments for the other side, such a
bias is able to be detected and indicated to users (e.g.,
listeners).
[0193] In some embodiments, supplemental information regarding what
percentage of the population agrees or disagrees with a position is
displayed. For example, a commenter says, "liberals believe in
socialism," and in response, an indication of "This view is shared
by 20% of people who consider themselves `liberals` and 5% of
people who consider themselves `democrats` is shown." In some
embodiments, specific phrases are monitored to implement this, such
as "liberals believe" or "liberals think."
[0194] In some embodiments, bias or other classifications are
determined or tracked based solely on analyzing headlines, titles,
or other headings.
[0195] In some embodiments, polling, ratings or other information
are fact checked or analyzed for bias. For example, if a news
organization says they cover stories with a fair representation of
each side since they mentioned each side the same amount of time,
further analysis is able to be performed to determine if each time
they had a bias towards one or the other. And a clarification of
bias is able to be presented. In some embodiments, a classification
and an indication of sources, polling, organizations and/or other
entities is presented. For example, if a commentator cites the XYZ
poll, an indication that the XYZ poll is a left-leaning poll is
indicated.
[0196] In some embodiments, analysis and/or comparison of the fact
checking data/results of networks, shows, web sites or other
presenters of data is performed. For example, Channel A is found to
lie (or err) 20 times/day and have 1 stale story/day, and Channel B
lies 5 times/day and has 0 stale stories/day. Other data is able to
be tracked including, but not limited to, historical data and
improvements or trends. The results and other information are able
to be stored, sorted, compared, analyzed, searched, displayed
(e.g., chart/graph/numerical), and/or used for many different
purposes. The information is also able to be used to generate a
results rating. For example, channels are rated based on the number
of errors, number of corrections, timeliness of correction, number
of stale stories, and/or any other factors. The results rating is
able to be in any form including, but not limited to, 1-5 stars,
A-F, 1-10 or 1-3 diamonds. A slant rating is able to be used to
indicate if a channel, show, site or other item has a political
slant including, but not limited to, liberal, conservative,
moderate, or any others. Users are also able to search, sort or
perform other tasks based on the slant rating or other information.
For example, users are able to set, sort or search channels, web
pages, blogs, shows/programs and others, based on the comparison of
a results rating such as searching for all cable news programs with
a 4 star rating or higher. The searches are able to be generic or
more detailed. For example, a user is able to search for all shows
that have 3 stars or better. In an example of a specific search, a
user searches for all shows with 4 stars or better, with a moderate
rating, in channel range of channels 2-10.
Television/Video/Other Media
[0197] In some embodiments, archiving is implemented. For example,
television shows are recorded or converted to text and recorded. In
some embodiments, only fact checked aspects are archived. In some
embodiments, only fact checked items that are classified a certain
way (e.g., false) are archived. In some embodiments, the archives
include groupings. For example, false statements are in one group,
hyperbole is in another group, and other items are in other
groups.
[0198] In some embodiments, the fact checking is used for analysis
of commercials. For example, if a law firm advertisement is
displayed, the fact checker is able to provide statistics about the
law firm including, but not limited to, where the attorneys went to
law school, bar ratings, articles about the law firm, the law
firm's website link, provide comparison results such as similar law
firms and/or any other relevant information. In another example, a
restaurant displays an advertisement that is broadcast nationally,
and the nearest location is able to be displayed by determining the
user's location (e.g., the device location via GPS and/or IP
address). Furthering the example, ratings, menus, nutritional
information, allergen information and/or any other information for
the restaurant is made available or displayed. Again furthering the
example, a user's mobile device automatically maps directions to go
to the nearest location from the user's current location. In some
embodiments, the fact checker is used to determine the validity of
commercials. For example, if a commercial claims the advertised
product is the best, the fact checker is able to compare the
product by searching for ratings on comparison websites, and/or any
other resources to determine if the commercial is true. The fact
checker is also able to present additional information to provide a
user more detail. For example, an automobile commercial claims the
displayed vehicle is the #1 rated vehicle. The fact checker
verifies the claim and also informs the viewer that the vehicle is
#1 rated for men ages 19-29, but overall, a competitor's vehicle is
#1 rated. The fact checker is able to provide automatic comparison
shopping. Any commercials or advertisements are able to be fact
checked including, but not limited to, print, broadcast,
digital/online and mobile-based. In some embodiments, a commercial
or advertisement is detected based on a product, a company and/or
language in the commercial/advertisement. In some embodiments, a
commercial/advertisement is detected using another
implementation.
[0199] In some embodiments, users are able to post comments
directly to a televised show or other video. For example, users
send comments to a television network or show producer. In some
embodiments, the network filters the comments. The comments are
able to include citations proving or disproving a speaker's
comment, or labeling the comment in another manner. As described
herein, in some embodiments, comments are displayed to a designated
group of users. In some embodiments, users are able to be in more
than one group.
[0200] In some embodiments, group video viewing is implemented. For
example, a specific group of users watch a video at the same time
and are able to post comments and perform other fact checking
aspects on the video. Users are able to invite others to join the
group. In a further example, a set of co-workers form a viewing
group to watch the State of the Union Address. While the State of
the Union Address is displayed, the users are able to input (e.g.,
tweet, instant message, text) comments about the speech which are
shown to the other users in the group. If the automatic fact
checker is implemented, then the speech is automatically fact
checked as well. If the automatic fact checker is not implemented,
users are able to flag items to be fact checked. Additionally,
users are able to flag other users' comments, or users' comments
are automatically fact checked, depending on the implementation.
The groups are able to be as small as two people (e.g., husband and
wife viewing the same video from different locations) or as large
as an entire population (e.g., billions). The groups are
configurable in many ways. Users can be added to groups, deleted
from groups, be in multiple groups, and any other grouping features
are able to be implemented.
[0201] In some embodiments, television analysis is performed. For
example, the fact checker monitors video and audio, converts the
audio to text and analyzes the text to provide information of what
is going on in the video in real-time. The fact checking process is
able to occur in the background, so that the user is able to view
other channels. By monitoring and analyzing the video in the
background, the fact checker is able to then inform a user when it
detects information the user is looking for. For example, there is
a sports show on Channel 50 which discusses all different sporting
events such as baseball, golf, soccer and basketball, but the user
simply wants a recap of golf scores. The user is able to input a
search string (e.g., golf), or the system automatically knows what
to look for based on previous searches or other information (e.g.,
trending information), or another implementation is used to
monitor. The fact checker analyzes the text of the show for the
word "golf' or a related word/name/item such as par, U.S. Open,
Tiger, and when the word is found, the user is alerted that his
topic is being displayed on that channel, so that the user knows to
change to that channel. This enables users to avoid having to
constantly switch back and forth to find a desired segment. In some
embodiments, the information monitored is an actor, a location,
and/or any other information. In some embodiments, images are
monitored (e.g., a user selects an image of an actor, and that
image is compared with the broadcast information to determine a
match). In some embodiments, when the correct segment is being
displayed, the channel automatically changes for the user. In some
embodiments, a picture-in-picture window of the other channel is
displayed. In some embodiments, an audible or other alert is
presented to inform the user. In some embodiments, the fact checker
is able to be used to alert a user that a commercial is over, and
that the desired show has returned. In some embodiments, the fact
checker is used in conjunction with a recording device, for
example, a Digital Video Recorder (DVR) (e.g., TiVo.RTM.). After
audio is converted to text, a search is able to be performed on the
text. For example, an entire sports show is recorded and converted.
A search for "Tiger Woods" is performed by the user. The text is
searched, and when the phrase "Tiger Woods" is found, the video
begins playing from that point in the video (e.g., in the video, a
commentator mentions the name "Tiger Woods"). In some embodiments,
every instance of the search phrase is found, so that the user is
able to jump to each instance of the search phrase in the video.
For example, if "Tiger Woods" is discussed at 5:59, 10:32 and 50:21
of the video, the user is able to hit a "Next" or "Previous" button
to navigate to each point in the video where "Tiger Woods" is
mentioned. Any search techniques and/or features are able to be
implemented. In some embodiments, instead of a conversion of audio
to text, text is provided in advance or during the show. For
example, networks are able to provide text from the show in a
searchable form. In some embodiments, converted text or other text
is also able to be used to predict future television information.
For example, a news program states that stories about A, B and C
will be shown tonight. The fact checker is able to determine when
the specific stories of A, B and C will actually air, so that users
are able to avoid stories they are not interested in. The
television analysis is also able to be applied to other forms of
media including, but not limited to, radio, Internet webcasts,
videos and any other media. For example, the fact checker is able
to monitor some or all radio stations for a desired song and when
that song is found, the station switches to play that song. The
search is able to be used to find a song by a title, artist, based
on several words of the song (e.g., first three words), or some
other method.
[0202] In some embodiments, re-runs or replays of shows do not use
additional fact checking. For example, if a show is typically
displayed at 5 pm and then replayed at 8 pm, the 8 pm show is able
to use the previous fact check information from the 5 pm show. In
some embodiments, additional information is provided in the Bpm
show that was not provided in the 5 pm show. In some embodiments,
analysis is performed to confirm the shows are the same.
[0203] In some embodiments, the fact checking is performed using an
original broadcast and then displayed during a repeat broadcast or
a recorded broadcast. In this implementation, the fact checking is
able to be in real-time or non-real-time, automatically or not
automatically. For example, a show is broadcast at 5 pm, and fact
checking occurs. Then, when the show is re-broadcast at 8 pm, fact
checking results/information is presented automatically and in
real-time during the re-broadcast. Similarly, when a re-broadcast
occurs via the Internet, such as on a broadcaster's website,
results/information is presented during the re-broadcast. Although
this would not prevent misinformation from being spread in the
initial broadcast, the fact that any re-broadcasts would catch any
misinformation could potentially discourage misinformation from
being presented in the initial broadcast. In an exemplary manual
implementation, viewers watching the 5 pm telecast flag information
as misleading, incorrect, unclear and/or any other
characterization, then fact checking and/or other analysis is
performed, and then at a later telecast (e.g., the 8 pm telecast),
corrective and/or supplemental information is displayed
automatically to the viewers of the later telecast at the
appropriate times. The appropriate times are able to be determined
in any manner, including, but not limited to, monitoring for
keywords (e.g., database includes keywords to monitor and
corresponding corrective comments to display), monitoring for a
designated time (e.g., each time a user flags information, a
timestamp is made which is then used to display the corrective
comments) and/or any other method.
[0204] In some embodiments, polling occurs during a broadcast and
then is posted during the re-airing of the show. For example, a
poll is presented, "conservatives, do you agree with Commentator
A's position," and people respond, and then the results are shown
that "earlier polls show X % polled agree with this position."
[0205] In some embodiments, the fact checking system is used to
avoid or correct a mistake presented. For example, in the past,
news networks have accidentally posted graphics with incorrect
statistics. The fact checking system is able to preemptively check
the graphics or post-display check the graphics, so that the poster
(e.g., network) is able to correct the error before broadcasting
the error or quickly thereafter.
[0206] In some embodiments, automatic prediction tracking is
implemented. For example, a commentator says, "President Z is going
to lose in 2012." That comment is stored, and once a result is
determined (e.g., the election ends), the accuracy of the
prediction is determined (e.g., using the fact checker). In some
embodiments, the prediction determinations are stored, used for
statistics, to generate prediction ratings/accuracy ratings and/or
for any other purposes. For example, commentators or any other
entities that make predictions are able to have prediction ratings
so that viewers are able to see how accurate commentator's
predictions are. For example, when a commentator is shown on
television, a prediction rating is shown (e.g. correct predictions
5, incorrect predictions 10) to indicate to viewers that this
commentator's predictions do not usually come true. The prediction
ratings are able to be in any form such as grades (A-F) or any
other rating scheme. In some embodiments, multiple categories of
predictions ratings per entity are implemented. For example, a
sports analyst may predict football well but not baseball, so his
rating for football is high but for baseball is low. Examples of
entities that make predictions, guesses or estimates include but
are not limited to, commentators, weathermen, stock commentators,
news commentators, businesses, sports commentators, real estate
commentators, analysts, financial commentators, entertainment
commentators, reality show hosts/judges, and/or any other
entity.
[0207] In some embodiments, the fact checking system is used to
rate weather predictors. For example, if one channel is wrong more
often than another, viewers would be informed of this and could
change their viewing habits accordingly. In some embodiments,
viewers are given a list of alternatives. For example, a list of
channels with accuracy percentages is displayed.
[0208] In some embodiments, a stock picker is fact checked to
determine the accuracy of stock pickers. For example, if an online
site boasts about being able to select stocks, the fact checker is
able to monitor the picked stocks and then provide an accuracy
rating for the site, so that users are able to use the most
accurate site. Similarly, sports analysts are fact checked and
tracked to indicate the accuracy of the sports analysts'
predictions/picks.
[0209] In some embodiments, the fact checker indicates a status of
a comment to the host/interviewer of a show (e.g. so that the host
is able to ask a follow-up question). In some embodiments, the fact
checker comes up with the follow-up question automatically (e.g.
follow up question is displayed on teleprompter). For example, if a
host asks a guest what the guest does not like about the President,
and the guest responds that "taxes are too high." The fact checker
is able to determine that the current President has lowered taxes
since becoming President, and automatically generate a follow-up
question of, "since the President has lowered taxes, is that a
valid complaint about the President?" In some embodiments, the
follow-up question is based on searches performed by the fact
checker. In some embodiments, a database of potential follow-up
questions is implemented and based on the answer, a follow-up
question is selected.
[0210] In some embodiments, an avatar or other representation of an
entity is displayed on a show (e.g., a television show or webcast)
to present the fact checking information. For example, a political
commentary show has guests, and one of the guests is able to be an
avatar that comments when one of the other guests or the host makes
a misstatement or some other statement that warrants commenting.
The avatar is able to be computer-generated or any other type of
generated avatar.
[0211] In some embodiments, the severity (e.g., severity of
incorrectness, severity of bias, severity of political slant) of a
statement is indicated with the result. For example, if a person
says, "Rhode Island is the largest state," a severity rating of 10
is displayed as the statement is completely wrong since Rhode
Island is the smallest state. In another example, if a person shows
extreme bias, a bias severity rating of 10 is displayed. The
severity rating is able to be indicated in any manner, including,
but not limited to, 1-10, by grades including, but not limited to
A-F, bright colors indicating severe and dull colors indicating not
severe, imagery/pictures, audio (e.g., "wow!" for severe, "wah wah"
for not severe, or a loud chime for severe, a quiet chime for less
severe), or any other rating, grading or indicating system.
[0212] In some embodiments, the fact checker is used to inform a
person (e.g., a host) that he made a mistake. For example, a host
states the U.S. is $15 Billion in debt, and a chime and/or other
audio is emitted in the host's earpiece, letting the host know that
he made a mistake. In some embodiments, the chime is merely just a
short chime where the host has to figure out what the mistake was,
and in some embodiments, the audio is a correction (e.g.,
"Trillion" in this example) or a chime linked to a teleprompter
that could display accurate information or incorrect statement. In
some embodiments, the indicator to the person is visual (e.g., a
flashing red light), tactile (e.g., vibration), or any other
indicator.
[0213] In some embodiments, a host, guest or other entity is
provided additional information (e.g., statistics) by the fact
checker during a communication. In some embodiments, additional
information is indicated when questionable information or other
information is presented. For example, in a debate, debater A is
able to have the fact checker running while debater B is making
comments. Debater A is then able to use the fact checked
information to debate better.
[0214] In some embodiments, using the fact checker, if a
commentator (e.g., guest) is found to have misstated facts a
specified number of times (e.g., 3 times) within a specified period
of time, an action is automatically taken against the guest (e.g.,
the guest's microphone is cut off for a period of time). For
example, a guest is on a political commentary show, and he makes 3
factually inaccurate statements on the show, his microphone is cut
off (silenced) for 1 minute. In addition to fact checking, other
events are able to contribute towards taking the action. For
example, if a guest keeps interrupting other guests, each
interruption could contribute toward taking action. For example, a
guest interrupts once and makes two factually inaccurate
statements; those 3 events cause the action to be taken against the
guest. Another example of an action is shining a colored light
(e.g., a red light) on the entity for a period of time. In another
example, when a score is maintained to determine the winner of the
argument on the show, an action includes disqualifying a
participant or deducting points due to improper conduct. The action
is able to be taken against any entity, not only a guest, and any
actions are able to be taken.
[0215] In some embodiments, points are awarded to hosts, guests,
callers/commenters and/or others based on their arguments to
determine who wins an argument. The points are able to be awarded
based one or more factors including, but not limited to, factual
accuracy/inaccuracy of the arguments, conduct, viewer voting, judge
voting, and/or any other factors. The point tally is able to be
kept running while the argument occurs and/or indicated at the end
of the argument. For example, a political commentary show includes
a segment with a host debating a guest on a controversial topic.
The host and the guest each go back and forth presenting their
arguments. The fact checker automatically monitors, processes, and
fact checks the arguments and then gives points for factually
accurate information, and deducts points for inaccurate
information. The fact checker also determines if improper conduct
occurs, for example, cutting off the other or filibustering (e.g.,
not answering the question directly), and deducts accordingly.
While the segment is airing, or quickly thereafter, users are able
to vote (e.g., by text or any other implementation) for who is
winning/won the argument. A formula is able to be implemented to
add the votes with the fact checker results to determine a score
(e.g. whoever wins each argument receives a point which is added to
the fact checker points). Then at the end of the segment or some
other point in the show, the results are displayed, indicating a
winner of the argument (e.g., the one with the most points). In
some embodiments, a host is given a handicap (e.g., host starts
with a 1 point reduction) in an attempt to balance the likely bias
of his viewers. In some embodiments, users are able to select the
factors used in determining a winner. For example, if a user does
not like the idea of other users affecting the outcome, the user is
able to specify that the winner is determined solely based on the
fact checker results.
[0216] In some embodiments, when an entity communicates (e.g.,
speaks or writes) or is displayed, donors and/or contributors who
have contributed to him or his campaign and/or charities or other
entities he has contributed to are displayed. For example, a
politician is shown on television, and a list of the top 10
contributors to his campaign is displayed on a user's mobile
device. In some embodiments, only contributors related to a topic
(e.g., discussing energy, display oil company contributions). Any
amount of information about the contributors is able to be
displayed (e.g., how much in contributions, when the contributions
were made, and other information). The contribution information is
able to be determined using a data structure (e.g. a database)
which stores entities and related contribution information, via
searching as described herein or any other method.
[0217] In some embodiments, a list of names of supporters and/or
dissenters of information is presented. The list is stored in a
data structure such as a database and/or is based on previous
comments, writings and/or other information. For example, a guest
on a talk show makes the comment: "lower taxes creates jobs," and a
list of prominent people supporting that position is displayed.
[0218] In some embodiments, the fact checker is used to assist
users in reading the fine print displayed in television
advertisements. For example, the fact checker captures the fine
print and allows the reader to display the fine print for longer
than the normal display time. In another example, the fact checker
allows the user to capture and enlarge the fine print so that it is
more legible.
[0219] In some embodiments, to determine a
character/actor/location/other information, a user takes a picture
of a television screen, computer screen, mobile device screen or
any other object/scene. For example, if a movie is being played on
a person's television, the person uses his mobile device to take a
picture of the screen, and then the mobile device is able to
analyze the picture and determine the actor, movie being played,
where the set location is, and/or provide any other
information.
[0220] In some embodiments, when a poll is referred to, related
polls are searched for and presented. In some embodiments, the
polls are compared. For example, Political Program X only shows an
XYZ poll that shows Candidate Z in the lead, but a similar poll
(ZZZ poll) shows Candidate Y in the lead, then the ZZZ poll is also
presented. Similar polls are able to be searched for in any manner,
including, but not limited to, same or similar dates, same or
similar topics and/or any other manner.
[0221] In some embodiments, a mobile device (e.g. smart phone) is
used to scan a television advertisement to obtain information. For
example, if a user is watching television and a commercial appears,
the user holds his mobile device with camera so that the camera is
able to scan the commercial, and then the user is able to click on
an item in the advertisement or entire advertisement to receive
additional information regarding the item and/or advertisement. In
some embodiments, the user is able to transfer the advertisement to
his mobile device (e.g. by pointing the camera of the mobile device
at the advertisement and selecting "transfer" or "capture").
[0222] In some embodiments, fact check information and/or
supplemental information is indicated while a user is
fast-forwarding, pausing and/or taking another action with a video.
For example, while a user is fast-forwarding a DVD, supplemental
information is displayed to the user.
[0223] In some embodiments, a DVR records a show with or without
fact checked information or supplemental information, but fact
checked information and/or supplemental information is determined
in the time between the initial recording of the show by the DVR
and when the user views the recorded information, so that when a
user views the recorded information, the fact checked results
and/or supplemental information is displayed. In some embodiments,
the fact checked results and/or supplemental information is stored
on the DVR, and in some embodiments, the information is stored on
another device. In some embodiments, the fact checked results
and/or supplemental information is updated incrementally as new
information is determined.
[0224] In some embodiments, supplemental information that includes
a fusion of genres is implemented. For example, a user is watching
a political commentary show and comedic supplemental information is
provided. The determination of the supplemental information to
provide is the same as or similar to other implementations
described herein. In some embodiments, a database of keywords and
corresponding actions to take or information to display is
maintained, or the actions or information are based on searches
performed. For example, a database includes a keyword "global
warming" and a joke related to global warming is included to
correspond with that keyword. Then, as the information is
monitored, and the keyword is detected, the joke is presented to
the user (e.g. on his mobile device or television). In some
embodiments, more information is used in determining what
supplemental information is displayed. For example, user-related
information is used including, but not limited to, age, gender,
location, political leaning, and any other information. Furthering
the example, if a user is conservative, a joke linked to global
warming would be critical of global warming; whereas, a joke for a
liberal user would be critical of those who do not believe in
global warming.
[0225] In some embodiments, a personalized viewing schedule is
implemented. The personalized viewing schedule is able to be
implemented by switching among channels, using a video recording
system (e.g. DVR or TiVo.RTM.), using online video, using radio
and/or any other implementation. For example, after the fact
checker monitors and processes a 10 pm news program, in conjunction
with a DVR storing the news program, the fact checker displays a
list of topics/stories covered in the news program. Furthering the
example, the 10 pm news includes a stock market report, a homicide
report, a weather report, a sports report, and a story about local
art projects. The user is presented these items (e.g. in a list),
and then the user is able to select and/or rank the stories to
watch in order or select only particular stories to view. For
example, the user chooses to watch the sports report, the stock
market report and the weather report, and then only those stories
are shown to the user. In some embodiments, the items (or segments)
are pre-sorted based on previous selections by the user, user
preferences, friends' selections (e.g. Facebook contact
recommendations), popularity, and/or any other bases. In some
embodiments, the list of stories is displayed on the screen, so
that the user is able to see what stories are upcoming.
[0226] In some embodiments, the fact check information and/or
supplemental information is displayed as part of and/or during a
commercial break.
[0227] In some embodiments, a fact checker button is implemented
for turning on/off the fact checking system. The fact checker
button is able to be located on a remote control, television,
mobile device and/or any other device and is able to be a hard
button, soft key, menu selection, or any other implementation.
[0228] In some embodiments, the fact checker is implemented such
that the monitoring, processing, and fact checking are performed
automatically, but a user (e.g. moderator) is also involved with
the indicating such that it is performed semi-automatically. For
example, a person's speech is monitored, processed and fact checked
automatically, and then the results of the fact check are displayed
to a moderator who is able to determine which fact check results
are indicated (e.g. displayed to viewers). For further example, the
fact checker finds that the speaker misspoke and said $100 Billion
instead of $100 Million. The fact checker presents this to the
moderator who then approves the correction which is then posted to
viewer's screens. Although this slows down the process slightly,
the delay will be minimal such that the indication is still
presented within several seconds and possibly even within one
second.
Additional Structure and Execution
[0229] In some embodiments, a device such as a mobile device is
used to perform a fact check of an item through the use of the
device's camera or other sensor. The mobile device is able to scan
(e.g. merely point camera without taking picture), take a picture,
take a video, or any other method of acquiring the content of the
item. For example, a mobile phone is used to take a picture of a
print newspaper and perform a fact check of the newspaper. The
writers of the articles are able to be rated as described herein.
The newspaper or magazine is able to be rated as described herein.
For example, tabloids are viewed as unreliable or are given less
credibility than a standard newspaper. Any print material is able
to be fact checked, including, but not limited to, newspapers,
magazines, books, billboards and pamphlets, including any
advertisements within. In some embodiments, the device is able to
fact check an item including, but not limited to, a purse, dress,
watch, ring, shoe, suit, clothing, or any other item to determine
the brand of the item and/or if the item is a replica. For example,
a user directs the camera of his mobile phone toward a watch and
the fact checker determines if the watch is an original Rolex or a
replica. The fact checker is able to perform the check in any
manner such as determining that the watch says Molex instead of
Rolex, or by a picture comparison of the acquired watch and
certified watches stored in a database, comparing distinct features
of a genuine article such as stitching and/or hardware/material
used, or any other comparison.
[0230] In some embodiments, the item determination is performed on
items on television, the Internet or elsewhere. For example, during
an awards show, the item determination posts information about the
dresses being worn, including, but not limited to, designer and/or
price. The fact checker is also able to perform person
identification. Using the awards show example, an indication of who
is being shown on camera is able to be displayed. As described
herein, facial/body analysis or any other method is able to be
performed to determine who people are. Additionally,
character/actor/person determination is able to be performed. For
example, if a commercial is being displayed, and a user is curious
who the main actor is, actor determination is implemented to
display the actor's information. In some embodiments, all
character/actor information is displayed, only selected
character/actor information is displayed, or any other
configuration of information is displayed. For example, all names
of actors on a television show are shown under each actor. In
another example, a user specifically selects (e.g. by touchscreen
or any other method of selecting) the actor to see information. The
amount of information is also able to be variable. For example, as
little as a name is shown or much more detailed information is
shown including, but not limited to, biographical information,
other shows/movies, ratings/reviews, links, character/plot summary
(e.g. a summary of this character's involvement in the plot) and
any other information. In some embodiments, information about when
a specified actor will be on television next is displayed. For
example, a user clicks on Actor A, and the user is informed that
the actor is also in Movie Z, at 7 pm on Channel 263. For sports,
some or all names of the players are shown on/near each player. In
another example, a user specifically selects (e.g. by touchscreen
or any other method of selecting) the player to see information.
The amount of information is also able to be variable (e.g. game
stats, historical stats, personal information, fantasy football
stats, and any other information). The fact checker is also able to
perform location recognition. For example, if a reporter is "on
location," the fact checker is able to determine where that
location is. The fact checker is able to determine the location by
comparing the image with a stored image, by searching the credits
(e.g. a movie specifies locations of shootings), by searching text
of the transcript (e.g. newscaster earlier said, "we're on location
live at x," and/or any other implementation. In some embodiments,
after a location is determined, the viewer is able to pull up
additional information about the location (e.g. historical
information, current information (weather, prices of goods)).
Character determination, location determination and any other
determination is able to be implemented using any media including,
but not limited to, television, movies, photographs (e.g. online
photographs), videos (e.g. online videos), satellite information,
prior news feeds, or any other media. In some embodiments,
identifying the object is by comparing the object with other
objects in the scene, finding a story/article about the object, or
any other method of identification. Distances and/or sizes of
objects within the scene are able to be determined with scene
analysis.
[0231] In some embodiments, the fact checker checks for and
indicates defamation, slander, libel, plagiarism, copyright
infringement, trademark infringement, patent infringement, and/or
other crimes. In some embodiments, when a crime is committed or may
have been committed, the targeted person and/or someone else (e.g.
the police) is contacted (e.g. an email or Tweet is sent with the
criminal comment, who said/wrote the comment, and any other
relevant information). In some embodiments, defamation or other
crimes are determined by: determining the location of the speaker
or victim, determining if the statement is false, determining state
law and presenting the state law and statement to the victim or the
victim's attorney and/or analyzing the law to determine if the law
is violated. In some embodiments, additional elements are
considered such as defenses to the crime. In some embodiments,
other crimes/laws are fact checked by analyzing the
law/statute/regulation/ordinance/cases/other information, analyzing
the facts and determining a result. In some embodiments, a database
of laws, cases and holdings is used to perform the analysis. In
some embodiments, the analysis merely returns similar cases, so
that the user is able to compare. In a same or similar manner, a
disparaging comment is detected and reported (e.g. to the target of
the comment). For example, if someone writes on a message board
that Company XYZ is a terrible company, the comment, web address,
citation, and/or any other information is sent (e.g. by email,
Twitter or any other means) to the target of the comment.
[0232] In some embodiments, future shows and/or news stories are
based on fact checking results. For example, if users respond to
news stories as overplayed, future newscasts will not include
stories related to that topic. In another example, if users request
more information about an aspect of the story (e.g. victim's race),
future newscasts will include that information. In another example,
if users rate a story as "biased," the future newscast will remove
the bias.
[0233] In some embodiments, an indication on or near a headline,
title, caption, talking point and/or other short phrase is
implemented. For example, a rating of a story, article, news or any
other information is able to be implemented. In some embodiments,
the rating of the story is based on an automatic fact check of the
story. In a further example, a title of an article is "Vaccines
Proven Harmful," but the article uses studies that have been
discredited and readers rate the article poorly, future viewers
will see the article as "Vaccines Proven Harmful 0 Stars." In some
embodiments, the indication is not near the headline or other
phrase. For example, the indication is on a user's mobile device
after scanning or taking a picture of a hardcopy title. In some
embodiments, the indication is a characterization of the article.
For example, the article is characterized as liberal, neutral or
conservative. Other characterizations, ratings and indications are
able to be implemented. In some embodiments, an indication of a
better and/or opposing article, story and/or other information is
indicated. In some embodiments, if a headline is determined to be
misleading (e.g. by comparing the headline with the content of the
article and/or based on user reviews), an indication of
"misleading" is displayed near the headline.
[0234] In some embodiments, stories (e.g. articles, news stories,
and other) are rated. For example, if users are tired of hearing
about Story X, users are able to communicate that opinion. In some
embodiments, broadcasters and/or reporters are able to receive the
ratings information automatically, so that they are able to cut
short, extend or otherwise modify the programming. In some
embodiments, users are able to provide more specifics about the
rating of the story. For example, a viewer is able to indicate she
is tired of the slanted presentation of the story or the
presentation of the lineup of stories (e.g. always making criminals
looking like they were unfairly treated by leaving out important
details). The ratings are able to be any form of ratings including,
but not limited to, thumbs up/down, good/bad, 1-10, A-F, emoticons,
a selection from a list of choices, and/or any other
implementation.
[0235] In some embodiments, a self-checking system is implemented.
For example, a mobile device application including, but not limited
to, an iPhone.RTM. App, monitors a person's comments when he
speaks, and if the person says something incorrect, the application
alerts (e.g. chime, ringtone) the person. For further example, a
dad is explaining geography to his daughter and says Alabama is
West of Mississippi; the application chimes. In some embodiments,
the application provides a correction, provides a citation and/or
any other information to help the person. In some embodiments, the
self-checking is able to be implemented to provide positive
feedback for saying a correct statement, for example, as a learning
tool or a game for children. In some embodiments, a quiz, a
multiple choice program, or other testing material is implemented.
In some embodiments, the fact checker fact checks a user's
statement and then asks a question related to the statement. In
some embodiments, the fact checker learns based on the result of
the fact check to ask an additional question. In some embodiments,
based on a series of statements by the user, the fact checker asks
the user a question. In some embodiments, the self-checking system
has the ability to only fact check a specified user (e.g. by voice
recognition or some other recognition) so that other people's
comments are not fact checked. For example, if a user implements a
self-checking iPhone.RTM. application which monitors everything
received by the iPhone.RTM. listening device, then while the user
is walking on the street, conversations of others may be fact
checked. If the user does not want these other conversations fact
checked, the specified user implementation is able to filter
received information, and only fact check statements made by the
specified user.
[0236] In some embodiments, the fact checking is implemented in or
as a search engine and/or a browser. Using a standard search
engine, entering a statement such as "Alaska is the largest state"
results in links being displayed on the screen which enable a user
to then select a link where the user is able to verify if Alaska is
the largest state. Using a fact checking enabled search engine, a
user is able to enter "Alaska is the largest state" in the browser
window, and the result of "True" appears. In some embodiments,
links still appear as from a standard search engine, and next to or
near each link appears a result including, but not limited to,
True/False or any other indicators. In some embodiments, search
engine capabilities are available in other software (e.g. word
processors) to perform a fact check.
[0237] In some embodiments, the fact checking system is embedded or
used with a word processor including, but not limited to,
Microsoft.RTM. Word or any other software program. In some
embodiments, the word processor highlights, underlines, circles,
auto-corrects or performs another form of fact checking
identification. In some embodiments, if the statement being fact
checked could be corrected in more than one way, a user is
presented with multiple options. For example, if a user types,
"Texas is the biggest state," the user is able to be presented with
"Alaska" as a replacement of Texas, or "second biggest state," to
clarify that Texas is the second biggest state.
[0238] In some embodiments, the fact checker is implemented as part
of an operating system.
[0239] In some embodiments, some or every tweet a person sends out
is highlighted or color-coded based on the type of tweet. For
example, different tweets are coded as factually correct, factually
incorrect, spin, opinion, hyperbole, or any other
characterization.
[0240] In some embodiments, email is fact checked. Depending on the
embodiment, the email is fact checked before being sent out or fact
checked when the email arrives in a user's inbox, or when the user
opens the email. In some embodiments, when the user opens the
email, the email is able to be provided marked up such that
factually inaccurate statements are indicated, for example. In some
embodiments, a user is able to send the email to a service, and the
service returns a marked up version. The service is able to be
local to the device (e.g. software running on a user's device) or
could be external including, but not limited to, on the Web. The
same or similar implementations are able to be used for SMS texts,
MMS texts, audio texts, or any other communication. In some
embodiments, an entire email or other message is indicated as
"spam" or any other indication/label if it is found to be factually
inaccurate. In some embodiments, a threshold is implemented to
determine if the message is spam. For example, if the threshold is
10 inaccuracies, and 11 factually inaccurate items are found, then
the message is labeled as spam.
[0241] In some embodiments, conversations are recorded for a time
period (e.g. a night) so that they are able to be used later for
comparison with a statement.
[0242] In some embodiments, a closed system of information is
searchable, such as for a court case. For example, all documents,
testimony and evidence are put in a searchable digital format, and
if someone makes a conflicting statement compared to what is on the
record, an alert or a similar effect is presented. In some
embodiments, all of the searchable information is fact checked. In
some embodiments, the fact checker performs a document reviewer's
task. In some embodiments, legal arguments are fact checked to make
sure a case is not cited out of context, a holding is not
misstated, and/or any other checking.
[0243] In some embodiments, a language translator is implemented.
For example, a video is translated from one language to another
using closed caption. In another example, only mistakes are
translated and displayed. In some embodiments, a foreign language
monitor is implemented. For example, if a device knows a user's
native language is English, and the user is attempting to speak
Spanish, the device monitors for incorrect usage or pronunciation.
In some embodiments, the device monitors every language for
incorrect usage or pronunciation. For example, if a user says, "you
played good today," the device is able to correct the user and
indicate the sentence should have been, "you played well today." In
some embodiments, the fact checker checks for outdated word
use.
[0244] In some embodiments, if a comment is made about an
individual, a group, a company or any other entity, that person is
able to post a comment rebutting the comment on a different
location than the original comment. Or the rebuttal is on the
person's website and pulled, or tweeted, spoken, or any other
means. For example, if Person A says Person B plans to raise taxes,
the fact checking system is able to pull a quote from Person B's
website that says, "I promise not to raise taxes," and that comment
is automatically posted with Person A's comment, providing a
real-time rebuttal. The rebuttal is able to be made/posted before
the opposing comment is made for an immediate rebuttal. The
location of the rebuttal is able to be found in any manner such as
by determining the name of the person being commented on and
finding the person's personal website (e.g. Facebook.RTM.
page).
[0245] In some embodiments, the fact checker is used to prevent
bullying on social networking sites including, but not limited to,
Facebook.RTM., Myspace, LinkedIn, Twitter, and other websites. For
example, users are able to flag other poster's comments or pages as
false or any other characterization. Additionally, as described
above, an automatic rebuttal is able to be implemented such that if
a user posts something on his site and then other users post a
contradictory remark on their sites, the user's post is
automatically used to rebut the other users' comments. For example,
if a group of users try to disseminate a rumor about Teen X, Teen X
is able to post a remark on his page that the rumor is not true.
Then, when the group of users post their rumor on their sites,
their comments will be marked on their sites, and they will be
rebutted immediately, helping to dispel the rumor. The user is able
to post his rebuttal proactively or after the other remarks are
already made.
[0246] In some embodiments, real estate prices/values are fact
checked. For example, if a real estate agent tells a person, "this
house is worth $500,000" the fact checking system is able to take
data regarding the house and do a real-time comparison with
comparable sales (and other factors or specific information related
to the house or the purchase including, but not limited to,
household incomes, unemployment rates, population growth, upgrades,
and others) and determine the validity of the agent's price. Other
price comparison is able to be performed as well such as with
tradespeople. For example, if a plumber quotes a person $100 to
replace a pipe, the fact checking system is able to determine what
other plumbers in the area charge for such a task and/or compare
BBB ratings. In some embodiments, a rent checker is implemented. In
some embodiments, other price comparison is performed including,
but not limited to, comparison of stores, online goods/services or
any other goods/services.
[0247] In an example of live fact checking, while a sporting event
is being broadcast, a commentator provides commentary including
statistics which are usually fed to the commentator by someone
behind the scenes. To further ensure the accuracy of the comments,
the fact checker is able to be implemented to monitor the data fed
to the commentator before the commentator presents it or after the
commentator makes the statement, so that he is able to make any
corrections.
[0248] In some embodiments, a picture-in-picture configuration is
used to provide information and results from the fact checking
system to a user. In some embodiments, picture-in-picture is not
used.
[0249] In some embodiments, the fact checking system is used to
fact check archived data. For example, a network's past footage is
fact checked. The results of the archived data are able to be used
in rating the network or for other purposes.
[0250] In some embodiments, hypocrisy is detected. For example,
statements are compared to source information to determine if
previous statements contradict or are hypocritical. For example,
Speaker A says, "we should do X" and then two weeks later, Speaker
A says, "we should not do X," the second statement is indicated as
hypocritical or flip-flopping. In some embodiments, the first
statement is then displayed. Context is able to be implemented in
conjunction with searching for hypocritical statements. For
example, if Speaker A says, "adultery is wrong," but sources show
that Speaker A previously committed adultery, an indication that
Speaker A is being hypocritical is presented. Any other methods of
determining hypocrisy are able to be implemented. Further,
hypocrisy is able to be included with the validity rating of
entities described herein. For example, when Speaker A appears on a
television program, a label of hypocrite and/or a number of
hypocritical statements/actions is presented. In some embodiments,
dates or time frames are used in determining the relevance of fact
check comparison. For example, if a hypocritical statement was made
30 years ago, the fact checker may realize that it was more likely
a change of view rather than a hypocritical statement; whereas, a
contradictory statement made 2 weeks ago is likely due to hypocrisy
not a change of view. In some embodiments, items similar to
hypocrisy including, but not limited to, flip-flopping and waffling
are detected. In some embodiments, dates of when the conflicting
(e.g. hypocritical) statements/actions occurred are displayed.
Contradictions and other similar items are able to be determined in
any manner, including, but not limited to, logic comparisons. For
example, sentences with and without "not" are compared. In another
example, detecting antonyms is used. In another example, a data
structure (e.g. database) of quotes is kept and the quotes are
classified (e.g. pro-tax), and if quotes by the same entity are on
opposite classifications, hypocrisy is determined. Furthering the
example, a commentator says we should attack Country A, which is
classified as pro-war with Country A, and then later the
commentator says we should not attack Country A, which is
classified in an opposing cell as anti-war with Country A,
hypocrisy is detected and indicated. In some embodiments, a
database of potentially hypocritical statements/actions is
maintained and monitored for contradictions. For example, the
database includes names/entities and corresponding statements that
are most ripe for hypocrisy (e.g. positions on adultery, wasting
money, other political positions).
[0251] In some embodiments, subscriptions are implemented.
Subscriptions are able to be implemented to perform any variety of
subscription services. For example, users are able to subscribe to
or unsubscribe to fact checking being displayed on their television
screen. In some embodiments, users are able to subscribe to
different levels of fact checking. In some embodiments, users are
able to select preferences and/or settings for the extent of or
quantity of items to be fact checked.
[0252] In some embodiments, the fact checker is used with rating
websites including, but not limited to, yelp.com to ensure the
comments/reviews by users are accurate. For example, if a user
states that Business X is the worst in State Z, but Business X is
not even in State Z, the comment is able to be filtered.
[0253] In some embodiments, the fact checker is used for fact
checking sports' rules and the implementation of the rules. For
example, the fact checker is used for determining if the
umpire/referee made the correct call. The fact checker is able to
analyze video or images of the sport, determine the applicable
rule, analyze the facts and the rule, and produce a judgment.
[0254] In some embodiments, the fact checker is used to fact check
personal information. For example, a potential employer uses the
fact checker to fact check potential employees' resumes. The fact
checker is able to take portions of the person's resume and compare
the person's education with education records, previous job history
with company information, Bar information with public legal
databases, and any other information. In another example, a
mortgage company uses the fact checker to fact check a potential
borrower's mortgage application. In yet another example, a dating
service uses the fact checker to fact check people's postings. In
another example, health information is checked, and to verify that
a person qualifies for life insurance, the person's application is
fact checked based on medical records. The fact checker is able to
be used based solely on what is in a person's document (e.g.
resume) or based on other information as well. For example, in some
embodiments, a person's name is able to be used to locate
supplemental information regarding the person. For example, the
person's web page, Facebook.RTM. page, previous papers/articles
written and any other information is able to be found to supplement
the information provided. In some embodiments, only public
information is searched, in some embodiments, only private
information is searched, and in some embodiments, both public and
private information is searched.
[0255] In some embodiments, the fact checker is able to be used to
provide details regarding a physical object. For example, if a user
takes a picture of a painted wall, the fact checker is able to
determine the color, brand, type and/or any other information about
the paint by database, based on date, location and any other
information. In another example, the physical object determination
is able to be used for learning, such that a person is able to take
a picture of an object and the fact checker provides information
about the object. For example, a child takes a picture of a cat,
and the fact checker tells the child that it is a cat and that the
cat is gray. In some embodiments, additional information is
provided including, but not limited to, history of cats, anatomy of
cats, and any other information. In some embodiments, the user
takes a picture and then inputs (e.g. voice input) what the user
thinks the object is, then the fact checker determines if the user
is correct. For example, a child takes a picture of a cat and says,
"dog," the fact checker will determine that the object is a cat and
inform the user of that he is wrong and/or provide the correct
answer. In some embodiments, a game is played using the fact
checker where after the user takes the picture, the fact checker
asks a question about the object. For example, a child takes a
picture of the cat, and a question of what color the cat is, is
presented. The fact checker then analyzes the response and responds
accordingly. More difficult questions are able to be asked as well,
such as historical questions (e.g. which group worshipped cats?),
geography questions (e.g. what country has the most cats?), and/or
mathematical questions (e.g. how many trees do you see in this
scene?). In some embodiments, the questions become progressively
more difficult as the user answers correctly. In some embodiments,
the information acquired when taking pictures is organized in a
report format. For example, if a student is supposed to do a report
on different types of trees, and the student takes pictures of 5
different trees, a report, including the pictures, is generated
with details about the trees. In some embodiments, the user is able
to take a picture of a food item, and recipes are generated that
use that item. In some embodiments, the user is able to take a
picture of a store (e.g. restaurant), and information about that
store is presented including, but not limited to, user
ratings/reviews, critic ratings/reviews, hours of operation, menu
and/or a description of the store. In some embodiments, the user
does not have to take a picture; rather, the user merely points the
lens of the camera of the mobile device at the object, and the
device is able to scan the object. The information provided about
the object is able to be based on a database lookup, a search or
any other implementation. In some embodiments, the user takes a
picture or points the camera at a street sign, and a list of items
(e.g. restaurants) is displayed in order of proximity, ratings
and/or reviews, for example. In some embodiments, GPS or another
locating mechanism is used for determining a user's location.
[0256] In some embodiments, users are given rewards, awards and/or
prizes for participating with and/or contributing to the fact
checker.
[0257] In some embodiments, a collection of incorrect predictions
and/or statements and/or hypocrisy is maintained.
[0258] In some embodiments, a shortcut fact checker is implemented.
The shortcut fact checker performs a shortcut fact check and
indicates "likely true," "likely false" or another indication. The
shortcut fact check is implemented by performing a search and based
on the number of results, indicating "likely true" or "likely
false." For example, if a search results in zero results or few
results, "likely false" is indicated. If a search results in many
results, "likely true" is indicated. In some embodiments, the
shortcut fact checker uses reliability ratings to narrow sources
used. In some embodiments, the result accuracy rating is used (e.g.
only "likely true" if there are many results with an accuracy
rating above a threshold).
[0259] In some embodiments, the fact checker is implemented to
correct word pronunciation of any communication (e.g. of broadcast
information). For example, people's names, geographic locations and
any other words are able to be corrected. In some embodiments, the
fact checker compares the sound clip with another sound clip. For
example, a database of people's names is stored and when their name
is spoken, the pronunciation is compared with the stored data in
the database. For example, each player on a football team says his
name, and it is recorded in a database, then, when a broadcaster
says his name, if it is mispronounced, some form of action is taken
including, but not limited to, playing the correct version to the
user, playing the correct version to the broadcaster so that he is
able to repeat it, playing a chime to the broadcaster, displaying a
phonetic spelling to the users and/or the broadcaster, and/or any
other indication. In some embodiments, the sound clip is converted
into text, and then the text is compared with a pronunciation
guide. In some embodiments, the fact checker is implemented to
correct grammar of any communication (e.g. of broadcast
information). For example, if a commentator says, "I'm doing good,"
the grammar correction is able to correct the statement by
indicating, "I'm doing well." The indication is able to be any
indication; for example, sending a corrective Tweet to a user's
mobile device.
[0260] In some embodiments, a lie detector is implemented with the
fact checker. The lie detector analyzes a speaker's voice, body
language, heart rate and/or any other information to determine if
the person is telling the truth. For example, a video of a speaker
is analyzed in conjunction with fact checking the content of the
communication to provide a better assessment of the video. The lie
detection analysis is able to be used to provide context to the
fact checking analysis or vice versa.
[0261] In some embodiments, tracking is implemented. For example,
words and/or phrases are tracked as a speech is displayed,
throughout the speech or at the end of the speech, the number of
repeats is displayed. For example, if the President says, "job
creation" 5 times in a speech, that total is presented to the
viewer. The information is also able to used for analysis of the
speech (e.g. automatically determining the focus of the speech). In
another example, words and/or phrases are tracked, and supplemental
information is presented related to the tracked information. For
example, if the President says, we need to "increase our energy
independence," supplemental information is able to be shown to the
viewer that the past 5 presidents have said the same or similar
idea, and the viewer is able to understand that this may be a point
with little substance. The phrases do not have to be verbatim
matches; similar matches are able to be found.
[0262] In some embodiments, fact check information and/or
supplemental information is displayed on a mobile device while the
user is talking on the phone. For example, both sides of a user's
phone conversation are being fact checked, and if something is
detected as untrue, the fact checker indicates it to the user.
[0263] In some embodiments, user information is acquired to be used
by the fact checker and/or supplemental information, for example,
for advertising.
[0264] In some embodiments, information is presented in real-time,
but also saved/stored so that the user is able to review the
information later. The information is searchable, able to be
categorized and/or organized/formatted in any manner.
[0265] In some embodiments, the date/time of a comment is recorded
and/or determined. For example, if one entity begins a trend by
saying a catchy phrase, and then other entities repeat the phrase
making it out to be their original idea, a note is able to be
presented giving credit to the first entity. Comparisons of
dates/times or other implementations are able to be used in
determining the first entity versus subsequent entities.
[0266] In some embodiments, the fact checker is able to detect
changed names. For example, high fructose corn syrup is being
changed to corn sugar. By detecting changed names, either name is
able to be used in the fact check or to provide supplemental
information. For example, if a person makes a comment about "corn
sugar," the fact checker knows to search for "corn sugar" as well
as "high fructose corn syrup." The implementation could be by using
a database which stores name changes and searches based on all
known names, or by using an embedded search to search for other
names, or any other implementation.
[0267] In some embodiments, artificial intelligence is used in any
aspect of the methods and systems described herein. For example,
artificial intelligence is used to determine which follow-up
question to ask a guest on a television show.
[0268] In some embodiments, the fact checker is used with
teleprompters and/or to fact check scripts prior to airing. In some
embodiments, the fact checker implements measures to prevent
hacking, skewing and/or other tampering of the system.
[0269] In some embodiments, the fact checker is linked to or is a
part of a gaming system.
[0270] In some embodiments, an independent fact checker device is
implemented where the device receives information (e.g. a
television signal) without the television being on and is able to
perform monitoring, searching, analysis, and/or any other
tasks.
[0271] In some embodiments, one or more of the data structures
described herein are populated automatically, (e.g. by
automatically searching and storing results in the data structure),
manually, or a combination thereof.
[0272] In some embodiments, a scam checker is implemented using the
fact checker. In some embodiments, the scam checker checks websites
and/or emails to determine if they are safe. In some embodiments,
the scam checker determines if an advertisement is a scam
(dishonest scheme or fraud). In some embodiments, a scam is
detected using a database of scams. For example, content (e.g. of a
website) is compared with language in a database. In some
embodiments, a scam is detected by determining it is similar to
other scams. In some embodiments, a scam is detected by determining
it is mathematically or economically impossible. In some
embodiments, a scam is detected by determining the content includes
misinformation. In some embodiments, a scam is detected by
searching other website and/or weblogs that have commented on the
scam. In some embodiments, a user is able to request a website to
be fact checked by inputting a URL in a user interface of the fact
checker. Any implementation is able to be used to detect a scam. In
some embodiments, a scam website is indicated as such when
displayed in a search engine result or other webpage (e.g. bubble
when mouse over link).
Medical
[0273] In some embodiments, a medical fact checker is implemented.
The medical fact checker monitors, processes, fact checks and
indicates information. In some embodiments, the fact checker checks
the information with a limited set of sources (e.g. validated
medical sources). For example, in some embodiments, only medical
journals and studies are used as sources for fact checking. In some
embodiments, other sources are used, but the sources are still
certified as valid before being used. In some embodiments,
additional sources are used such as medical websites. In some
embodiments, a designated medical database is used as a source. For
example, a database of all known illnesses and symptoms is utilized
as a source. In some embodiments, users are able to specify their
threshold for sources to use. The medical fact checker is able to
be utilized in various implementations. In some embodiments, a user
inputs (e.g. says or types), "I think I have X disease, because I
have symptoms A, B, and C." The medical fact checker fact checks
the statement by looking up the disease and symptoms for the
disease to see if the symptoms match the disease. In some
embodiments, statistics are determined and indicated to the user.
In some embodiments, additional information about the person is
utilized to assist in performing the medical fact check, including,
but not limited to, age, weight, height, race, previous conditions,
time of the year, location, genetic conditions, family history,
vaccinations, recent activities, recent travels, and any other
information. For example, if the user says, "I think I have Polio
because I have a fever and a headache," the medical fact checker
indicates a 0.0001% chance of Polio based on recent diagnosis rates
and/or any other data. In some embodiments, the medical fact
checker indicates possible illnesses/conditions based on the
symptom(s). For example, a list of possible illnesses/conditions is
presented. In some embodiments, information is displayed to
indicate that the listed illnesses/conditions include some symptoms
described but not others.
[0274] In some embodiments, the medical fact checker prevents
misinformation from being spread by fact checking email, websites,
broadcast information and any other information. The fact checker
compares the information with medical journals and/or other medical
information to determine the validity of the information. For
example, an email discussing homeopathic remedies is fact checked
and/or to provide supplemental information about the remedies (e.g.
what plant the remedy comes from, where it is located, any tests or
studies done with the remedy, if the remedy is FDA approved, and
other information). For further example, medical analysis is
presented regarding the remedy. In some embodiments, it is
determined if the medical information is stale and/or if a newer
study has been performed. In some embodiments, information about
the source of the information is fact checked and/or supplemental
information presented. For example, the doctor's credentials are
displayed (and fact checked), the medical school's information is
displayed, certifications are fact checked and displayed, study
information is displayed, any criminal charges, complaints and/or
comments are displayed and/or any other information is displayed.
In some embodiments, a database is implemented to track
deceptive/false/fake medicine, doctors and/or medical information.
In some embodiments, an email, website and/or other content is
analyzed to determine if an item is being sold. For example, an
email is distributed about being tired, and at the end of the email
is an item to cure tiredness. The sales pitch is highlighted or
indicated in a manner to alert the user of possible misinformation
or medical scam.
[0275] In some embodiments, the fact checker checks for allergy
information of items. For example, a device acquires allergy
information by scanning the ingredients label, taking a picture of
the ingredients label, using a barcode reader to determine the
ingredients information, using RFID information, and/or any method
of determining the ingredients and/or food preparation information
(including, but not limited to, "processed in a plant that also
processes X"). The fact checker then compares the information to a
database of allergy information. In some embodiments, the fact
checker uses a higher level approach and fact checks the allergy
information by the name of the item. Any other implementation of
fact checking the item for allergy information is able to be used
to assist a user in avoiding allergic reactions, such as postings
on a website or statements a company has made about a product in a
FAQ, blog, or other location. Analysis such as fact checking is
able to be done to determine the reliability of the posting; for
example, a blogger receives a reliability or credibility
rating.
Television/Controversy/Candidates and Other Implementations
[0276] FIG. 15 illustrates a flowchart of a method of presenting a
viewing schedule according to some embodiments. As described above,
a personalized viewing schedule is able to be implemented using
steps of fact checking and generating a viewing schedule for a
user. In the step 1500, information (e.g. a television broadcast)
is monitored. In the step 1502, the information is processed.
Processing includes, but is not limited to converting the
information into searchable information, parsing the searchable
information into fact checkable portions, separating a show/program
into segments based on time, events in the information, keywords in
the information and/or any other method of separating the
show/program, storing the segments in a device such as a DVR,
ranking the segments, ordering the segments, filtering the
segments, and/or any other processing described herein. In the step
1504, a viewing schedule is presented to the user. In some
embodiments, the viewing schedule is personalized for the user or
the device. For example, the viewing schedule is personalized based
on personal information (e.g., age, sex, and/or other information),
user preferences (e.g., music preferences, movie preferences), user
input, social networking information (e.g., Facebook.RTM. page
comments/likes/dislikes), tweets, the user's political
classification, popularity of information / trends, and/or any
other information. The viewing schedule is able to include segments
of a program, show, movie, commercial, sporting event, or any other
content. In some embodiments, one or more steps are skipped. In
some embodiments, more or fewer steps are implemented. In some
embodiments, the order of the steps is modified.
[0277] FIG. 16 illustrates an exemplary viewing schedule according
to some embodiments. Using the examples directly above and further
above, a news program is monitored and processed including
determining separate segments of the show such as a homicide
report, a sports report, and a weather report. The segments are
displayed to a user in any format, for example, a view similar to a
standard cable channel guide with subsets of data for each program.
The user is able to select which segments to watch instead of
selecting an entire show, or as described above, the segments and
their order to watch is automatically generated based on personal
information of the user or device information. Additionally, the
segments do not have to be watched in chronological order. The
segments are able to be displayed and/or watched based on a user's
preferences or importance. For example, the user wants to watch
weather first and then sports even though in the program, sports
was first. Additionally, in some embodiments, segments that fall
below a user's importance threshold (as described herein) or other
criteria are not displayed.
[0278] FIG. 17 illustrates a flowchart of a method of performing
television analysis according to some embodiments. As described
above, television analysis is able to be implemented to improve a
user's ability to enjoy television programming. In the step 1700, a
search string is received. In some embodiments, the step 1700 is
skipped. In some embodiments, the searched for information is
automatically determined from personal information, previous
viewing history, social networking information and/or from any
other information. In some embodiments, additional information is
received and/or automatically determined to perform the television
analysis, including but not limited to which channel to monitor for
which search string (e.g., different search strings for different
channels or the same search strings for different channels), and
the time frame of the search. In the step 1702, broadcast
information is monitored. In the step 1704, the broadcast
information is processed. Processing is able to include converting,
parsing, analyzing, storing, comparing with a search string,
auto-comparing, and/or any other processing. In the step 1706,
information is presented based on the processing. Presenting the
information includes but is not limited to automatically changing
the channel, presenting a text/audio/video alert/alarm, displaying
picture-in-picture, playing a video from a detected point,
displaying different points in a video where a search string is
found, and/or any other presentation of information. In some
embodiments, one or more steps are skipped. In some embodiments,
more or fewer steps are implemented. In some embodiments, the order
of the steps is modified.
[0279] FIG. 18 illustrates an exemplary user interface for
receiving search information for television analysis according to
some embodiments. As described above, information such as
keyword(s)/search string(s), channel(s) to be monitored, start and
end time(s) for the monitoring, and/or any other information is
able to be entered. The information is able to be entered using any
user interface implementation including, but not limited to, text
boxes, radio buttons, drop-down menus, voice input, movement
recognition, SMS message, and/or any other input described
herein.
[0280] FIG. 19 illustrates an exemplary screenshot of an alert
using television analysis according to some embodiments. An alert
is displayed at the bottom of the user's screen when the user's
search string (e.g., golf) is found on a different channel. The
user is then able to change the channel to view his desired
programming. As described above, other alerts or effects are able
to be used to inform the user that his desired programming is being
played on a different channel.
[0281] FIG. 20 illustrates an exemplary screenshot of search
results according to some embodiments. By searching recorded
information, a user is able to locate all instances of a search
string. As shown, every instance where the programming mentions the
phrase "Tiger Woods" is displayed. The user is then able to go to
each instance using "next" and "previous" buttons or another
implementation. This enables a user to quickly view very specific
desired sections of programming.
[0282] FIG. 21 illustrates a flowchart of a method of using
opposing arguments by an opposing entity according to some
embodiments. In the step 2100, a specific fact checking scheme
and/or supplemental information scheme is configured. For example,
a conservative selects a liberal channel to be monitored,
conservative sources to be used, links to be displayed as
supplemental information based on keywords detected and/or any
other selections. In the step 2102, a user selects which plan or
scheme to use for fact checking and/or providing supplemental
information. For example, a user selects a conservative blogger's
fact checking scheme. In the step 2104, information is monitored
using the selected fact checking scheme. In the step 2106, the
information is processed as described herein. In the step 2108, the
processed information is fact checked using the selected fact
checking scheme as described herein. In some embodiments, both the
selected fact checking scheme and a general fact checking scheme
are used in parallel, and both results are used. In the step 2110,
a result of the fact checking is indicated as described herein. In
some embodiments, supplemental information is presented including
opposing arguments. The opposing arguments are able to be input
and/or generated in the step 2100 or elsewhere. The supplemental
information is presented with or without fact checking depending on
the embodiment. In some embodiments, one or more steps are skipped.
For example, if a user has already selected a fact checking scheme,
steps 2100 and 2102 are able to be skipped. In another example, a
fact checking scheme is automatically selected based on personal
information, political classification, and/or other information
about a user (e.g. social networking information), and the step
2102 is able to be skipped. In some embodiments, more or fewer
steps are implemented. In some embodiments, the order of the steps
is modified.
[0283] FIG. 22 illustrates an exemplary user interface for
receiving user selections for information analysis according to
some embodiments. For example, a user is able to select how the
information is analyzed or fact checked by selecting
ultra-conservative, conservative, moderate, liberal or
ultra-liberal. The user is able to select a general classification
of a fact checking and supplemental information scheme or a
specific user's scheme. For example, a cable news network generates
a fact checking and supplemental information scheme for a competing
cable news network which other users are able to select for when
they watch television. Additional information is able to be
selected as well including, but not limited to, which channels the
scheme is used for and/or any other information. In some
embodiments, suggestions/recommendations are presented to users
based on previous selections, suggestions by the developer of the
scheme, personal information, social networking information, and/or
any other information.
[0284] FIG. 23 illustrates an exemplary user interface for
receiving opposing argument selections according to some
embodiments. The selections for presenting opposing arguments
and/or other supplemental information are able to include, but are
not limited to selecting channels to apply the opposing arguments
to, receiving keywords to detect, receiving responses to keywords,
selecting sources to use, and/or selecting a style of response.
[0285] In some embodiments, a fact checker fantasy game is
implemented. Users assemble a team similar to a fantasy football
team such that each team is allowed a pre-determined number of
players, and a specified number of players at each "position" that
can or must be used in each game. A user for each team then
determines each week which players will play that week and which
are benched. For example, a team roster includes two hosts, a
guest, a network and a website. The team could include any other
entities to be fact checked such as a stock picker, weather person,
politician, candidate, senator, representative, actor/actress,
blog, anchor, comedian, announcer, sportscaster,
business/corporation/organization, charity, and/or any others. The
fact checker then monitors each member of the team for false
information, bias and/or any other specified criteria (e.g.,
hyperbole). For example, host X makes a false statement, so the
user's team loses 1 point, since host X is on his team. The user
with the team at the end of a specified period of time with the
most points is the winner. In a similar but opposite manner, the
goal is to pick members of a team who provide false information
and/or other specified criteria, and points are awarded to users
when a team member says something false. In some embodiments, a
user is awarded a point for each misstatements, bias, and any other
specified characterization. In some embodiments, a user is awarded
a point for misinformation, and two points for bias (or two points
for misinformation and one for bias), and other point amounts for
other characterizations. In some embodiments, a user is awarded a
point for each characterization and an additional point if the
characterization is major (e.g., a gross lie or blatant bias) as
determined by a judge/referee, other players or any other
implementation. In some embodiments, a user is awarded a point when
a team member detects another person's inaccuracy (e.g. host X is
on the user's team, and host X points out that guest Y is
incorrect, then host X earns a point for the user's team). Any
other parallels of fantasy games are able to be incorporated. In
another embodiment, users pick fantasy teams for bias, accuracy,
and/or other characterizations. For example, points are earned for
a team member being biased but points are lost for a team member
misstating a fact. Points are able to be awarded and lost in any
desired manner. In some embodiments, users are able to configure
the manner in which points are awarded and lost.
[0286] The fact checker fantasy game is able to be implemented in
many different implementations. For example, in head-to-head
leagues, a team matches up versus a different team each week or
other designated period. The team that earns more points receives a
win for that week. A team's total points is the sum of all players'
points in a starting lineup. Teams with the best win-loss record
win or advance to the playoffs. In another example, total points
leagues are leagues in which teams accumulate points on an ongoing
basis. The league standings are determined by the teams' total
points instead of their win-loss record. The teams who accrue the
highest total of points throughout the duration of a set time
period win or advance to the playoffs. In another example, a
"survivor pool" is implemented where each user picks a commentator
(or other entity) who will make the first misstatement (or other
specified characterization such as the first biased comment), who
will make the most misstatements in a period of time, or who will
not make a misstatement for a period of time. The users who are
correct, continue to play the next week, and whoever is knocked out
of the pool.
[0287] FIG. 24 illustrates a flowchart of a method of implementing
a fact checker fantasy game according to some embodiments. In the
step 2400, user selections are received. For example, a user
selects two hosts, a guest, a network, and a website to form his
team. Other users make selections to form their teams. In some
embodiments, the users select members of their team from the same
pool, and when a member is selected, other users are not able to
select that member. In the step 2402, the fact checking fantasy
game is processed. For example, processing includes fact checking
team members' comments, awarding points, managing
trades/additions/deletions, determining a winner throughout and/or
at the end of a season, and any other fact checking fantasy game
play features. In some embodiments, one or more steps are skipped.
In some embodiments, more or fewer steps are implemented. In some
embodiments, the order of the steps is modified.
[0288] In another embodiment, users earn points for finding and/or
providing a source that information presented is wrong or another
classification. For example, users watch and highlight/select when
information is false, biased, hyperbole or any other
classification. The selection is able to be using a user's remote
control, mouse, keyboard, mobile device and/or any other I/O
device. Users are able to win prizes or purchase items through the
competitions.
[0289] In some embodiments, a single click purchase implementation
is provided. In some embodiments, the single click purchase
implementation is used in conjunction with any of the advertisement
implementations described herein. For example, an advertisement is
displayed on a user's television, and a single click option is
presented on a user's mobile device or another device. In some
embodiments, the single click option is used in conjunction with
fact checking, and in some embodiments, fact checking is not
utilized. In some embodiments, the single click option is not
specifically tied to an advertisement but rather other broadcast
information. For example, a user is watching a football game, and a
single click option to buy a specific player's jersey is presented
on the television or a second device (e.g. mobile phone or
computer). In some embodiments, additional personal information is
utilized to select the features of the product. For example, a
user's height and weight is known by the system, and an XL jersey
is presented. In another example, the user's favorite player is
known by the system based on information on the user's social
networking site (e.g. Facebook.RTM.). Any other ways of determining
a user's information described herein is able to be used to select
and/or personalize the single click advertisement. In some
embodiments, the user is able to click on the item, and an
advertisement is presented on the user's device(s) for single click
purchase or another type of purchase. For example, a user clicks a
football player's jersey, and an advertisement/screen purchase page
is presented for that jersey. In another example, a user clicks a
star's fancy dress at an awards show, and a single click screen
purchase page is presented for that dress or a similar dress.
[0290] FIG. 25 illustrates a flowchart of a method of presenting a
single click purchase implementation according to some embodiments.
In the step 2500, information is monitored (e.g., television
broadcast information is monitored as described herein). In the
step 2502, the information is processed (e.g., broadcast
information is converted and parsed for keywords). Other processing
steps are able to be implemented as described herein. In the step
2504, a single click purchase implementation is presented based on
the broadcast information. The single click purchase implementation
enables a user to purchase an item by a single click of a button or
another input. The single click purchase implementation is
implemented by using stored user information, payment information,
purchase information, and/or any other information that enables a
user to click a button, speak a command, and/or input any other
input to execute a purchase with a single click. For example, after
a user clicks the single click purchase implementation, an order is
sent to the selling entity with the customer's purchase information
(e.g., name, address, credit card information), and the entity is
able to process the order including billing the user, packaging the
purchased item, and shipping the purchased item. In some
embodiments, the single click purchase implementation is presented
on the same device that is displaying the information (e.g., both
on a television). In some embodiments, the single click purchase
implementation is presented on a different device (e.g., television
information displayed on television, and single click purchase
implementation displayed on mobile device). In some embodiments,
the single click purchase implementation is accompanied by fact
checking information and/or supplemental information. For example,
the single click purchase implementation is included with an
advertisement, and the advertisement is fact checked to inform the
user if the advertisement is truthful. In another example,
supplemental information such as prices of competing products are
displayed. In another example, reviews and/or ratings of: the
product, the company selling the product, the network selling the
product and/or any other reviews or ratings are displayed with the
single click purchase implementation. For example, complaints
and/or positive remarks about a shopping network are displayed
along with the single click purchase implementation. The single
click purchase implementation is able to be implemented as button
on a touch screen, a hard button on a mobile device or remote
controller, or through any other input implementation described
herein. In some embodiments, a competing advertisement is displayed
with the advertisement, and each has a single click purchase
implementation. In some embodiments, the single click purchase
implementation incorporates bidding by competing advertisements
such that the advertisers are able to lower the price of the
product, and the user is able to purchase the item at a desired
price. In some embodiments, the single click purchase
implementation is used for purchasing an auctioned item. For
example, a user watches an auction on television, and presses a
single button to make a higher bid. In some embodiments, the
supplemental information accompanying the single click purchase
implementation suggests a movie or television programming to
subscribe to, download, stream, rent and/or purchase. The
supplemental information is able to be based on monitoring
television programming, movies watched, social networking
information (e.g. Facebook.RTM. page information and recent
tweets), personal information, and/or any other information. In
some embodiments, foods are suggested for purchase based on
programming (either directly related or indirectly related). For
example, a user watches a cooking program, and the recipe is
displayed (e.g. on the mobile device) for the user including items
to be delivered to the home or picked up. The user is then able to
purchase the items with a single click. In an example of an
indirectly related food suggestion, the monitoring determines that
a user is a football fan, and that the championship is upcoming. A
suggestion of a delivery of pizza for that day is presented to the
user for purchase with a single click. In some embodiments, the
implementations described related to single click purchasing are
able to be implemented using multiple clicks. Although the word
"click" is used as an example herein, any single input is able to
be used such as a single voice command. In some embodiments, the
single click purchase implementation is used for making donations
and/or contributions (e.g., an advertisement is for an animal
shelter, and a single click purchase implementation allows a user
to make a donation to the shelter). In some embodiments, the
advertisement is a national advertisement, but the single click
purchase implementation enables a user to donate to a local chapter
of the organization which is determined based on the user's
location. In some embodiments, one or more steps are skipped. In
some embodiments, more or fewer steps are implemented. In some
embodiments, the order of the steps is modified.
[0291] FIG. 26 illustrates an exemplary single click purchase
implementation on multiple devices according to some embodiments.
As described above, the single click purchase implementation is
able to be implemented on multiple devices such as a television
2600 and a mobile device 2602 (e.g., smart phone or tablet). For
example, the television 2600 displays home shopping programming,
and a user's mobile device is able to coordinate with the
television programming to offer a single click purchase button 2604
where the user taps the smart phone screen, and an order is placed.
In some embodiments, supplemental information 2606 such as fact
checking information, an additional advertisement, comparative
shopping information and/or any other information described herein
is displayed with the single click purchase button 2604 on the
mobile device 2602. In some embodiments, the single click
implementation is implemented on the same device as the
programming. For example, home shopping programming is presented on
a television, and a single click purchase implementation is
presented on the television. In another example, the single click
purchase implementation is overlaid on a standard television
advertisement.
[0292] In some embodiments, a candidate fact checker is
implemented. The candidate fact checker tracks and stores candidate
information including, but not limited to, flip-flops, main
arguments/points, positions on issues, dates of positions,
advertisements by the candidate or associated people/groups,
contact information, strengths/weaknesses, how to contribute to the
campaign, who has contributed to the campaign or related groups
(e.g., PACs/SuperPACs), associated PACs/SuperPACs, direct quotes by
the candidate and/or associates, video clips of the candidate,
audio clips of the candidate, and/or images of the candidate. The
information is able to be stored and sorted in any manner; for
example, the candidate's positions on issues are ranked from strong
to weak, so that the user knows that a candidate is strongly in
favor of X, but only mild cares about Z. Additionally, voice, text,
photo and/or any other recognition is able to be used to detect and
post information. Candidate quotes are able to be used to ensure
the media does not take quotes out of context. For example, if a
quote is detected out of context, the candidate fact checker
presents the full quote and/or a clip of the quote. The candidate
fact checker information is able to be presented when an
advertisement is displayed for or against a candidate, when a
candidate is making a speech on television, when a candidate is
appearing in an interview, when a spokesperson or other associate
is speaking or being interviewed, and/or any other event related to
the candidate. The candidate information is able to be stored in
any type of data structure. In some embodiments, the candidate fact
checker information is displayed on a second device (e.g., mobile
device) when the candidate or related event is detected. For
example, a candidate appears on a talk show and provides his views.
After the candidate is detected (e.g. by face recognition),
statistics regarding the candidate are displayed in text at the
bottom of a user's television or on the user's mobile device. In
some embodiments, the statistics displayed are based on the
detected candidate as well as the detection of keywords in the
discussion. For example, Candidate A is detected, and it is
detected (e.g., by monitoring, converting, parsing, and/or
comparing the words spoken with a database of keywords) that the
interview is about the environment; the Candidate's Congressional
voting record related to environmental topics, and/or campaign
contributions by energy companies is displayed.
[0293] FIG. 27 illustrates a flowchart of a method of implementing
a candidate fact checker according to some embodiments. In some
embodiments, the candidate is a political candidate. In the step
2700, candidate information is detected (e.g., while monitoring
broadcast information). Detecting the candidate information
includes detecting a candidate by facial recognition, voice
recognition, image recognition, name recognition, and/or any other
recognition. In some embodiments, detecting the candidate includes
detecting people associated with the candidate (e.g., a
spokesperson or campaign manager). For example, a database stores
the candidate and the people associated with a candidate, so that
when the associated person is detected, he/she is recognized as
being linked to the candidate. In some embodiments, detecting the
candidate information includes detecting a comment by and/or about
the candidate (e.g., candidate's name), an advertisement by and/or
about the candidate and/or against the candidate's opponent, and/or
any other information from or related to the candidate. The
candidate information is able to be comments made by the candidate
or associates of the candidate, advertisements, and/or any other
information from or related to the candidate. In the step 2702,
candidate information is processed. Processing is able to include
converting, parsing, storing, classifying and/or any other
processing described herein. For example, a candidate's comment is
classified as a flip-flop and stored in a database under
"flip-flops." In another example, advertisements are classified as
attack advertisements, positive advertisements, and/or another
classification. In some embodiments, advertisements are rated on a
scale of very positive to very negative (e.g. 10 is very positive
and 1 is very negative). In some embodiments, advertisements are
fact checked (either automatically or manually) and stored with an
accuracy rating which is then able to be displayed automatically
with the advertisement when the advertisement is displayed. In the
step 2704, the processed candidate information is analyzed.
Analyzing is able to be any analysis including, but not limited to,
fact checking or searching for supplemental information as
described herein. In the step 2706, supplemental candidate
information is presented based on the candidate and/or the
candidate information. In some embodiments, the supplemental
candidate information includes a campaign contribution
implementation. For example, in conjunction with an advertisement
for a candidate, a campaign contribution implementation is
displayed on a user's mobile device enabling the user to easily
make a campaign contribution. In some embodiments, the campaign
contribution implementation is a single click campaign contribution
implementation similar to the single click purchase implementation
described herein. The campaign contribution implementation is able
to be implemented on the same device presenting the candidate
information or on another device. For example, a user is watching a
political advertisement on his television, and a single click
campaign contribution implementation is displayed on his smart
phone. In some embodiments, the single click campaign contribution
implementation utilizes additional information about the user
including, but not limited to, previously submitted information,
personal information (e.g., credit card information), a user's
political classification, device information, social networking
information, previous donation/contribution information,
information related to the advertisement, information against the
advertisement (e.g., the user is disgusted by a political attack
advertisement and chooses to contribute to the candidate being
attacked in the advertisement), and/or any other information. In
some embodiments, the candidate fact checker is implemented for
state propositions, political action committees, and/or other
political entities. In some embodiments, a user's information
(e.g., political classification) is used to determine the
supplemental information displayed. For example, it is known that
the user is concerned with the environment, but not taxes. Thus,
the supplemental information displayed for the user is directed
towards environmental issues (e.g., the candidate voted several
times on environmentally-friendly bills). In some embodiments, one
or more steps are skipped. For example, the steps 2702 and 2704 are
able to be skipped in an implementation that detects a candidate
and then automatically displays supplemental information about the
candidate (e.g., the candidate's 3 biggest flip-flops). In some
embodiments, more or fewer steps are implemented. In some
embodiments, the order of the steps is modified. The steps of the
candidate fact checker are able to be performed automatically,
manually and/or semi-automatically.
[0294] In some embodiments, a controversy tracker is implemented.
The controversy tracker is able to automatically, manually, or in a
combination of automatically/manually determine a controversy.
Automatically determining a controversy is able to be implemented
by monitoring for a words such as "controversial" or "controversy"
and any associated story, comment, or other information, or another
implementation. Manually determining a controversy is able to be by
a human indicating a story is a controversy. A combination of
automatically and manually determining a controversy includes
automatically monitoring stories and indicating possible
controversies and having a human filter the possible controversies
and indicating the determined controversies. Once the controversy
is determined, the controversy is associated with a person,
company, organization, or any other entity. For example, a database
(or other data structure) stores entity information in one column
or row and controversy information in another column or row. The
controversy information is then indicated or displayed when that
entity is viewed, heard or otherwise recognized (e.g., by face,
voice or name recognition). In some embodiments, the controversy
information is stored with the entity information described
herein.
[0295] For example, Commentator Z makes a controversial statement
on his radio show. The statement is detected as controversial and
stored accordingly. When Commentator Z appears on a television show
5 months later, the controversial statement and/or a summary of the
controversy is displayed with the Commentator Z using any method
described herein. In another example, when a food processing plant
has violated regulations, the controversy is indicated to users so
that they are able to avoid the company's products. Other
violations of the law are tracked, recorded and indicated, such as
oil spills, other environmental misdeeds (e.g. pollution),
avoidance of taxes (e.g. Company Y paid $0 in taxes last year),
and/or any other controversies. In some embodiments, a user is able
to use his device to determine if an entity has a controversy
attached to it. For example, a user points his smart phone camera
at Brand X, and the phone recognizes the brand, compares the brand
with source information (e.g., a controversy database), and
indicates Brand X has had an e. coli outbreak at one plant. In some
embodiments, when a controversy is determined for a brand, a
competitor is recommended. In some embodiments, only competitors
without a controversy are displayed, or a competitor with the
fewest controversies is displayed.
[0296] FIG. 28 illustrates a flowchart of a method of implementing
a controversy tracker according to some embodiments. In the step
2800, information is monitored. In the step 2802, a controversy is
detected. In the step 2804, the controversy is processed (e.g. a
controversy is stored in a database where the database associates
the controversy with an entity). For example, a person makes a
controversial statement, then the statement and the person's name
are stored in related columns or rows of database. In the step
2806, the entity is recognized at a later date (e.g., facial or
voice recognition, by name and/or any other recognition). In the
step 2808, the previously stored controversy is displayed in any
manner described herein. In some embodiments, one or more steps are
skipped. In some embodiments, more or fewer steps are implemented.
In some embodiments, the order of the steps is modified.
[0297] In some embodiments, the fact checker and/or other
implementations described herein are able to be used with Google
glasses or a similar technology (e.g., helmets, headphones,
baseball caps, glasses, sunglasses, contact lenses, goggles with a
heads up display). In some embodiments, the fact checker is
incorporated in car, motorcycle, airplane systems, boat/cruise ship
and/or other transportation systems. In some embodiments, the fact
checker fact checks a user's life and what the user senses (e.g.,
sees, hears). The implementation is similar to what has been
described herein (information is monitored, processed, fact checked
and then a result is indicated). For example, a user's glasses are
able to receive audio and video signals and process those signals
including converting the signals to text and comparing portions of
the text with source information (e.g. online sources). Then, a
result is displayed on the glasses to indicate whether the detected
information was true, false or any other characterization. In some
embodiments, the glasses provide supplemental information, provide
entity validity ratings, and/or any other implementation described
herein.
[0298] In some embodiments, fact checking and/or supplemental
information is presented in conjunction with a movie at a movie
theater. For example, the movie is monitored, processed, fact
checked and/or searched, and fact checking results and/or
supplemental information is presented on a user's mobile device
and/or sent to another device (e.g., a home computer). For example,
when an advertisement is placed (possibly subtly) in the movie or
when specific content is detected, a related advertisement is also
displayed on the user's mobile device. In some embodiments, the
advertisement includes a single click purchase implementation. In
some embodiments, the advertisement is a recommendation to purchase
a ticket for one or more movies based on the movie currently being
watched, previously watched movies, personal or social networking
information, and/or any other information. For example, the user is
watching a comic book movie, and a purchase ticket advertisement
for an upcoming comic book movie is presented to the user on his
mobile device (possibly single click). In another example, music
from the movie is presented on the user's mobile device for
purchase and/or download. In some embodiments, the fact checking
and/or the supplemental information is displayed discretely during
the movie. For example, an advertisement is displayed at a lower
lighting setting to avoid disturbing other moviegoers. In some
embodiments, the fact checking and/or supplemental information is
stored (e.g., queued) until it is displayed at an appropriate time
(e.g., when the movie is over). For example, an advertisement is
stored in the device until the credits are detected, and then the
advertisement is displayed. In another example, when the device
detects light above a threshold, the device knows that the movie is
over or the user is outside of the theater, so the advertisement is
able to be displayed. In another example, the device uses GPS to
determine the user's location, and when the user is outside of the
theater, the supplemental information is displayed. In some
embodiments, the supplemental information is able to provide a
countdown of when the next interesting, exciting, memorable, and/or
another highlight of a movie will occur or when a specified
character will appear next. For example, based on user reviews,
social networking information, and/or any other information, the
device gathers specific points of a movie that are or might be of
interest to a user, and provides a countdown or a "heads up" alert
based on the current time of the movie. In some embodiments,
supplemental information asks for a user to input a review of the
movie. In some embodiments, the review is a single click
implementation (e.g., the user is presented 1-10 as selectable
options, and the user selects one option). In some embodiments,
similar implementations are provided for televisions or other
devices (e.g., at home, at a sports bar).
[0299] In some embodiments, a device (e.g., television, mobile
device, camera, video camera, webcam, game console) monitors users.
For example, the device detects by listening to (e.g., by
microphone) and/or seeing a reaction (e.g., by camera) by the user
to a commercial, advertisement, movie, show and/or any other
programming or event. Possible responses that are monitored and
detected include, but are not limited to, a laugh, crying, an
expletive, a positive comment, a negative comment, a smile, a
frown, a surprised face, a furrowed brow, a hand gesture, clapping,
walking away, walking toward, a channel change, a text message, a
tweet, or a Facebook.RTM. post about the programming, and/or any
other response. The reaction is then able to be used to perform
data analysis and/or present future programming. For example, if a
user reacts negatively to a certain type of commercial (e.g.,
comedy) or a specific commercial, that type of commercial is not
presented to the user again or that specific commercial is not
presented again. The monitored and collected data is stored in a
data structure (e.g., database). For example, a commercial is
displayed, and a user laughs. The laugh or a computer code
representative of a laugh is stored in a database to correspond
with the commercial and that user or device. Then, the same
commercial is displayed, and the user laughs again. Again, the
response is stored. The same commercial is displayed again, but
this time the user does not laugh. The new response is stored in
addition to or instead of the previous responses. Based on the new
response, the commercial is not displayed to the user again. The
responses are able to be retained for a user and/or device and
based on the gathered data further analysis and actions are able to
be taken. For example, if a user does not laugh at three comedic
advertisements, then comedy advertisements are no longer presented
for that user. In another example, if a user laughs the first four
times but changes the channel or station when hearing several
different comedic advertisements each a fifth time, the system is
able to determine that the user's threshold for a comedic
advertisement is four and does not attempt to present the same
comedic advertisement a fifth time for future advertisements. In
another example, responses are monitored for political
advertisements, and if is detected that the user is frustrated with
mudslinging advertisements, future advertisements presented are
positive advertisements.
[0300] FIG. 29 illustrates a flowchart of a method of performing
analysis of a user according to some embodiments. In the step 2900,
a device monitors a user. In the step 2902, the device processes
the monitored information. For example, a smile is detected and a
representation of a smile is stored in a database with the
corresponding monitored information and the user or the device. For
example, a smile is a 0, a frown is a 1, crying is a 2, and so on.
In the step 2904, an action is taken based on the processing. For
example, the advertisement is made available for display to the
user again, or the advertisement is removed from the playing queue.
In some embodiments, one or more steps are skipped. In some
embodiments, more or fewer steps are implemented. In some
embodiments, the order of the steps is modified.
[0301] In some embodiments, fact check information is utilized in
determining search engine results. For example, in addition to
standard search engine processing, the results of the search engine
are fact checked as described herein, and results that contain many
factually incorrect items are placed lower on the search result
list. For example, a standard search returns Items 1-10, and then
the items are fact checked, and Item 1 is highly inaccurate in
terms of factual accuracy. Item 1 is placed lower on the list based
on the inaccuracies. In another example, 10 items are found and are
deemed highly relevant to the search; however, Item 1 has no
factual inaccuracies, and is placed at the top of the list. The
affect of the fact check on the displayed results depends on the
implementation. For example, in some embodiments, the fact check
only changes a position of a search result if the search result has
a significant number (e.g. 10 or above a threshold) of factual
inaccuracies. In some embodiments, the fact check has an equal
weight to the search, so if a search result is highly relevant but
has several factual inaccuracies, the search result is positioned
below a less relevant result with fewer factual inaccuracies. In
some embodiments, search results are grouped by relevance (e.g.,
search results that have 100% relevance, search results that have
95-99% relevance, 90-94% relevance, and so on), and the fact check
affects the search results within the group but does not cause the
search results to fall to a lower relevancy group. The weighting of
the search relevance and fact check is able to be any
implementation (e.g., 99%/1%, 90%/10%, 80%/20%, 50%/50%, 20%/80% or
any other scheme). In some embodiments, bias of a search result is
determined and affects the position of the search result in the
list (e.g., a highly biased page is lower in the list than a
neutral page).
[0302] FIG. 30 illustrates a flowchart of a method of utilizing
fact checking to determine search engine results according to some
embodiments. In the step 3000, a search is performed. The search is
performed in any manner (e.g., a user inputs a search string, the
search string is located in sources such as web pages and/or
documents using any search technology, and search results are
returned). In the step 3002, a fact check of the search results is
performed. In the step 3004, a result of the combined search and
fact check is displayed. For example, a list of web pages is
displayed with the top web page being the most closely related to
the search string and also a factually accurate page. Therefore,
when a user searches for a political topic and several web pages
discuss the topic but completely distort the truth, those web pages
are displayed lower in the list even though they are relevant to
the search string. In some embodiments, the steps of fact checking
and searching are pipelined or occur in parallel. In some
embodiments, one or more steps are skipped. In some embodiments,
more or fewer steps are implemented. In some embodiments, the order
of the steps is modified.
[0303] In some embodiments, subjective fact checking is implemented
using social networking information. For example, a user asks if
the new "XYZ Movie" is worth seeing. The subjective fact checker
monitors, searches, detects, compares, calculates and/or indicates
a result based social network information (e.g. Twitter posts,
friends' Facebook.RTM. page comments). Furthering the example, the
subjective fact checker searches for the movie title and
accompanying text in a person's friends' Facebook.RTM. page
comments and determines three friends said the movie was "awesome."
The word "awesome" with a "3" next to it is returned, or the word
"awesome" is assigned a number in a data structure and retrieved
and indicated, or another implementation is used. In some
embodiments, the social networking information is used in
conjunction with other subjective sources (e.g., critics' reviews)
and/or objective sources. In another example, friends' usernames
are located on review websites and corresponding reviews are
obtained and utilized. In some embodiments, social networking
information includes social media information.
[0304] In some embodiments, historically parallel supplemental
information is provided with broadcast information and/or other
information. For example, if a commentator argues that the EPA is
unnecessary, an explanation of why the EPA was started is
indicated. In some embodiments, examples are provided (e.g. acid
rain was a problem and now through the efforts of the EPA, acid
rain is less of a problem). In some embodiments, citations are
included. The historically parallel supplemental information is
able to be searched for and/or located in a data structure (e.g. a
database). For example, a database includes current topics and
corresponding historical supplemental information. Examples of
parallels include: getting rid of unions: terrible working
conditions; shutting down the EPA: excessive pollution; and the
burst of the housing bubble: the Great Depression.
[0305] In some embodiments, an automatic comment or rebuttal by a
celebrity/commentator/ organization, or any other entity is
presented. For example, any time News Org X is mentioned by a
competitor, statistics that show News Org X dominates the ratings
compared to the competitor are presented. More specifically, when a
user watches News Org A on channel 213, and a commentator on News
Org A states that News Org X is misleading the public, a popup,
caption, and/or any other indicator described herein displays a
chart of News Org X's and News Org A's ratings.
[0306] In some embodiments, sources for each comment on a
television broadcast are provided. The sourcing is able to be
implemented by monitoring broadcast information, processing the
broadcast information, searching for a source of the broadcast
information and indicating a result. When statements are unsourced,
unverified, or uncorroborated, the comment is indicated as
unsourced, unverified or uncorroborated. For example, a news agency
reports that: "Person X was unarmed." However, no source is
mentioned by the news agency. To inform the user that the
information is unsourced, the text is indicated as unsourced, for
example, by color-coding or labeling the text as "unsourced" or
similar language, or another indicator.
[0307] In some embodiments, when a commentator appears (e.g., on a
television show), the commentator's web site (or Facebook.RTM.
page) or a link to the commentator's web site or page is presented.
In some embodiments, the link is presented on a second device
(e.g., mobile device). The link is able to be a link to specific
content on the site. For example, the commentator is talking about
a specific article, which he also has written about online. By
following the link, a viewer is able to receive more information
than available on the television program. In another example, the
link is to a website for purchasing the commentator's book. In some
embodiments, the link is to rebuttal content provided by the
commentator.
[0308] In some embodiments, an automatic, manual, or semi-automatic
presentation of content is implemented to prove or disprove a
point/argument. For example, video clips showing the previous
comments by the commentator are shown to provide a full context of
the current comment.
[0309] In some embodiments, the importance rating includes
classifying information such as an article or story as: critical,
important, helpful, nonsense, waste of time, trivial, distraction,
irrelevant, and/or any other classification. For example, during a
political campaign, many stories are presented regarding the
candidates. A story about a candidate's cat 20 years ago could be
classified as "distraction" or "irrelevant," whereas a story about
a candidate's economic policy is classified as "important." The
classification is able to use text descriptions, numerical
classifications (e.g., 10 is critical and 1 is irrelevant), color
coding (e.g., edge of the screen is highlighted a certain color
indicating importance), and/or any other classification. In some
embodiments, information is not shown if it is classified in a
certain manner and/or is below a threshold. The classification is
able to be performed automatically, manually, or
semi-automatically. The classification is able to be stored in a
data structure. Age of a story is able to be a factor in
classifying information. For example, a story that is 30 years old
is likely to be deemed less relevant than something that happened
less than a year ago. Classifying factors include, but are not
limited to, age of the information, content of the information
(e.g., relevance to the country, relevance to individuals, and
other relevance), quality of the content, and/or any other factors.
Once a story is classified, that story and/or any repeat stories
involving the content have the importance rating indicated.
[0310] In some embodiments, similar to counter-arguments described
herein, supplemental arguments are indicated. For example, when an
argument is detected, instead of providing a counter-argument to
the argument, a supplemental argument is provided. For example, a
commentator states that President Z should be re-elected because of
A, B and C. When the fact checker detects that a topic of President
Z and re-election is discussed in a positive manner, supplemental
arguments in support of that argument are presented on a user's
device or secondary device. The determination of whether the
argument is for or against a topic is able to be determined from
the comment itself, based on the person or entity making the
comment, based on the source of the forum (e.g., which broadcast
network, website) and/or a combination thereof. In some
embodiments, both counter-arguments and supplemental arguments are
indicated.
[0311] In some embodiments, the fact checking system has its own
Twitter account (or other microblogging social networking service)
or has access to a twitter account so that the results of the fact
checking are automatically posted on the twitter account. For
example, the fact checking system monitors communications (e.g.,
broadcast, web, Twitter, mobile, and/or any others), processes the
communications, fact checks the communications, and when
misinformation or another characterization is detected/determined,
a tweet is sent. The tweet is able to include any identifying
information (e.g., Senator A said, "the President wasted $100M on
this trip," but the truth is the cost is under $1M). In some
embodiments, the fact checking system has separate accounts for
different items (e.g., 1 for broadcast information, 1 for web
information, and so on). In some embodiments, the fact checking
system has separate accounts where each account uses different
sources for fact checking. In some embodiments, the fact checking
system provides supplemental information, and/or any other
information on the twitter account.
[0312] In some embodiments, the fact checking system has its own
Facebook.RTM. account (or other social networking account or blog)
so that the results of the fact checking are automatically posted.
The fact checking system with Facebook.RTM. account functions in a
similar manner to the Twitter account by monitoring, processing,
fact checking, and posting to the account.
[0313] In some embodiments, fact checking is performed in the
cloud, and results are indicated on a user device. For example,
monitored information is sent from a device (e.g., television or
smart phone) to cloud computing device(s) which then perform fact
checking (or supplemental information searching, and/or other
analysis described herein) by comparing the information with source
information. Then, the cloud computing device(s) send result(s) of
the fact checking to a user device (e.g., the same device that
monitored the information and/or another device). For example, a
user's smart phone monitors broadcast information, sends the
information to the cloud which fact checks the information and
sends a result of true or false to the user's television which
displays the result. In some embodiments, processing of the
information occurs on the monitoring device (e.g., information is
parsed, and the parsed segments are sent separately to the cloud),
and in some embodiments, the entire information is sent to the
cloud which processes the information. In some embodiments, the
processing on the user's device includes converting the monitored
information into text or a similar data type to minimize the amount
of data sent to the cloud.
[0314] In some embodiments, identification information of the
monitored information is sent to and from the cloud instead of the
monitored information to minimize the amount of data sent to and
from the cloud. The identification information is able to include
any type of identification information including, but not limited
to, content identification (e.g., name, filename, channel/station),
numerical representation of content segment identification, a
timestamp, an identifier for matching with the corresponding
monitored information, user information, device information, and/or
any other identifier. For example, the code identifies which
broadcast network and the start and end times of the segment to be
fact checked. In another example, the cloud monitors
communications/information (e.g., broadcast, web, mobile, others),
and each communication or communication segment has an
identification code. The communication monitored and/or displayed
by a user device has a matching code. The user device is able to
send the code to the cloud which matches the code with the
appropriate communication, and then performs a task (e.g.,
processes and fact checks the communication and/or searches for
supplemental information). The cloud is then able to send the
identification information and a result to the user device which is
then able to display the result with the corresponding
communication. The identification information is implemented such
that the cloud computing fact checking still provides real-time
fact checking results displayed on a user's device in real-time.
The cloud is able to be implemented to fact check all information
or a subset less than all information. Examples of subsets less
than all information include, but are not limited to, all broadcast
information is fact checked, only the top 10 most popular Internet
websites are fact checked, and/or broadcast information from one
network is fact checked. In some embodiments, the cloud fact checks
only information specified by a user to monitor. In some
embodiments, the cloud is synchronized with the user's device
(e.g., television and/or smart phone), and the cloud monitors,
processes and/or fact checks what is being viewed/listened to by
the user. In some embodiments, the cloud utilizes multiple fact
checking implementations to fact check many communications
simultaneously. In some embodiments, the cloud avoids redundancy by
determining that a fact check of Program Z is already being
performed for User A, and User B is watching the same program, the
fact check is not performed a second time, rather the results from
the first fact check are provided to User B.
[0315] As an example of a cloud computing fact checking system, a
user device (e.g., a smart phone) displays a news program. An
identification code is sent to the cloud. The identification code
includes a device ID and a content ID identifying the news program.
The cloud computing fact checking system monitors, processes, and
fact checks the news program. The results information is sent from
the cloud to the user device, and the results information is
displayed on the user device in real-time.
[0316] As another example of a cloud computing fact checking
system, a user device (e.g., a television) displays a news program.
The user device monitors and processes (e.g., converts and parses)
the news program into fact checkable portions. An identification
code of each fact checkable portion is sent to the cloud. The
identification code includes a device ID and a fact checkable
portion ID identifying the portion of the news program content to
fact check. The cloud computing fact checking system fact checks
each fact checkable portion. The results information is sent from
the cloud to the user device for each searchable portion, and the
results information is displayed on the user device in real-time.
If additional users are watching the same news program and receive
fact checking information, the same results are able to be sent to
those devices without performing the fact check again by sending
the same result information with a different device ID for each
user device.
[0317] FIG. 31 illustrates a flowchart of a method of utilizing
cloud computing for fact checking and providing supplemental
information according to some embodiments. In the step 3100,
information is monitored (by a user device, the cloud, and/or
another device). In the step 3102, the monitored information or
identification information is sent to cloud computing devices. In
some embodiments, the information is processed in the cloud, or the
information is processed and then sent to the cloud. In the step
3104, fact checking and/or supplemental information searching as
described herein is performed in the cloud. In the step 3106, a
result of the fact checking and/or supplemental information
searching is sent from the cloud to a device or a group of devices
where the result is indicated (e.g. a user's mobile device or
television, millions of televisions). In some embodiments, more or
fewer steps are implemented, and/or the steps are modified. In some
embodiments, the step of monitoring is not included, and/or other
information is sent to the cloud. In some embodiments, the result
is retrieved (e.g., pulled) from the cloud by a device, and in some
embodiments, the result is pushed from the cloud to a device.
[0318] In some embodiments, the fact checking glasses, goggles,
hat, clothing, and/or other items described herein are able to be
used while reading newspapers and/or other printed material, and
the device provides the user with fact checking and/or supplemental
information on the lenses or a display in/near the lenses. In some
embodiments, the glasses or other devices are able to be used to
fact check or supplement a billboard, business names, food labels,
allergen information, and/or digital information (e.g., information
on a computer monitor or display). In some embodiments, the glasses
or other devices are able to be used for price comparison. In some
embodiments, the device projects the fact check and/or supplemental
information onto the printed material (e.g., using a projection
device embedded in the device). In some embodiments, a user's
mobile device (e.g., smart phone or tablet) is able to be placed on
a print material, scans the print material with a camera on one
side and displays the print material on the mobile device screen on
the opposite side along with any fact checking and/or supplemental
information generated by analysis of the print material.
[0319] FIG. 32 illustrates a diagram of fact checking glasses
according to some embodiments. The glasses 3200 include a frame
3202, lenses 3204, and a camera 3206. In some embodiments, the
lenses 3204 include a display 3208 or the display 3208 is able to
be flipped down or configured in any manner to be coupled to the
frame 3202. The camera 3206 is able to acquire visual data by
scanning and/or taking a picture of objects such as a newspaper. In
some embodiments, the camera 3206 is capable of processing the data
including converting the data to text, parsing the data, fact
checking the data and/or providing supplemental information, and
indicating a result of the fact checking/supplemental data search
on the display 3208 or another location. In some embodiments, the
camera 3206 acquires the data, and some or all of the processing,
fact checking, searching and/or indicating occurs on another device
(e.g., in the cloud). For example, the camera 3206 acquires
newspaper data, sends the data or identifying information to the
cloud for converting, parsing, fact checking, and then the cloud
sends the results to the camera 3208 (or directly to the display
3208) for display on the display 3208 or elsewhere. In another
example, a processor is also included with the glasses and is
coupled to the camera 3206 and display 3208, and the processor
processes and fact checks the information and sends the result to
the display 3208.
[0320] In some embodiments, a fact checking GUI utilizes overlays,
underlays, pop-ups, pop-unders, menus, frames, and/or any other
component. For example, fact checking information (e.g., a result)
is overlaid on a screen. Pop-ups are able to provide cites,
opposing arguments, rebuttal information, advertisements, and/or
any other information. A background of the GUI is able to be
changed as fact checking occurs (e.g., background changes from
green to red as more inaccuracies are determined). The background
is able to be an overall background, or a specific background
(e.g., a commentator's background, a host's background). In some
embodiments, distortions are used to indicate fact checking
results. For example, an image or icon of an entity is distorted as
the fact checking system determines the truth is being distorted.
For example, a commentator's image is a natural image initially,
but as the host provides misinformation, the image becomes more and
more distorted. In some embodiments, if the host corrects the
misinformation, the host's image is restored incrementally. Any
distortion is able to be implemented (e.g., blur, warping,
darkening). In some embodiments, 3D is implemented such that fact
checking results and/or supplemental information is generated to
appear to come at the user. For example, only fact checking results
and/or supplemental information is presented to appear to come at
the user while the broadcast information is a standard display. In
some embodiments, inaccurate, misleading, biased and/or other
characterized information is displayed to appear to come at the
user. In some embodiments, corrective information is displayed to
appear to come at the user. In some embodiments, accurate
information is displayed to appear to come at the user, while the
inaccurate information does not, or vice versa. In some
embodiments, a result of a fact check appears to come at the user,
while the fact checked information is highlighted on the screen.
For example, a commentator makes a misleading comment, which is
displayed at the bottom of the screen, and the result "misleading"
is displayed to appear to come at the user. In some embodiments,
the fact checking information and/or supplemental information is
presented using different icons (e.g. on a user's fact checking
glasses). In some embodiments, lights and/or sounds on a
television, in a house, and/or on a phone, change based on the
truth/misinformation, bias, and/or other characterizations. For
example, lights on the side or back of a television or in the house
change to blue when a liberal bias is detected, red when a
conservative bias is detected, and green when an environmental
message is detected. In another example, the lights flash red when
misinformation is detected, and the brightness of the red depends
on how significant the misinformation is. The color and other
effects of the lights are able to be controlled using any processor
or controller configured accordingly. For example, a computing
device sends a signal to a light controller to affect the changes
in the lights. In some embodiments, a popup or a web page
accompanying a website is used to display the fact checking and/or
supplemental information for a website. For example, a user goes to
Website X, and a pop-up from a browser plug-in shows the factually
inaccurate and/or supplemental information of Website X. In another
example, a browser page, frame, and/or background has a color or
changes color based on the factual accuracy and/or bias of a page.
In another example, each factually inaccurate, biased and/or other
characterized information is highlighted on the web page. In some
embodiments, the highlighting is performed by overlaying
highlighting on the web page without actually changing the web
page. For example, a hidden frame or another implementation is used
to display the highlighting and/or additional information (e.g.,
supplemental information). In some embodiments, the information is
selectable (e.g., a web page link) to see the evidence of the bias
and/or misinformation. In some embodiments, fact checking
information and/or supplemental information is an overlay projected
by a mobile device or other device on a television or another
screen. In some embodiments, the fact checking information and/or
supplemental information is projected by a television or other
device onto a television frame, wall and/or another object. In some
embodiments, a user's seating area is affected in conjunction with
the fact checking. For example, a user's chair vibrates when
misinformation is presented, a user's chair tilts one way or the
other when bias is detected (e.g., left for liberal and right for
conservative), a sofa rocks when a lie is detected, and/or any
other effect. The effects are able to be implemented in any manner.
For example, a signal is sent from a television to a device
configured to receive and respond to the signal (e.g., a motorized
chair).
[0321] In some embodiments, users are able to input keywords,
topics, and/or other information, to track for bias. The bias
detector tracks how often a keyword is detected, determines if the
keyword is used positively or negatively, and/or any other analysis
to determine bias. For example, a device is configured for
receiving a user-specified input for bias detection, automatically
monitoring for the user-specified input, and automatically
indicating bias based on detection of the user-specified input.
User-input information is able to be stored in a data structure for
continued use. The implementation is able to be performed in
real-time. In some embodiments, the implementation is performed
automatically, manually, and/or the results are displayed
automatically.
[0322] In some embodiments, determining bias is performed by
classifying stories as liberal, moderate or conservative. In some
embodiments, sections of stories are classified. In some
embodiments, stories are classified as ignored or underreported, or
over reported. Then, based on the classifications, the reporting
amount and/or any other information, bias is determined. For
example, stories are monitored, classified, and bias is computed
and indicated.
[0323] In some embodiments, the fact checking system validates
itself or is able to be validated by others. For example, if enough
(e.g., above a threshold) users flag a fact checked result, then
the fact checking system indicates that the fact checked result is
under review. In some embodiments, users are able to flag a
real-time fact checked result using voice commands. For example, a
user is watching television, and a fact check result displays "X's
comment is false," within a designated time frame (e.g., 2
seconds), the user says a command such as "re-fact check" or
"disagree." The fact checking system is able to perform an
automatic review with different sources than used for the original
fact check and/or a manual review occurs. Then, the result of the
re-fact check is displayed (e.g., the fact check result has been
confirmed or disproved and a correction is provided). In some
embodiments, the re-fact check occurs automatically, and the result
is displayed in real-time. In some embodiments, the result is
displayed before the end of a show/event. In some embodiments, the
re-fact check is sent to a user's mobile device via text message or
email at a later time. The manual review is able to include sending
a fact check result to an entity for manual review and receiving a
result from the entity. Statistics are able to be gathered,
maintained, and displayed of how often fact checked comments are
challenged, proven wrong, proven correct, and/or any other
statistics. The statistics are able to be gathered in any manner
(e.g., manually, automatically, or a combination thereof). In some
embodiments, the statistics are indicated when a user requests the
information. In some embodiments, the statistics are indicated when
the fact checking system is referenced (e.g., commentator mentions
the fact checking system). The statistics are able to be indicated
in any manner described herein (e.g., at the bottom of a television
screen or on a smart phone in real-time). In some embodiments, the
statistics of the fact checking system are displayed in a
comparison format with a network and/or other entity. In some
embodiments, justifications as to why the fact checking system was
wrong are provided (e.g., system glitch that has been fixed),
sources that prove the fact checking system wrong are provided,
and/or any other information to inform the user that the fact
checking system is not biased. A searchable data structure is
implemented to store some or all of the fact checked data and
statistics, including re-fact checked information, so that users
are able to search and verify the fact checked information. The
fact checked information is stored in any manner, such as
searchable by topic, by entity, by date, and/or any other way. In
some embodiments, the fact checking system indicates a label of the
specific implementation of the fact checking system such as
"unbiased fact checking system" or "Bob's personalized fact
checking system" depending on the implementation. In some
embodiments, the fact checking system invites users to disprove the
fact checking system by providing sources. In some embodiments, the
fact checking system re-fact checks using the provided sources. In
some embodiments, users are able to rate the fact checked content,
and in some embodiments, users are able to challenge or overrule
the fact checking system. In some embodiments, challenging or
overruling the fact checking system includes verifying a user's
credentials and enabling a user to overrule or challenge a fact
checking result by selecting a result and providing evidence (e.g.,
a disagreeing source) of the inaccuracy of the result. Safeguards
are able to be implemented to prevent manipulation of the system.
For example, before being able to overrule the fact checking
system, each user is verified as unbiased by answering questions to
prove a lack of bias, by receiving credentials, and/or any other
method. In some embodiments, in addition to or instead of the user
answering questions, information about the user is also ascertained
manually or automatically by reviewing/analyzing the user's blog,
social networking information and/or any other information. In
another example, a committee is formed with members from each
political party who fact check the fact checking system. In some
embodiments, the fact checking system compares and displays the
accuracy of the fact checking system with other outlets, networks,
and/or any other entity. The comparison and/or display of the
accuracy information is able to be performed automatically and/or
manually and is able to occur in real-time or non-real-time. FIG.
33 illustrates an exemplary chart comparing the accuracy of several
entities according to some embodiments. In some embodiments, users
are able to review the sources used in determining a fact check
result including sources that agree and sources that disagree. In
some embodiments, when a user selects to review the sources, the
user is taken to the exact page, cell in database, and/or other
specific section of the source for efficiency. In some embodiments,
only the specific section is available, and in some embodiments,
the entire source is available. In some embodiments, sources are
classified so that a user is able to select a specific
classification of sources. The classifications are able to be
political (e.g., Conservative, Moderate, Liberal, Green, and
others), agree/disagree, and/or any other classifications. For
example, the fact checking system indicates, "President Z's
statement about gas prices being higher 4 years ago is misleading."
In some embodiments, a user is able to select to review only
disagreeing sources to see why the statement may not be
misleading.
[0324] FIG. 34 illustrates a flowchart of a method of fact checking
the fact checking system according to some embodiments. In the step
3400, fact checked information is flagged. The flagging is able to
be performed by users and/or automatically. In the step 3402, the
fact checked information is fact checked a second time (e.g., a
subsequent fact check occurs after the first fact check). The
second fact check is able to be performed manually, automatically,
or a combination thereof, as described herein. In some embodiments,
the second fact check uses different sources than the first fact
check. In the step 3404, the result of the second fact check or
verification fact check is indicated in any manner as described
herein. For example, a comment by Z states, "the economy is
struggling because of the President's policies." The fact checking
system determines that the economy is struggling because of
cyclically weak demand. However, because a number of people above a
threshold have flagged the comment, the fact checking system
performs another fact check using different sources. The second
fact check again determines that there is no evidence that the
President's policies are causing the economy to struggle. The fact
checking system then indicates that the fact check result has been
confirmed. In some embodiments, the second fact check result is
only indicated if the second fact check result is different than
the first fact check result. In some embodiments, more or fewer
steps are implemented, and/or the steps are modified. For example,
in some embodiments, the step of flagging is not included.
[0325] In some embodiments, the reliability of each source is
determined by classifying each source (e.g., a table or other data
structure stores a source type and a corresponding rating: an
encyclopedia is given a rating of 10, a national newspaper is given
a rating of 7, an informational blog is given a 5, and an opinion
blog is given a rating of 1), comparing each source (other than
sources rated as a 10) or parts of each source with higher rated
sources, sources rated 10 are able to be compared with other
sources rated 10, comparing with other sources (e.g. equivalent or
lower rated), determining how many sources agree with the source,
and/or determining how many sources disagree with the source, and
computing each source's reliability. For example, determining a
source agrees with information is by comparing the information with
the source and finding a matching result, and determining a source
disagrees with information is when the comparison of the
information and the source does not find a match. A match is able
to be determined in any manner such as an exact text match, using
context, using natural language processing, and/or any manner. An
example of a source agreeing with information is someone saying
energy independence is not a priority of the President, and a
source includes text that says the based on past public statements,
the President has no desire for energy independence. An example of
a source disagreeing with information is someone saying the
President caused gas prices to rise, and a source specifies that
the main reason for the gas price increase is greater global demand
for oil. In some embodiments, a source is parsed and each parsed
segment is compared with other sources. Then, depending on how many
sources agree with each segment determines how a source is rated.
In some embodiments, the source is parsed for fact checking. In
some embodiments, the sources are classified automatically,
manually or verified manually after automatically classified. In
some embodiments, the reliability of sources is determined
automatically, manually or verified manually after being determined
automatically. In some embodiments, the sources are stored in a
data structure with the highest rated accessible first in the
structure. In some embodiments, some of the sources are classified
manually, and then used for comparison purposes to classify
additional sources. For example, three different encyclopedias are
given a 10 rating, 5 different dictionaries are given a 10 rating,
7 mostly accurate news articles are given a 9 rating, and 5
political opinion articles are given a 2 rating for being mostly
inaccurate. Then, additional sources are compared with the
previously classified sources, and a rating is determined. In some
embodiments, sources are searched for and given an initial
classification rating manually (e.g., by determining content is an
encyclopedia, a personal blog), and then the fact checking system
automatically generates the reliability rating using the initial
classification rating and the accuracy of the content. In some
embodiments, sources are rated by peer review. In some embodiments,
sources are rated using trending information. In some embodiments,
sources are rated using historical information (e.g., analyzing
archives from a source). In some embodiments, the source ratings
are updated periodically (e.g., daily, monthly, yearly) by checking
newly presented material since the last check of the source
information.
[0326] FIG. 35 illustrates a flowchart of a method of rating
sources according to some embodiments. In the step 3500, a source
is classified. In the step 3502, the source or aspects of the
source are compared with other sources. In the step 3504, a
reliability rating is computed for the source based on the
comparison of the source with the other sources. In some
embodiments, more or fewer steps are implemented. For example, in
some embodiments, before a source is classified, the source is
prepared for fact checking (e.g., searched for, input in to a fact
checking database, and/or linked to a fact checking database).
[0327] In one example, a computation is the classification
rating+(number of agreeing higher rated sources/number of
disagreeing higher rated sources)*0.01 with a maximum of +1.
Furthering the example, a national newspaper is classified with a
rating of 7, and based on comparisons of many stories in the
newspaper with many sources, it receives a maximum addition of 1
giving it a rating of 8.
[0328] In another example, a computation is the classification
rating+(number of segments with a number of agreeing sources above
a threshold/number of segments with a number of disagreeing sources
above a threshold)*0.1 with a maximum of +1. Furthering the
example, an informational blog is classified with a rating of 5,
and the blog is parsed into 1000 fact checkable segments. Eight
hundred of the segments are each verified as valid by at least 10
(e.g., threshold) other sources. One hundred and ninety of the
segments are each verified as invalid by at least 10 other sources.
Ten segments are not verified as either valid or invalid, also
referred to as unknown. The computation is
5+(800/190=4.2)*0.1=5.42.
[0329] In another example, a computation begins with the initial
classification rating which is then increased by 2 points with a
cap at 10 if a very high percentage (e.g., 99%) of the segments are
verified as accurate by a threshold of higher rated or equally
rated thresholds. The rating is increased by 1 point if a high
percentage (e.g., 90%) of the segments are verified as accurate by
a threshold of higher rated or equally rated thresholds. The rating
is decreased by half of the initial classification point if a
moderate percentage (e.g., 30%) of the segments are verified as
inaccurate by a threshold of higher rated or equally rated
thresholds.
[0330] In some embodiments, monitoring includes monitoring closed
caption information which is in text form. The closed caption
information is then able to be fact checked as described
herein.
[0331] In some embodiments, a data structure is populated for being
searched for fact checking and/or supplemental information. A
crawler is able to find and retrieve data to store. Information is
able to be input by users, media and/or any others. Previously
checked facts are stored in a database. The fact checking system is
able to preemptively fact check websites, archived information,
and/or any other information to populate the database. The fact
checking system is able to check websites specifically set up for
fact checking and/or supplemental information to retrieve data for
fact checking and/or supplemental information. The data structure
is able to be populated with advertisement data and corresponding
advertisement data (e.g., competitor's advertisements). The
advertisement data is able to be input by users and/or companies.
Any other data described herein is able to be acquired in any
manner to populate the data structure.
[0332] In some embodiments, a vehicle (e.g., car, truck, boat,
motorcycle) includes a display on a windshield, window, dashboard,
seat, ceiling, roof, and/or any other component of the vehicle. The
display is able to be implemented in any manner including, but not
limited to a projection display, an LCD display and/or any other
display. In some embodiments, the display on the windshield
utilizes tinting, ice, dust, dirt, or a spray of water on the
outside of the windshield to enable a projection of a video and/or
image to be displayed. In some embodiments, the vehicle is equipped
with a camera or other scanning device to scan items such as
billboards, store names, street signs, and/or any other displayed
information. In an example, the camera scans a store name, and then
displays on the windshield and/or dashboard, supplemental
information regarding the store including, but not limited to,
hours, prices of items, controversies involving the store, ratings
of the store, fact check information, and/or any other information.
In some embodiments, the vehicle operates in conjunction with a
user's mobile device. For example, the vehicle's camera scans a
store name, and supplemental information is displayed on a user's
mobile device and/or added to a contacts list. In another example,
a motor home camera scans an item (e.g., billboard), and then
displays supplemental information on a television inside the motor
home. In some embodiments, a user inputs an item to search for, and
the vehicle camera searches for store names, determines items at
the store (e.g., by searching a database and/or website for the
store), and informs the user when the item is found. For example, a
user is looking for a baseball bat, and when the vehicle camera
detects Sporting Goods Store X, the vehicle camera indicates on the
dashboard that the item has been found. In some embodiments, the
vehicle system is able to be used to fact check and/or provide
supplemental real estate information, including, but not limited
to, a house address, size, number of rooms, age, price, how long
for sale, current mortgage, current property tax bill, photos of
inside/outside, listing agent, comparable sales/listings, trends,
neighborhood information (e.g. crime, population), school
information, and/or any other information. In some embodiments, the
glasses and/or other clothing described herein are able to be
implemented in conjunction with the vehicle system or in a similar
manner as the vehicle system. For example, the vehicle camera
detects a store name, and the supplemental information is displayed
on the user's glasses.
[0333] FIG. 36 illustrates a vehicle with fact checking
capabilities according to some embodiments. The vehicle 3600
includes any standard vehicle components as well as a display 3602,
a camera/scanning device 3604, and a computing device 3606. As
described above, the display 3602 is able to be any display
including a display on the windshield. The camera/scanning device
3604 is able to be located anywhere on the vehicle 3600 and is used
for scanning objects such as store names, buildings and/or any
other objects. The computing device 3606 is able to process the
information acquired by the camera/scanning device 3604 including
fact checking the information as described herein and send the
results to the display 3602. In some embodiments, the
camera/scanning device 3604 is wirelessly coupled to a user's
mobile device 3608 which processes the acquired data and is able to
transmit the result to the display 3602. Although various
components are included in the example in FIG. 36, more or fewer
components are able to be utilized.
[0334] In some embodiments, the vehicle fact checking system is
utilized by police and other law enforcement. The camera is able to
be used to scan a license plate and/or a type of car and by
converting and/or comparing the acquired data with one or more
databases, determine if the car is stolen, if the person has an
outstanding warrant or a suspended license, and/or any other
information useful to the police. In some embodiments, the
information is useful for non-law enforcement people, for example,
for recording information about an accident or a crime.
[0335] In some embodiments, the fact checking system is able to be
used to fact check forms, contracts and other documents. For
example, legal documents are fact checked to ensure the name,
address, and/or any other information is accurate. The documents
are able to be parsed into fact-based portions and law-based
portions. The fact-based information is fact checked by comparing
the information with information in a public database, private
database, and/or any other documents or information. For example,
if eight documents spell the person's name "Brian," and then his
name is spelled "Brain" in the other two documents, by comparison,
the user is alerted that his name different in two of the
documents. In some embodiments, the law used in the documents is
fact checked. The law is checked to make sure it is not stale. The
law is able to be checked by comparing the language with current
code sections publicly available and/or in any other way. In
another example, privacy notices and other legal text (e.g., on a
website) are analyzed, and transformed into lay terms, and/or
specific elements are highlighted for a user. For example, when a
user logs on to a website, the terms and privacy notice are
summarized and/or specific sections are highlighted for a user in a
pop-up window. The summary is able to be a summary prepared in
advance manually or an automatically analyzed summary. The
highlighted sections are able to be manually highlighted in advance
or automatically highlighted by searching for specific phrases or
keywords. The summary and/or highlighting is stored so that when a
user logs onto the website, the summary and/or highlighting is
retrieved and displayed for the user.
[0336] In some embodiments, the fact checking system is able to be
used to fact check images, videos, sounds, and/or any other
content. The content is able to be fact checked by analyzing a
first content, searching for a second content, and fact checking
the first content by comparing the first content with the second
content. For example, the fact checking system is able to determine
if the content has been doctored and/or determine the age,
location, and/or other information of the content to determine the
accuracy of the content. Whether the content has been doctored is
able to be determined by searching for similar content and
comparing the content to determine if there are any changes between
the content. For example, a photo shows a person with an illegal
item in his hand, but by using an image comparison implementation,
five photos show the same photo without the item in his hand, it is
able to be determined the photo has been doctored. In some
embodiments, a verification process is implemented to ensure the
additional photos are valid and not the doctored ones. In some
embodiments, the quantity of photos is used as the verification
process. For example, if there is only one photo with the item in
the person's hand, and there are 1,000 photos found online with no
item, then the 1,000 photos are deemed to be valid. In some
embodiments, the verification process is manually performed. In
another implementation to determine doctoring of content, the
content is analyzed to determine if there are any edits. For
example, an implementation is able to determine if any edges are
improper which indicate doctoring. Any other doctoring detection
implementations by analysis of the content are able to be used. In
some embodiments, doctoring is determined by searching and
comparing and by content analysis. In some embodiments, the content
is fact checked by analyzing the embedded content information
(e.g., exif information). For example, if the content is purported
to be from 2012 (e.g., caption of photo says "Celebrity X at the
beach, yesterday"), but the embedded information indicates the
photo was taken in 2008, then the fact checking system is able to
determine the misinformation and indicate a correction and/or any
other notification to the user. In some embodiments, the content is
fact checked by searching for a content match in a database. For
example, a database stores photos, dates of the photo, and/or any
other relevant information. The database is searched for the photo
in question, and the date and/or other information is compared with
the asserted information (e.g. date mentioned in caption), and if
the dates do not match, a notification is indicated.
[0337] In some embodiments, dual mobile devices are utilized for
fact checking. For example, two separate arm/wrist devices (e.g.
watches) are used where one displays the content (e.g. broadcast
information), and the second device displays fact checking and/or
supplemental information. In another example, a device is worn on
the arm, and a second device is worn in/near the ear. In another
example, a device is worn on the arm, and a second device is worn
on/near the eyes. In another example, a device is in/part of a
vehicle, and a second device is a mobile device. In another
example, a mobile device and an airplane display are used in
conjunction. For example, the airplane display displays news, and
the mobile device fact checks the news and displays the fact
checking results, or vice versa. Any combination of the devices is
able to be implemented. Any display and/or transfer of information
is able to be implemented. Additionally, more than two devices are
able to be used in combination.
[0338] In some embodiments, political advertisements are classified
as positive or negative. The classification is able to be performed
automatically or manually. The data such as the number of positive
and negative advertisements is maintained (e.g., stored in a data
structure), and then displayed or retrievable for users. For
example, when a candidate is detected, supplemental information
indicating percent positive advertisements and percent negative
advertisements by/for the candidate is presented.
[0339] In some embodiments, autofill, such as automatically
suggesting a search string in a search engine, utilizes fact
checking for determining the autofill suggestion or suggestions.
For example, when a user inputs part of a search string, "Texas is
the largest," without using fact checking in conjunction with the
current autofill implementation, the suggestions include "Texas is
the largest state in the united states," "Texas is the largest
state" and other suggestions. However, these suggestions are
factually inaccurate. Therefore, using fact checking in conjunction
with any autofill implementation, a suggestion would be more
factually accurate such as "Texas is the largest state in the
continental united states." In another example, the autofill would
change the search string from "Texas is the largest" to "Alaska is
the largest state." In some embodiments, the autofill with fact
checking implementation is performed by first performing an
autofill analysis and performing a fact check as described herein
and based on the fact check, changing the autofill result. For
example, a user inputs, "Texas is the largest." The autofill
analysis determines that "Texas is the largest state in the united
states" is the primary suggestion. The autofill suggestion is then
fact checked, and the result of the fact check is returned which
modifies the autofill suggestion to state, "Texas is the largest
state in the continental united states." The process is able to
occur automatically so that the user does not see the initial
un-fact checked suggestion and only sees the fact checked
suggestion. In some embodiments, multiple results are returned from
the fact check and are each used to modify the initial autofill
suggestion or suggestions. In some embodiments, each initial
autofill suggestion is fact checked and modified. The autofill
analysis and suggestions occur in real-time while the user is
typing. In some embodiments, the autofill analysis and fact
checking occurs simultaneously or in parallel. Fact checking is
able to be used in a similar manner with predictive text.
[0340] FIG. 37 illustrates a flowchart of a method of using fact
checking with autofill information according to some embodiments.
In the step 3700, an autofill determination is performed. In the
step 3702, a fact check of the autofill result is performed. In the
step 3704, an updated autofill result is displayed. In some
embodiments, more or fewer steps are implemented. In some
embodiments, the order of the steps is modified.
[0341] In some embodiments, the fact checking system is used in
conjunction with social advertising where an advertisement is based
on what "contacts" are viewing/writing/doing.
[0342] In some embodiments, a fact checking and summarizing system
is implemented for fact checking and/or summarizing what a user is
watching/listening to or is not watching/listening to but is
interested in. In some embodiments, the fact checking and
summarizing system is implemented for other items (e.g., although
user is not interested in politics, a summary of the presidential
race is generated and displayed for the user). The fact checking
and summarizing is able to occur in real-time while the event
occurs. For example, a user inputs that he is interested in the
upcoming State of the Union speech or the Presidential debate. The
fact checking and summarizing system monitors the information
independently from the user (e.g., a third party device monitors
any or all broadcast information) and then provides updates on a
user device (e.g., text on the bottom of a television screen, an
SMS message or tweet on a user's mobile phone, a video/audio clip
on the user's mobile phone or any other indication described
herein). In some embodiments, the updates are periodic (e.g., every
5 minutes) and/or the updates are when a highlight occurs.
Highlights are able to be detected in any manner such as when
applause is detected, when an error is detected by fact checking,
when a designated highlight is detected, when a user (e.g.,
operator, news producer) marks a section as a highlight, and/or any
other detection. In some embodiments, the fact checking and
summarizing occurs in real-time but is stored for later playback to
the user. The updates are able to include summarized aspects of the
content, misinformation with corrected information, biased
information, and/or any other information. In some embodiments, the
updates include information related to a manually input or
automatically selected keyword, search phrase, or topic. For
example, a user only wants updates about the economy in the State
of the Union speech, the fact checking and summarizing system is
able to detect keywords related to the economy such as taxes, debt
and deficit and present a summary or video/audio clip of the
specified topic. In some embodiments, the presented update includes
a few seconds (e.g., 5, 10 or 30 seconds) of video (or equivalent
text) before the detected keyword to ensure adequate context, and
then a set period of time (e.g., 30 or 60 seconds), continuous play
until the user stops the update, or another implementation to
automatically detect a stop (e.g., detecting a change of topic to
another topic by detecting a keyword for a different topic). In
some embodiments, although the presented video or text in the
update begins at a set point, the entire video or text is provided
to enable a user to go back further if needed or desired. In some
embodiments, the summary is able to be manually reviewed for
accuracy. In an example, the summarizer summarizes specific points
such as how the economy is doing by indicating the stock market is
up over X years, unemployment is down to Y, GDP growth is at Z %.
Current rates and/or current trends are able to be included in the
summary. In some embodiments, the summarizing displays a summary of
the fact checking results at the end of a show or event.
[0343] FIG. 38 illustrates a flowchart of a method of fact checking
and summarizing according to some embodiments. In the step 3800,
information is monitored as described herein. In the step 3802, the
information is processed as described herein. In the step 3804, the
information is fact checked as described herein, and the
information is summarized. In the step 3806, the fact checking
results and summary are updated on a user's device. In some
embodiments, more or fewer steps are implemented. In some
embodiments, the order of the steps is modified. In some
embodiments, the some of the steps are performed separately.
[0344] In some embodiments, a fact checking system is able to
detect manipulation of a source intended to generate a higher
reliability rating. For example, if the reliability rating is
determined based on the accuracy of a source or segments of a
source, the source could include an encyclopedia worth of data at
the bottom of the source, but include opinion information at the
top of the source. Furthering the example, a blog could include
factually accurate information in small/hidden text at the bottom
of each web page, but at the top of each web page include
inaccurate and/or biased information. The fact checking system is
able to prevent such a manipulation in any manner. For example, the
fact checking system is able to separate a source into portions,
and if one portion is factually inaccurate (e.g., by determining
many segments in the portion to be disagreed with by other
sources), and another portion is factually accurate, the source is
separated into two sources and each is classified separately. In
another example, the source is compared with other sources to
determine if copying has been performed (e.g., blog copied a
thousand lines of text from encyclopedia), and any copied content
within the source is excluded from the reliability determination of
the source. In some embodiments, metadata of a source is analyzed.
In some embodiments, sources are manually checked to determine if
any manipulation has occurred. In some embodiments, a penalty is
paid if manipulation is detected to deter any manipulation. For
example, a reliability rating of a source is dropped to 0 or 1 out
of 10, if manipulation is detected. In some embodiments, rewards
are awarded for detecting manipulation of a source. In some
embodiments, an alert is made to suggest a manual check if a source
receives an unexpectedly high rating (e.g., above a threshold)
automatically. For example, a source is classified as a personal
opinion blog, and it receives a 100% accuracy rating from the
automatic rating system. An alert is sent for a person to do a
manual review of the blog and/or an additional automatic review is
performed. In some embodiments, users are able to request a check
for manipulation of a source by submitting source identification
information to a manipulation detection system. In some
embodiments, other forms of manipulation are able to be detected.
For example, if a user generates a web page that contains factually
inaccurate information, and then generates 50 duplicate web pages
with different names, URLs, and/or other identifiers, the sources
are able to be compared and determined to be a single source and
not given weight of 50 different sources. In some embodiments,
reliability determination utilizes other methods of determining
reliability such as the number of other sources that link to a web
page or web site.
[0345] FIG. 39 illustrates a flowchart of a method of detecting
manipulation of sources according to some embodiments. In the step
3900, a source is analyzed for manipulation. For example, the
source is parsed, each segment is compared with other sources to
determine accuracy, each segment is compared with other sources to
determine copying, the source rating is analyzed, and/or the size
and/or color of the text is analyzed to determine if information is
hidden. In the step 3902, an action is taken on the source based on
the analysis. For example, the source rating is dropped to a lowest
level if manipulation is detected or the source rating is
maintained if no manipulation is detected. In some embodiments,
more or fewer steps are implemented. In some embodiments, the order
of the steps is modified.
[0346] In some embodiments, a checklist or timeline of campaign
promises is generated. The checklist or timeline is able to be
generated automatically and/or manually. For example, candidate
statements are monitored, and when a campaign promise is made, the
promise is added to the list. In another example, a user manually
inputs items in a checklist. Then, after the candidate wins the
position, the promises are tracked while he is in office. When an
item on the checklist is completed, it is indicated as completed on
the checklist. Determining the item is completed is able to be
performed automatically and/or manually. For example, broadcast
information is monitored for information (e.g., keywords:
"Unemployment below 6%") indicating the item has been completed.
Completed and uncompleted items are able to be displayed. In some
embodiments, a justification is included as to why the item has not
been completed (e.g., a Republican president with a Democratic
Congress reluctant to compromise). The justifications are able to
be determined automatically and/or manually. In some embodiments, a
likelihood of success of completing the item is indicated during
and/or after the campaign. The likelihood of success is able to be
determined using any factor such as the current and/or projected
members of the government, popularity of the item with the
population, and/or any other factor. In some embodiments, fact
checking is implemented with the campaign promise checklist or
timeline. For example, if a comment from someone who is not the
candidate is used to generate a campaign promise, the comment is
fact checked to determine if it should be considered a campaign
promise. Furthering the example, Commentator states that Candidate
A promised to end the wars, and the comment is fact checked (e.g.,
by comparing the comment with an actual comment from the
Candidate), and if the comment is taken out of context, then the
comment is not added to the checklist. Other aspects of the
campaign promise checklist are able to be fact checked as well.
[0347] FIG. 40 illustrates a flowchart of a method of implementing
a checklist of campaign promises according to some embodiments. In
the step 4000, a candidate statement is monitored. In the step
4002, the candidate statement is processed (e.g., parsed for a
campaign promise). In the step 4004, the campaign promises are
tracked in a checklist. In the step 4006, when a campaign promise
is detected as completed, the checklist is updated. In some
embodiments, more or fewer steps are implemented. For example, fact
checking is incorporated. In some embodiments, the order of the
steps is modified.
[0348] In some embodiments, a salary or amount of money paid to a
contributor is displayed when the contributor is recognized. For
example, when commentator A appears, text is displayed that says,
"Commentator A is a paid contributor by X and is paid $1M yearly by
X." Contributor is able to be recognized in any manner described
herein such as by face recognition and/or voice recognition.
Indicating is able to be any manner described herein.
[0349] In some embodiments, a voting fact checking system is
implemented to provide a user with voting information. For example,
the system provides a user with the address of the voting location,
directions to the location, a countdown of when to vote, an alert
to vote on election day, how/where to register to vote and other
information regarding registering to vote, a summary and/or
analysis of the issues and/or candidates based on fact checking
and/or other analysis during the campaign and/or before,
suggestions on whom to vote for and/or what to vote for, and/or an
explanation of how items (e.g., propositions), positions, and/or
candidates would affect the user's life, related people's lives
(e.g., contacts based social network information), other people's
lives, the user's state, the user's country, and/or the planet. For
example, the system indicates that Candidate A's plan to cut taxes
will save the specific user $2000/year based on his current salary.
In some embodiments, a user's input, acquired information (e.g.,
from social networking sites) and/or determined importance as
described herein is able to be used to determine how the user would
be affected. For example, it is determined that a user has a salary
of $30,000 per year (which is determined to be the most important
item to the user), but is socially conservative (although not
vehemently), and Candidate A wants to cut taxes, but the cut will
not affect someone with such a salary, the tax cut will likely add
to the country's debt, but the candidate is against gay marriage
which does not affect the person personally. Therefore, it is
indicated to the user that Candidate A's goals are not in line with
the user's most important items. FIG. 41 illustrates an exemplary
voting fact checking app according to some embodiments. Voting
information presented to the user is also able to include main
points/positions of each candidate, projections of future laws and
other effects based on the candidate's plans/positions,
contribution information (e.g., how much, by whom), superPAC
information (e.g., contributors and how much), and/or any other
information. Fact checking information is also included, such as
misinformation provided by the candidate, associates/supporters of
the candidate, news members discussing the candidate, superPACs,
other organizations supporting the candidate and/or advertisements
for or by the candidate. In some embodiments, the summary of
candidates and/or other political information is sent to only
registered voters. In some embodiments, the summary of candidates
and/or other political information is sent to only registered
voters who did not vote in the last election. In some embodiments,
the summary of candidates and/or other political information is
sent to only unregistered voters. Determining who to send the
summary information to is able to be based on public records,
social networking information, and/or any other manner. In some
embodiments, a summary includes how each choice could affect the
user. For example, a summary states: Candidate A is a Republican
focused on lowering taxes, increasing jobs, and reducing government
regulations, and based on your information, Candidate A's policies
may help you find a job, but not much more; Candidate B is a
Democrat focused on increasing taxes on some, increasing jobs,
maintaining government regulations including environmental
protections, and based on your information, Candidate B's policies
may help you find a job and protect the environment which is
important to you.
[0350] In some embodiments, a table or other structure is presented
comparing the main points of the candidates. In some embodiments,
the table is based on and/or includes fact checking results. In
some embodiments, the table includes additional information such as
comparisons of political advertisements. FIG. 42 illustrates an
exemplary table of a candidate comparison according to some
embodiments.
[0351] In some embodiments, the voting fact checking system
suggests an advertisement and/or other content for the user to
watch, read and/or listen to. The suggestion is able to be based on
the user's political affiliation (e.g., registered Democrat),
importance selections/determination as described herein, personal
information, social networking information, and/or other
information. In some embodiments, the suggested content includes
only fact checked content (e.g., an advertisement that has been
validated as true by the fact checking system or an advertisement
that includes real-time fact checking information to point out
misinformation and/or bias). In some embodiments, a suggestion is
made to avoid specific content (e.g. content determined to contain
false information). For example, if a user is still undecided on
whom to vote for, and the environment is most important to the
user, the voting fact checking system is able to suggest a web page
that shows Candidate B's voting record of being anti-environment,
and Candidate A's pro-environment video clip. In some embodiments,
a list of all advertisements, speeches, summaries of speeches,
and/or any other content from one or multiple candidates is
presented (e.g., a playlist). In some embodiments, advertisements
by opposing candidates are presented in a side-by-side view or one
after the other for comparison purposes. For example, Candidate A's
advertisement about "jobs" is presented including fact checking
information, and then Candidate B's advertisement about "jobs" is
presented with fact checking information. In some embodiments, the
effects on the user are displayed in an order with the most
important aspect displayed first or at the top of the list and less
important items displayed down the list.
[0352] In some embodiments, the voting fact checking system
provides a user with statistics on whether his vote will affect the
outcome. For example, if a user is a Republican in California,
unless the Democrat candidate has major flaws, most likely the
user's vote for President will not affect the outcome of the
election due to the Electoral College system and the fact that
California typically votes Democrat. Therefore, the statistics
would indicate that the user's vote is not likely to affect the
outcome of the Presidential election. On the other hand, if the
user is a voter in Ohio, where outcomes have been decided by a
small margin, the statistics indicate that the user's vote may
affect the outcome of the election. Determining if a user's vote
will affect election is able to be by analyzing historical
information (e.g., past elections), current polling information,
and/or projections (e.g., the projected electoral map). The
indication of whether the user's vote will affect the outcome is
able to be implemented in any manner described herein such as using
different color coding based on the potential effect.
[0353] In some embodiments, the voting fact checking system matches
and/or suggests a candidate, proposition selection, and/or any
other voting item based on user selections, importance to the user,
personal information, social network information (e.g., a user's
Facebook.RTM. page, tweets, blogs, or contacts' pages, tweets,
blogs), and/or any other information as described herein. In some
embodiments, the matching or suggestion is impartial, and in some
embodiments, the suggestion is biased. In some embodiments, the
voting fact checking system provides a description and additional
information of third party candidates.
[0354] In some embodiments, the voting fact checking system
utilizes automatically and/or manually generated summaries as
described herein and/or generated playlists (e.g., of political
advertisements). In some embodiments, the advertisements, videos
and/or other content are stored in a data structure (e.g.,
database). In some embodiments, the data structure is populated
during and/or before the campaign on a continuous basis (e.g.,
updated periodically or when a new video, clip or advertisement is
detected), and in some embodiments, the data structure is generated
near election time by crawling for content. The data structure is
able to be configured in any manner, for example, separating pros
and cons for each candidate, separating the data structure into
advertisements, videos, speeches, and other content, separating the
data structure into factually accurate, factually inaccurate, and
misleading, including differently levels of accuracy, inaccuracy,
and misleading.
[0355] FIG. 43 illustrates a flowchart of a method of voting fact
checking according to some embodiments. In the step 4300, a user is
detected/determined/identified. In the step 4302, voting
information is provided to the user. In the step 4304, an
advertisement (or other content) is suggested based on the user. In
some embodiments, a voting item is matched/suggested. In some
embodiments, the content is provided to the user, or access to the
content is provided. In some embodiments, more or fewer steps are
implemented. In some embodiments, the order of the steps is
modified.
[0356] In some embodiments, the voting fact checking system
includes an interface to enable a user to ask a question and/or
search for a topic (e.g., what is Candidate A's position on
taxes?).
[0357] In some embodiments, the voting fact checking system enables
the user to input a candidate (e.g., I want to vote for Candidate
A), and the candidate is fact checked and compared with user
information (including importance information) to determine if the
candidate's views match with the user's views.
[0358] In some embodiments, the user is able to manually input
information for the voting fact checking system to determine which
candidate the user is most aligned with. For example, the user is
able to answer a set of questions, and the voting fact checking
system determines a possible candidate for the user.
[0359] In some embodiments, a simplified voting fact checking
system operates automatically by determining the user based on
mobile device data (e.g., cellular phone number), determining
additional information about the user (e.g., searching social
network information, blogs, personal information such as salary,
job type, and taxes paid in previous years), comparing the
information about the user with the candidate positions, likely
positions, values, and/or goals, status of the country and/or any
other information, and generating a result suggesting a candidate
to vote for or indicating a candidate with views aligned with the
user. For example, after the user initiates a mobile device app,
the simplified voting fact checking system performs its tasks
automatically and displays, "Based on the information I have about
you, Candidate C's views are most aligned with yours." In some
embodiments, a selectable option is included to allow the user to
view more information (e.g. positions of the candidate, personal
information used for selecting the candidate and/or any other
information). In some embodiments, pros and cons of each candidate
are presented based on the user (e.g., user interests, importance,
and/or other personal characteristics). In some embodiments, fact
checking information is taken into account. For example, if
Candidate C has been found to have lied or misrepresented
information, this information is used when making a suggestion. In
another example, if a candidate flip-flops often, he may not be
trustworthy, which affects whether he should be recommended. In
some embodiments, a user is automatically determined based on phone
number, location, IP address, email address, and/or any other
information that identifies the user for purposes of providing
voting fact checking information.
[0360] FIG. 44 illustrates a flowchart of a method of voting fact
checking according to some embodiments. In the step 4400, a user is
detected/determined/identified. In the step 4402, additional
information is determined about the user. In the step 4404, the
user information is compared with candidate information. In the
step 4406, a result of the comparison is generated and indicated.
In some embodiments, more or fewer steps are implemented. In some
embodiments, the order of the steps is modified.
[0361] FIG. 45 illustrates an exemplary table of news coverage
analysis according to some embodiments. The fact checking system as
described herein is able to determine the number of inaccuracies,
number of advertisements shown for each candidate, number of
stories for/against each candidate, number of misleading stories
and/or any other information for each network/entity.
[0362] In some embodiments, contradictory arguments/positions are
indicated. For example, under President A, Commentator X says,
"let's give the President a little more time to fix the economy,"
but for President B, Commentator X says, "the President's plans are
not working." A clip of the comments about President A by the
commentator are displayed in conjunction with or after the comments
about President B. In some embodiments, an indication of
"contradiction" is displayed as well. The contradiction is able to
be determined automatically or manually. For example, a data
structure is able to be populated with comments (or links to
content) made by Commentator X about President A, and in a
corresponding column, contradictory comments are included. In
another example, the fact checking system searches for and compares
source data to determine if a contradictory statement is being
made. For example, the fact checking system searches a database of
all comments made by Commentator X regarding a specific topic,
finds a relevant comment, retrieves the comment and sends a text
message to the user's device indicating what Commentator X said in
the past about the topic.
[0363] In some embodiments, issues discussed by a
channel/station/commentator/show/any other entity are tracked and
stored. For example, political show X discussed the economy and
debt most often in 2009, but rarely mentioned the economy and debt
in 2008. Included with the tracked issues are dates, possible
reasons why there was a change in topics (e.g., war ended), number
of times discussed, positive, neutral or negative discussion of the
topics, and/or any other information. The tracking and storing is
able to occur manually and/or automatically. The tracked
information is then able to be used for analysis and/or presented
to indicate bias or other analysis.
[0364] In some embodiments, a personal fact checking system tracks
contacts' (e.g., friends') factual accuracy, bias, and/or other
characterizations. The personal fact checking system monitors
communications of the contacts (e.g., phone calls, blogs, message
boards, emails, text messages, social networking sites), analyzes
the communications (e.g., determines/detects the user, processes,
fact checks, determines bias and/or any other analysis described
herein), and displays an icon (or other graphical representation)
representing the contact's characteristics including factual
accuracy, bias, and/or other characterizations in real-time or in
non-real-time. In an example, a mobile device displays a contact
list where each contact has a background based on their factual
accuracy, bias and/or other characterization. For example, Contact
A has a green background because he generally tells the truth, and
Contact B has a red background because many of his comments have
been determined to be false. In some embodiments, if the ratio of
lies (or misinformation) to non-lies is above a threshold, the
background or icon changes. In another example, Contact C forwards
factually inaccurate emails to friends, so Contact C's background
changes to red. In some embodiments, if the number of lies or
misinformation goes above a daily, monthly, or another time frame
threshold, then the background or icon changes color. In some
embodiments, the monitoring, processing, fact checking, and
indicating occurs on one or more devices. For example, a first
device monitors, processes, and fact checks communications from
users, and then results are sent to the user's device for
indicating the background or icon changes. In some embodiments, the
results indicate the contact and an effect of the contact (e.g.,
+/-accuracy). In some embodiments, when a user receives a phone
call, SMS message, or other communication, the caller's validity
rating is displayed on the receiver's mobile phone. The validity
rating is retrieved using the caller's mobile phone number or other
identifying information. For example, a database stores mobile
phone numbers and corresponding user validity ratings. The phone of
the recipient displays the validity rating in any manner (e.g.,
along with other identifying information).
[0365] FIG. 46 illustrates a flowchart of a method of fact checking
contacts according to some embodiments. In the step 4600,
communications of the contacts are monitored. In the step 4602, the
communications are analyzed. In the step 4604, an icon representing
the contact is displayed. In some embodiments, more or fewer steps
are implemented. In some embodiments, the order of the steps is
modified.
[0366] FIG. 47 illustrates a diagram of a graphical user interface
of fact checked contacts according to some embodiments. A list of
contacts is displayed and next to each contact is an icon
representing the factual accuracy of the contact. In the example, a
down arrow 4700 is used to indicate the contact has a negative
factual accuracy (e.g., the contact tells more lies than a
threshold), and an up arrow 4702 is used to indicate the contact
has a positive factual accuracy. In some embodiments, an additional
icon is displayed indicating the contact's bias and/or any other
characterization.
[0367] FIG. 48 illustrates a block diagram of furniture used in
conjunction with fact checking. The furniture is able to be any
type of furniture, for example, a chair. The chair 4800, includes a
signal receiving component 4802 for receiving a signal from another
device, a processing component 4804 for processing the signal
received, a vibration mechanism 4806 for providing vibrations to
the furniture, and a motion mechanism 4808 for moving the
furniture. As described above, the chair 4800 receives a signal
from a smart phone or television based on a result of a fact check
which causes the chair 4800 to vibrate when misinformation is
presented, to tilt one way or the other when bias is detected
(e.g., left for liberal and right for conservative), to rock when a
lie is detected, and/or any other effect. The furniture is able to
include fewer or more components than shown in the figure. The
effects are able to occur in real-time in conjunction with
broadcast information and/or other information.
[0368] In some embodiments, the fact checking system is implemented
to repeatedly fact check a specified item. For example, a comment
that states, "the polls show the President is trailing" may be
true, false, or unknown depending on when the fact check is
performed. In another example, a commentator states, "it is
rumored, Candidate X is dropping out of the race." Initially, a
fact check may return unknown, but by repeatedly fact checking, a
result may be determined. In some embodiments, when a result of
true or false (or confirmed) is returned, an alert is indicated
that the rumor has been confirmed or not. In some embodiments, even
when a result is determined the fact checking system continues to
fact check for a period of time in case the result changes. In some
embodiments, tracking the information is able to be automatic, and
in some embodiments, parameters are able to be set to check. In
some embodiments, a notification is indicated with a result that a
future check will be performed.
[0369] In some embodiments, a GUI for rating articles so others are
able to filter the articles is implemented. For example, users are
able to rate articles as informative, funny, biased, accurate,
inaccurate, a classification (e.g., sports, economy,
environmental), and/or any other rating. In some embodiments, fact
checking results of the articles are used to generate a rating or
for searching. For example, a user searches for articles with a
high funny rating and also a high accuracy rating based on the fact
checking.
[0370] In some embodiments, a second device for receiving fact
checking results and/or supplemental information is implemented.
For example, the device is a display capable of receiving
information transmitted from another device (e.g., a smart phone or
tablet). The information is able to be transmitted in any way
(e.g., Bluetooth.RTM., Wi-Fi).
[0371] In some embodiments, user verification is performed by fact
checking. For example, an entry page asks a user factually-based
questions, and the answers input by the user are compared with
source information where the source is personal to the user (e.g.,
a social network page such as a Facebook.RTM. page, personal blog,
private webpage).
[0372] In some embodiments, a window is automatically shrunk to a
smaller window when inaccurate or misleading information is
detected, and then the remainder of the screen is used to display
the fact checking information. FIG. 49 illustrates an exemplary
changing of a window size according to some embodiments. Initially,
the screen includes only advertisement) 4900, but after a real-time
fact check is performed, and the advertisement is determined to be
misleading, the advertisement) 4900 is shrunk to a smaller window
4900', and the remaining screen space 4902 is used to display the
fact checking information (e.g., a result that indicates the
advertisement is misleading). In some embodiments, when an
advertisement makes untrue or misleading comment, the advertisement
is shrunk, and a second or rebuttal advertisement is displayed. In
some embodiments, the second advertisement is a competitor's
advertisement. In some embodiments, supplemental information as
described herein is displayed in the remaining space after the
original content is shrunk to a smaller window. Shrinking the
window size and displaying additional information is able to be
applied to any information, not only advertisements. For example, a
news program window is temporarily shrunk while fact checking
results and/or supplemental information is displayed in real-time,
and then after a period of time (e.g., 5 seconds), the news program
is restored, and the fact checking information is shrunk, is moved
(e.g., to within the news program window), or disappears.
[0373] In some embodiments, a myth clarification implementation is
utilized. FIG. 50 illustrates a flowchart of a method of myth
clarification according to some embodiments. In the step 5000,
myths are stored in a data structure (e.g., database) including
whether the myth is confirmed, possible, disproved, unsure or
similar terms. For example, a database includes the myth that
"sitting too close to the television will hurt your eyes," with the
result "disproved" and sources or cites to sources that support the
result. In the step 5002, a myth is detected (e.g., by comparing
monitored data with the stored myths). In the step 5004, the
validity of the myth is displayed. The myth clarification
implementation is able to be used by monitoring any communication
described herein (e.g., monitoring a television broadcast or
monitoring a user's conversation). In some embodiments, the order
of the steps is modified. In some embodiments, more or fewer steps
are implemented.
[0374] In some embodiments, an interactive fact checking system is
implemented. For example, a user is watching television, the fact
checking system indicates a comment was false, the user is then
able to respond with a command or question such as "why?" or "prove
it" or "more information." Depending on the command or question,
the fact checking system responds with citations proving why the
comment was false or additional context. Any command or question is
able to be utilized. For example, the user is able to ask for "only
supporting sources," "show me only disagreeing sources," "show me
only conservative sources," "show me the full video." A user is
able to request and receive supplemental information from the
interactive fact checking system. For example, the user sees a
commercial which is fact checked, and the user says, "show me a
coupon," and a digital coupon is presented on a user's smart phone.
In another example, a user sees a commercial which is fact checked,
and the fact checking system indicates the commercial is
misleading. The user then says, "show me a competitor's
advertisement," and a competitor's advertisement (e.g., fact
checked as valid) is displayed on the user's television or mobile
device. In another example, a user is watching a news program which
presents one side of an argument, and the user asks, "give me the
opposing side's argument." Then, an opposing argument is presented
to the user. In some embodiments, the opposing argument is based on
the most recent parsed segment in the news program. In some
embodiments, a popup screen is presented with choices for a user to
select from to determine which argument he is looking for an
opposing argument. In some embodiments, a user specifies the
argument he is looking for an opposing argument about. For example,
the user says, "give me an opposing argument to the global warming
comment." In some embodiments, after a fact check result is
displayed, the user is able to challenge the fact checking result
by saying, "challenge." In some embodiments, the interactive fact
checking system allows a user to specify individuals or groups to
fact check (e.g., "fact check Commentator X" or "show me a history
of fact checks of Commentator X"). In some embodiments, a user is
able to request a new fact check with different sources, and the
sources are able to be selected automatically, manually or a
combination thereof as described herein. In some embodiments, the
user is able to request a supporting argument or an opposing
argument for specified content. For example, while a user is
watching a political advertisement by Candidate A, the user says,
"show me an opposing advertisement by Candidate B," and then the
opposing advertisement is presented. In some embodiments, a user is
able to take a snapshot (e.g., pause) of a screen, then
select/highlight what to fact check or receive supplemental
information about. Although the examples herein focus on voice
commands, the interactive fact checking system is able to use any
input mechanism such as movement detection and/or any other input
implementation. In some embodiments, the interactive fact checking
system operates in real-time. In some embodiments, the interactive
fact checking system recognizes (e.g., face recognition, voice
recognition) a user as described herein. Information about the
recognized user is able to be used in presenting supplemental
information or fact checking such as selecting sources to use.
[0375] FIG. 51 illustrates a flowchart of a method of implementing
an interactive fact checking system according to some embodiments.
In the step 5100, fact checking and/or searching for supplemental
information is performed as described herein. In the step 5102, a
response is received from a user. In the step 5104, additional
information is presented based on the response. In some
embodiments, the order of the steps is modified. In some
embodiments, more or fewer steps are implemented.
[0376] In some embodiments, a fact check filter is implemented. The
fact check filter is able to exclude advertisements, articles,
stations, channels, programs, events, and/or any other content that
has too many inaccuracies and/or bias (e.g., above a threshold or
thresholds). The content is first processed and fact checked as
described herein, then the filter is implemented to hide or not
show content that falls below a filter threshold. In some
embodiments, on a channel guide with a table of show descriptions,
shows are highlighted with a designated border and/or background
that have too many inaccuracies and/or bias.
[0377] In some embodiments, content (e.g., video) is displayed on a
mobile device, and fact check results are projected by the device
in real-time (e.g., on a wall, table, or any other object) while
the content is displayed.
[0378] In some embodiments, when a factually inaccurate or
misleading comment, or other characterization is detected, an icon
or tile is displayed on the screen (e.g., bottom of a mobile device
screen or television). In some embodiments, a list of icons is
generated. Users are able to then select icons to see additional
information. In some embodiments, hovering over or clicking an icon
displays the fact checking information. FIG. 52 illustrates a
diagram of a smart phone display with a list of icons representing
detected characterizations. The smart phone 5200 displays a video
5202 or other content which is fact checked using a fact checking
system. When a characterization is detected (e.g., misleading
information, factually inaccurate information, sarcasm, or
questionable information), an icon is displayed corresponding to
the comment. The icons are then able to be presented in a list or
other form. In some embodiments, the icons are presented in the
list in chronological order. In some embodiments, the icons are
displayed in a timeline, and in some embodiments, a timeline is
displayed without icons to indicate when a fact check result
occurred in the content (e.g., a fact check occurred at 5:05 in a
video with a result of inaccurate, and a fact check occurred at
6:22 with a result of misleading). In some embodiments, the icons
are associated with the entity (e.g., commentator) making a
comment. For example, an icon indicates that a misleading comment
was made by Commentator A. Indicating who made the comment is able
to be by any implementation such as using a picture, a graphical
representation, a symbol, and/or text representing the entity. In
some embodiments, the icons are grouped based on the entity (e.g.,
all comments by Commentator A are grouped in one group and all
comments by Guest Z are grouped in another group). In some
embodiments, the icons are grouped and displayed in a competitive
and/or comparative manner. For example, a head-to-head display of
inaccurate/misleading/questionable/unverified comments of
commentator/guest is shown, so the viewer is able to see who is
making more inaccurate comments. In some embodiments, the icons are
grouped based on the characterization (e.g., misleading,
inaccurate). In some embodiments, when comments are grouped based
on the characterization, a number appears on or near the icon
indicating the number of comments with that characterization. In
some embodiments, when a group contains more than 1 item, the icon
appears to be 3D or multiple icons appear in a layered formation.
In some embodiments, when a user selects a characterization group,
the comments are displayed in a list form for the user to view
and/or select for more information. In some embodiments, different
sounds, tones, music, vibration schemes, and/or any other output
are utilized based on each characterization and/or entity. For
example, when misinformation by Commentator A is detected, a "honk"
sound is played, and when misinformation by Guest Z is detected, a
"beep" sound is played. The exemplary icons shown in FIG. 52
include a factually inaccurate comment icon 5204, a misleading
comment icon 5206, a sarcastic comment icon 5208, and a
questionable comment icon 5210. Although a smart phone is shown in
FIG. 52, the icons are able to be displayed on any device (e.g., a
television). In some embodiments, the icons are displayed on a
smart phone, while the video is displayed on another device (e.g.,
television).
[0379] In some embodiments, a preemptive fact checking system is
implemented. The preemptive fact checking system attempts to
anticipate misleading or inaccurate comments and provides factually
accurate information before the misinformation is presented. The
preemptive fact checking system is able to be manually and/or
automatically implemented. The information to be presented
preemptively is able to be associated with a person, network,
organization and/or any other entity in a data structure. In some
embodiments, a notification is displayed at the beginning of a
show, program and/or any other event, to alert people to keep an
item in mind while watching the program. The beginning of the show
is detected in any manner (e.g., by time, audio recognition, video
recognition), and bullet points of facts generated automatically
and/or manually based on recent/current news/stories are displayed
on a television, a mobile device and/or another device. For
example, a report showing unemployment went down is released, and
included in the report is the number that indicates it went down
because many people stopped looking for work. To prevent the
misrepresentation of the seemingly positive unemployment number, an
alert is presented that informs the user at the beginning of a news
program that unemployment went down because of X number of people
stopped looking for work.
[0380] In some embodiments, the fact checking system determines
whether a respondent answers a question. The fact checking system
analyzes the question asked, and then based on the response,
determines whether the question was answered. Determining if the
question is answered is able to be performed in any manner, for
example, locating and/or storing a set of appropriate responses,
comparing the response with the appropriate responses, and if the
response is similar, then the question has been answered properly.
Another example of determining if the question is answered is by
comparing the number of relevant words to the question and
determining if the number of relevant words is above a threshold.
For example, if the question is about the economy, and the answer
only mentions one word related to the economy, then the response is
deemed to be unresponsive. The related words are able to be stored
in a data structure used for comparison purposes. The fact checking
system indicates in real-time a responsiveness response such as
"evading" or "didn't answer the question" or "didn't answer the
question fully," or similar language, and/or provides a number
rating of responsiveness 0 (did not answer at all) to 10 (fully
answered). Other indications are able to be used to describe the
responsiveness of an answer. In some embodiments, users are able to
flag a response as unresponsive (e.g., voice command
"unresponsive"). In some embodiments, a flagged response (by enough
users) is checked for responsiveness. In some embodiments, if
enough users flag a response as unresponsive, the response and
responsiveness are documented in a data structure for the entity
(e.g., a guest on a show).
[0381] FIG. 53 illustrates a flowchart of a method of determining
if a respondent answers a question according to some embodiments.
In the step 5300, the question is monitored and processed (e.g.,
parsed). In the step 5302, the answer is monitored and processed
(e.g., parsed). In the step 5304, the processed question and answer
are compared with source information (e.g., database information)
to determine if the question was answered appropriately. In the
step 5306, a result of whether the answer was appropriate is
indicated. In some embodiments, the order of the steps is modified.
In some embodiments, more or fewer steps are implemented.
[0382] In some embodiments, a commentator refers to a source, and
the fact checking system determines the reliability and/or bias of
the source and indicates the reliability/bias of the source.
[0383] In some embodiments, fact checking results are able to be
swiped, bumped, uploaded, or moved from one device or window to
another device or window. In some embodiments, the move causes an
auto-correction of the information on the second device. For
example, a user's name is fact checked, and the correct spelling is
located on a first device. Then, the information is swiped using a
user's finger and directed at a second device with the incorrect
information. The information is then corrected after the swipe by
locating the misinformation and replacing it with the correct
information. In some embodiments, a user is able to swipe, bump,
upload or move documents, videos, and/or other content to a
television or other fact checking device to be fact checked. For
example, a user is watching a video on his mobile device, and he
swipes the video to a stand-alone fact checking device, which fact
checks the video, and returns a result to the mobile device for
presentation. In some embodiments, a device detects nearby devices
and automatically determines which device is best to display
certain content. For example, a user is watching a program on a
television. The program is fact checked, and the television
determines that the fact check results should be sent to and
displayed on the user's smart phone. The automatic determination is
able to occur based on the size of the content (e.g., display large
graphics on television instead of smart phone screen), based on the
type of the content, and/or based on any other aspect of the
content or the devices. In some embodiments, the user is able to
specify which type of content is displayed on which device. For
example, a user decides he does not want fact check information
displayed on the television, and the user specifies through the
television, the mobile device, or in the cloud, that he wants the
fact checking results to be displayed on his mobile device.
[0384] In some embodiments, supplemental information is
specifically provided for turning content generally directed at
adults into content appropriate for children. For example, if a
mother is watching a Presidential debate on a television, and her
child is watching along, supplemental information explaining the
content and/or other aspects of the debate or government are
presented on the television or a second device (e.g., smart phone
or tablet). Furthering the example, the supplemental information
could include how long a president is in office, requirements to
become president, how the electoral college works, and/or specific
explanations of the debate. For example, if a candidate discusses
economic policies, cartoons and/or simplified information is able
to be presented related to the economic policies. The
child-specific information is able to be stored in a data structure
and retrieved and displayed when a keyword is detected or based on
timing of the event. For example, if the word "economy" is
detected, graphics about money are displayed. In another example,
at the 5 minute mark of the debate, additional information about
the presidency is displayed such as historical data. In some
embodiments, the supplemental information includes games and/or
quizzes related to the subject matter. The child-specific
information is able to include fact checking results as well and
provide lessons to learn based on the fact checking. In some
embodiments, the mature content is converted into a cartoon or
animated program.
[0385] FIG. 54 illustrates a flowchart of a method of providing
content appropriate for children based on content directed at
adults according to some embodiments. In the step 5400, information
is monitored (e.g., broadcast information). In the step 5402, the
content is detected as directed to mature material. The content is
able to be detected as mature by comparing keywords in the content
with a database, based on a title of the content, based on a
subject of the content, based on a lookup table of what content is
on and when, where the content is already classified, based on a
user selection indicating mature material, and/or in any other
manner. In the step 5404, child-specific content is located (e.g.,
searching a database for presidential debate and locating a
supplemental video which explains three branches of government or a
quiz about the Presidents). In the step 5406, the child-specific
content is presented. For example, the child-specific content is
presented on a mobile device (e.g., tablet computer) while the
television shows the mature content. In some embodiments, the order
of the steps is modified. In some embodiments, more or fewer steps
are implemented.
[0386] In some embodiments, comments (or segments of comments),
and/or other information is classified by political party or
another political/social classification. For example, a commentator
says, "the government should stay out of the free market, but the
people own the land so the government should control the price of
oil and gasoline." The first part of the comment (before the "but")
could be classified as libertarian, conservative, republican,
and/or a similar classification. The second part of the comment
(after the "but") could be classified as socialist or another
similar classification. In some embodiments, the classifications
are presented (e.g., indicated in real-time on a user's screen). In
some embodiments, the classifications are stored along with a tally
of the number of comments in each classification, and the tally
(e.g., in a chart, statistics) is presented during the event/show,
at the end of a segment of an event/show, at the end of an
event/show or presented at another time (e.g., when a commentator
or other entity is detected). For example, at the end of a show, a
tally indicates that the host of the show made 35 conservative
comments and 5 liberal comments. In some embodiments, a comparative
chart is presented comparing the comments of the host, guests,
and/or other entities. The comments are classified in any manner,
for example, comparing the comments with a database of classified
comments, and a comment is classified based on its closest
classified comment. In some embodiments, the comments are
classified automatically, classified automatically and verified
manually, or classified manually by a human.
[0387] FIG. 55 illustrates a flowchart of a method of classifying
information by political party/view according to some embodiments.
In the step 5500, information is monitored (e.g., broadcast
information) as described herein. In the step 5502, the information
is processed as described herein. In the step 5504, the information
is classified by comparing keywords or key phrases with a data
source (e.g., online sites and/or a database) to determine which
political classification the comments is nearest to. In an example,
if the comment is similar to or the same as a comment by an
Internet blogger that is conservative, the comment is able to be
classified as conservative. The source of the source is able to be
one factor in determining the classification. For example, although
the comment is similar to a conservative blogger, if the comment is
similar to a previously classified comment that is classified as
socialist, then, in some embodiments, the previous classification
is given more weight, and the comment is classified as socialist.
In the step 5506, the classification is indicated as described
herein. In some embodiments, the order of the steps is modified. In
some embodiments, more or fewer steps are implemented.
[0388] In some embodiments, "loaded" words/questions/information
(e.g., terms/phrases meant to cause strong positive or negative
responses, have negative or positive connotations, or are emotive)
are monitored for, detected, and highlighted. For example, if a
commentator says, "electing candidate Z is dangerous," then
"dangerous" is highlighted for the user. In some embodiments, a
positive/negative connotation is also indicated by the loaded word.
In some embodiments, the way of highlighting is based on the
strength of the word (e.g., a word that is highly emotive is
significantly highlighted, where a word that is only slightly
emotive is lightly highlighted). In some embodiments, additional
information is provided to indicate that the language being used is
biased (in one way or another). Furthering the example, referring
to a candidate as "dangerous" indicates bias against that candidate
by the commentator. Loaded words and tallying the number of times
loaded words are used are able to be used in determining bias. For
example, if a commentator refers to a candidate with 5 words that
have a negative connotation and 0 words that have a positive
connotation, it is able to be deduced that the commentator has a
bias against the candidate. In some embodiments, the relationship
of the loaded words to the subject (e.g., candidate) is analyzed
and used in determining bias. For example, words that are directed
towards the subject are given more weight than words that are
merely mentioned while talking about the subject. For example,
"candidate Z is dangerous" is given more weight than "candidate Z
traveled to Afghanistan which is dangerous." Other contextual
features are able to be analyzed and utilized in determining
whether loaded words indicate bias. In some embodiments, only
loaded information/comments are fact checked as described herein.
For example, when a commentator in a monologue discussing candidate
Z states that "candidate Z is dangerous," the sentence segment
involving the loaded word "dangerous" is fact checked and/or
supplemental information is searched for. For example, supplemental
information indicating why candidate Z might be dangerous or fact
checking information that disagrees with the comment is indicated
based on a source information search. In some embodiments, weight
of the loaded words depends on where or when the words are used.
For example, if the loaded words are used in a title of an article
or at the beginning of a monologue, they are given more weight than
if they are in the middle of an article. The weight could be used
as another factor in determining bias. For example, if the weighted
number of loaded words with a negative connotation is above a
threshold, it is determined that a bias exists between the
commentator and the subject. In some embodiments, loaded words, who
said/wrote them, who they are about, and/or other information are
stored and used for comparison purposes.
[0389] FIG. 56 illustrates a flowchart of a method of detecting and
highlighting loaded words according to some embodiments. In the
step 5600, information is monitored (e.g., broadcast information)
as described herein. In the step 5602, the information is processed
as described herein. In the step 5604, loaded words are detected
within the processed information. The loaded words are able to be
detected by comparing the processed information with a data source
(e.g., online sites or a database). For example, a database stores
all loaded words and phrases, including negative/positive
connotation, and when a loaded word/phrase is found in the
database, the loaded word is indicated (e.g., highlighted) in
real-time on the screen in the step 5606, as described herein. In
some embodiments, the order of the steps is modified. In some
embodiments, more or fewer steps are implemented.
[0390] In some embodiments, specific keywords and/or characters are
detected for determining whether to fact check a search engine
input. For example, when a user includes a question mark at the end
of the search string input in a search engine, the search engine
fact checks the search string instead of simply searching for pages
related to the search string. Any keywords or characters are able
to be used, and any location of the keywords is able to be used.
For example, when a user types "fc"+search string+"?" then the
search fact checks the search string. The detectable fact check
keywords/characters are able to be stored in a database, and each
search engine input is parsed and compared with the stored
keywords/characters. Any other implementation is able to be used to
determine if the search string is to be fact checked. After the
fact check keywords/characters are detected, the search string is
compared with source information as described herein. A result of
the fact check is then indicated as described herein.
[0391] In some embodiments, accusations of bias by a first entity
against a second entity are detected. For example, if Network A
accuses Network B of being biased for not discussing Story X, then
references of Story X in Network B are searched for and/or
monitored for and indicated. Furthering the example, Network A says
Network B is not covering Story X, and a search of Network B data
(e.g., archives) is performed, and if there are no matches or
"hits," then either no additional information is presented or a
message such as "this accusation is correct" is presented in
real-time. However, if there are matches, then an indication is
presented in real-time such as, "this accusation is incorrect."
Additional information is able to be provided such as the number of
times Story X was discussed, the ratings during Story X showing
that it is unpopular and thus why not discussed more, fact checking
information indicates the story is not accurate (e.g., story is
fact checked, and result is that the story is not accurate or not
verified), links to videos, articles and/or other information
discussing Story X by Network B, and/or any other supplemental
described herein. Detecting bias accusations is able to include
monitoring information as described herein, detecting an accusation
of bias by an entity (e.g., not reporting, underreporting, over
reporting a story, event or any information), searching for and/or
monitoring for the accused information on the accused entity or
entities, and indicating the result of the searching/monitoring in
real-time. In some embodiments, the bias accusation information is
not presented on an initial detection of the accusation, but
subsequent presentations of the accusation are accompanied by the
results of the bias accusation search. For example, a commentator
on Network A claims Network B is not covering Story X. It is
determined in real-time or non-real-time if Network B is covering
Story X. If Network B is covering Story X, the next time the
commentator or another commentator on Network A or another entity
(e.g., blogger) is detected and/or claims Network B is not covering
Story X, the supplemental information showing that Network B is
covering Story X is presented with the comment proving the comment
to be false. The next time is able to include during a
rebroadcast/rerun, during a presentation of the information on the
Internet, radio and/or other system, when another entity makes the
same or similar claim, and/or any other time.
[0392] FIG. 57 illustrates a flowchart of a method of detecting
accusations of bias by one entity against another according to some
embodiments. In the step 5700, an accusation is detected. Detecting
the accusation is able to be performed in any manner. For example,
information is monitored for a keyword or phrase indicating an
accusation (e.g., words/phrases that indicate an accusation are
stored in a database for comparison--"Network B ignores"). In the
step 5702, an interest level is determined. For example, ratings
statistics are analyzed about the popularity of a topic/story/any
other information. In the step 5704, if the interest level is above
a threshold, then the accused entity and/or related entities are
analyzed (e.g., archives of past reporting are searched for the
accusation). In the step 5706, if the interest level is not above
the threshold, then it is indicated that the information is below
an interest level. In the step 5708, a result of the analysis of
the accused entity is presented. For example, the result is
displayed on a user's television and/or mobile device at the bottom
of the screen. In some embodiments, the order of the steps is
modified. In some embodiments, more or fewer steps are implemented.
For example, the steps involving the interest level are skipped,
and factual accuracy of the accusation is checked regardless of the
interest level.
[0393] In some embodiments, a search engine utilizes social network
information and fact checking information to perform a search. In
some embodiments, a search engine manages a search results database
and another database is a user database that keeps track of all
search queries specified by each user and for each search query, a
record of all links the user clicked when search results based on
the search query were presented to the user. In some embodiments,
the links are or have been fact checked which affects their
ranking/ordering as described herein.
[0394] In some embodiments, the search engine utilizing social
networking information and fact checking information to perform a
search, performs a search, the search results are fact checked, the
fact checked search results are compared with social network
information, and search results are displayed based on the search,
fact check and the social network comparison.
[0395] FIG. 58 illustrates a flowchart of a method of using a
search engine in cooperation with social network information and
fact checking information according to some embodiments. In the
step 5800, a search engine retrieves search results responsive to
the search query from a search results database. In some
embodiments, the search results include fact checked information
(e.g., web pages). In the step 5802, fact checking is applied to
the search results. In some embodiments, the search results are
retrieved and then fact checked as described herein. In the step
5804, the search engine searches a database (e.g., a third party
database) for search queries that match the one received from the
user. If there are no matches, the search results retrieved in the
step 5800 are presented to the user in the step 5806. If there are
one or more matches, the search results are ranked based on a
scheme such as the frequency of "relevant" clicks on the links
associated with the search results and then presented to the user
in the step 5808. Frequency of clicks is equal to the number of
prior clicks on a link divided by the number of times that link was
displayed, and links with higher frequencies are ranked higher than
links with lower frequencies. In some embodiments, a combination of
frequency and factual accuracy is computed, and links with a higher
combined score are ranked higher than links with a lower combined
score. Relevant clicks are clicks made by users who are within a
specified degree of separation from the user who requested the
search. The degree of separation information (e.g., social network
or relationship information) is able to be maintained by the search
engine or obtained from an online social network. The specified
degree of separation is able to be any number or set as ALL, in
which case all clicks become relevant, and it is able to be set by
the operator of the search engine, or it is able to be set by a
user in his profile. For example, if the user sets the specified
degree of separation as 1, only clicks made by those who are
friends of the user become relevant clicks. When the system
receives an Internet search query from an Internet user who is not
a member of the online social network, it retrieves the search
results responsive to the search query from the Internet search
results database, and searches the Internet search query database
for search queries that match the one received from the user. If
there are no matches, the search results retrieved from the
Internet search results database are served to the user. If there
are one or more matches, the search results retrieved from the
Internet search results database are ranked based on the frequency
of clicks on the links associated with the search results and then
served to the user. In some embodiments, the order of the steps is
modified. In some embodiments, more or fewer steps are
implemented.
[0396] In some embodiments, social networking information is used
for context determination. For example, social networking
information is able to provide political context (e.g., person is a
conservative based on "liked" blogs or contacts), economic context
(e.g., person's income/wealth is in the top 5% based on the trips
taken described on a social network site), time/date context,
location context, social context, legal context, and/or any other
context. Determining the context is able to be performed in any
manner (manually, automatically or semi-automatically) such as by
searching for keywords or phrases and/or classifying information
contained within the social network sites.
[0397] In some embodiments, a message board fact checking system
for automatically fact checking message board postings is
implemented. A validity rating as described herein is used for
usernames (e.g., posted next to or near usernames). A validity
rating for a username is modified (e.g., increased or decreased)
based on the factual accuracy of the postings using the username.
For example, Username A has a -5 validity rating for 5 factually
inaccurate postings. In some embodiments, each factually inaccurate
comment affects the rating (potentially many in a single posting),
and in some embodiments, a posting is considered in total (e.g., 5
inaccuracies in 1 posting only counts once against the user). In
some embodiments, factually inaccurate content is highlighted
(e.g., in red) for the user so that he is able to correct his post
and/or for everyone to be alerted to the misinformation. Postings
and/or content within each posting are able to be classified and/or
characterized using any of the classifications/characterizations
described herein such as political classifications, hyperbole,
sarcasm, inaccurate, bias, and/or comedy. In some embodiments,
users are able to increase their validity rating by posting
factually accurate information, flagging other postings (including
providing sources), and/or correcting other postings. In some
embodiments, flagged postings are able to be fact checked by the
user, others, and/or automatically by the fact checking system.
Users are able to submit a source supporting the flag (e.g.,
comment X is inaccurate based on cite Z). In some embodiments, the
validity rating for a message board includes factually inaccurate
comments and the number of corrections displayed separately. In
some embodiments, a user is not permitted to post if his validity
rating falls or is below a threshold. When a user is not permitted
to post due to a low validity rating, the user is able to raise his
validity rating by flagging factually inaccurate postings, fact
checking postings, characterizing postings (e.g., identifying
correctly a posting to be hyperbole), and/or in other ways, so that
eventually the user's validity rating is above the threshold. To
prevent users from avoiding the validity rating system, validity
ratings are able to continue with a user even if a user changes his
username. Username changes are able to be determined by comparing
IP address, language of posts and/or other information to prevent
users from changing names after posting factually inaccurate
information. Items/statistics (e.g., inaccuracies, posting
inaccurate sources, bad language) about a user are able to be
stored, sorted, searched and/or posted. In some embodiments, when a
user posts a comment on a message board, the comment is fact
checked before being posted for public view, and if the comment is
not verified as factually accurate, the user is prompted to provide
a reason, justification, and/or citation supporting the comment.
For example, a user attempts to post, "the president is a
Communist." The message is fact checked in real-time and determined
to be factually inaccurate. The user is then requested to provide a
reason or citation justifying the message. In some embodiments, if
the reason or citation supports the message (e.g., the reason or
citation is fact checked by the fact checking system and found to
support the message), the message is posted for public viewing, and
if the reason or citation does not support the message, the message
is rejected and not posted. In some embodiments, the citation is
verified by the fact checking system (e.g., the fact checking
system determines the reliability of the source). In some
embodiments, a reliability rating of the source is provided when
the message is posted. In some embodiments, the message is not
further verified, but the reason and/or citation is posted with the
message. In some embodiments, the user is prompted to select a
classification (e.g., fact, opinion, hyperbole, sarcasm). In some
embodiments, message board posts are able to be sorted based on
factual accuracy and/or other criteria such as most liked/popular,
newest/oldest, most controversial, and/or others. In some
embodiments, the validity rating is able to be used at multiple
message boards. For example, if a user has the same username, the
same validity rating is displayed at different message boards. In
some embodiments, even with a different username, the system is
able to determine the same user (e.g., based on IP address) and
maintain the same validity rating. In some embodiments, if a
posting is factually inaccurate (e.g., more factual inaccuracies
than a threshold or a higher percentage of factually inaccurate
comments than factually accurate comments), then the posting is
hidden or not shown.
[0398] FIG. 59 illustrates a flowchart of a method of fact checking
a message board according to some embodiments. In the step 5900,
message board postings are fact checked automatically. Fact
checking the message board postings includes processing the
postings, fact checking the postings, and indicating fact checking
results (e.g., highlighting parts of a posting or a whole posting
based on the fact checking). In the step 5902, users are provided
with a validity rating based on the fact checking. In some
embodiments, the order of the steps is modified. In some
embodiments, more or fewer steps are implemented.
[0399] FIG. 60 illustrates a block diagram of fact checking
interactions with a message board according to some embodiments.
The interactions with the message board fact checking system
include, but are not limited to, flagging 6000 content and/or
postings on the message board, correcting 6002 content/postings,
fact checking 6006 a comment before publishing the comment, and/or
classifying 6004 of content/postings.
[0400] FIG. 61 illustrates a screen shot of an exemplary message
board implementing fact checking according to some embodiments. The
message board includes validity ratings 6100 for each user. For
example, Bob has a +5 validity rating for flagging inaccurate
postings and not posting inaccurate comments; Jay 123 has a -3
validity rating for posting inaccurate comments; and Con has a -1
validity rating for posting at least one inaccurate comment. The
validity rating is also able to indicate bias based on determining
bias as described herein and indicating ("liberal," "conservative,"
"moderate," and/or any other bias characterization). The message
board includes highlighting 6102 of comments that have been fact
checked and determined to be factually inaccurate.
[0401] FIG. 62 illustrates a screen shot of an exemplary message
board implementing fact checking before allowing a user to post
according to some embodiments. In the screen shot 6200, a user
attempts to submit a post. In the screen shot 6202, the user is
informed that a fact check has been performed, and the user is
asked to provide support for the comment. In the screen shot 6204,
the user provides a link supporting the comment. In the screen shot
6206, after the comment and the link have been analyzed (e.g., fact
checked/checked the reliability), a message to the user indicating
that the message is posted with an addition of a reliability rating
for the source. Although in this example, a reliability rating of
the source is posted, in some embodiments, the reliability rating
is not posted, or if the reliability rating of the source is below
a threshold, the user's post is rejected, or another action is
taken.
[0402] In some embodiments, advertising posting sites, auction
sites, and/or sales sites (e.g., Craigslist, eBay.RTM.) are fact
checked automatically. Specific advertisements are able to be fact
checked, and advertisements are able to be associated with a user.
The user is able to have a validity rating as described herein. If
a user's validity rating falls or is below a threshold, the user is
not permitted to post an advertisement, or the advertisement is
highlighted in some manner as being posted by an untrustworthy
user. The validity rating based on fact checking is able to be
combined with seller/buyer ratings (e.g., ratings by purchasers or
sellers about sellers or purchasers) to provide a combined rating
of a user. The user's validity rating is able to be specific to a
site or based on multiple sites.
[0403] In some embodiments, polls are tracked for future
comparison. For example, in an election year, many different
entities perform polling to project how an election will turn out.
The polling from the different entities is able to be tracked and
stored by the fact checking system and compared with the actual
results of the election. Then, the results of the comparison are
able to be stored and presented in future elections. For example,
in 2012, the final poll of Poll X indicates that Candidate A is
winning in Ohio by 5%. In the actual voting, Candidate B wins Ohio
by 3%. The information is stored in a data structure. Then, in
2016, when Poll X or a reference to Poll X is detected (e.g., by
monitoring), information about how Poll X was wrong in 2012 is
automatically indicated as described herein. Additional information
is able to be stored, such as a count of correct and incorrect
polling. For example, Poll X performs polls in all 50 states and is
correct in 48 states which is stored. Later, supplemental
information such as Poll X had 96% accuracy in 2012 is able to be
displayed. Additional supplemental information is able to be
presented as well such as why results were incorrect (e.g.,
oversampling of a demographic) and/or comparison data with other
polls (e.g., Poll X was correct 96% of the time, Poll Y 90%, and
Poll Z 80%).
[0404] In some embodiments, a debate fact checking system is
implemented. The debate fact checking system is implemented
similarly to the fact checking system by monitoring information,
processing the information, fact checking the information, and
indicating results. Indicating results is able to include keeping a
tally of misleading comments, inaccurate comments, and/or any other
characterizations. In some embodiments, a winner of the debate is
determined by the tally of characterizations. For example,
Candidate A is determined to have made 5 inaccurate comments, and
Candidate B is determined to have made 15 inaccurate comments, so
Candidate A is declared the winner. In another example, a
participant is awarded a point for correcting an opponent's
inaccurate or misleading comment, and a point is taken away when a
participant makes an inaccurate or misleading comment. In some
embodiments, a participant is awarded a point for making an
accurate comment.
[0405] In some embodiments, in a tablet that doubles as a laptop
(e.g., a tablet with two screens or displays), the fact check
results and/or supplemental information is displayed on the second
screen while the monitored content is displayed on a first
screen.
[0406] In some embodiments, the fact checking system automatically
sends/receives contradictory information from an opposing point of
view. For example, a user is a Republican, and a conservative
commentator points to negative information about a Democrat. Video
clips contradictory to the commentator's points are presented to
the user based on the user's party affiliation (Republican, in the
example).
[0407] In some embodiments, controversial topics and arguments for
either side of the topic are tracked. For example, climate change
is a controversial topic to many people. Although a large amount of
science supports the theory of climate change, many people continue
to be skeptical, partly because bogus arguments are used to attack
the theory of climate change. A database including the accuracy of
each argument is able to be generated and maintained. Additionally,
in some embodiments, experts from each side of an argument are able
to contribute to the database including providing support for each
argument. In some embodiments, the topics and the arguments are
automatically monitored, the factual accuracy of the argument is
automatically determined by comparing the arguments with source
information, and a result is returned. In some embodiments, after
the arguments are analyzed automatically, the result is manually
verified by a user and/or an expert.
[0408] In some embodiments, fact checking information (e.g.,
results and supplemental information) is displayed in a similar
manner to pop-up advertisements embedded in video (e.g.,
YouTube.RTM. in-video ads). For example, every time a fact check
result is to be displayed, a bar or other marker is indicated on a
time scroll bar. And every time the video passes the fact check
bar, an in-video fact check result and/or supplemental information
(e.g., pointing out bias, an opposing argument) is displayed. In
some embodiments, the in-video fact check result or supplemental
information is able to be based on a previous fact check. The
previous fact check is able to be performed automatically,
manually, or automatically with a manual verification. In some
embodiments, the fact checking system generates embedded fact
checking pop-ups while fact checking. For example, while a video is
monitored and fact checked, if a characterization (e.g., factually
inaccurate, misleading) is detected, an in-video fact check result
is embedded in the video. Each fact check result occurrence is
embedded in the video, so that any subsequent views of the video,
the embedded fact check result is available. When a user views the
video, at each designated time, the embedded fact check result will
pop up or otherwise be displayed.
[0409] In some embodiments, a fact check result is displayed in a
preview, thumbnail, television guide display, and/or any other
preliminary content. For example, a thumbnail of a video for a
political debate includes text of an incorrect statement and an
indication such as "false" and/or a correction. In some
embodiments, the text is embedded within or overlaid on the
thumbnail. In some embodiments, only the most significant fact
check result or most important to the user or in general is
displayed. In some embodiments, a list of fact check results are
displayed. In some embodiments, fact check statistics are displayed
in the thumbnail. In some embodiments, statistics are displayed in
a comparative format (e.g., in a table or chart).
[0410] In some embodiments, common factually inaccurate arguments
are stored including responses to the inaccurate arguments. When a
factually inaccurate argument is detected and/or searched for, a
response or a list for responses is presented to a user. For
example, a smart phone monitors a user's conversation, processes
the conversation as described herein, and detects a factually
inaccurate argument (e.g., by another person). Upon detection, a
single response or list of responses to the inaccurate argument are
automatically presented on the smart phone. The responses are able
to be generated in any manner such as automatically, automatically
and verified manually, or manually. In some embodiments, only the
most common and/or recent factually inaccurate arguments are
stored. In some embodiments, the factually inaccurate arguments are
stored, sorted and/or searched through based on commonness (or
popularity), timeliness (e.g., recent versus many years ago),
and/or relevance to a user and/or topic. For example, a common
misrepresentation of information is stored at the front of a list,
so that it is analyzed first when searching for a factually
inaccurate argument.
[0411] In some embodiments, product reviews are fact checked. For
example, users are able to review products they purchase on web
sites such as Amazon.com. In the reviews, users are able to input
any review of the product without much if any oversight by the
selling web site. The product review fact checking system is able
to be implemented to automatically monitor product reviews (e.g.,
using a crawler/bot), or including a button or link on a page for a
user to click to initiate a fact check of a review or reviews. For
example, each review is able to have a mechanism for a user to
trigger a fact check of the review. The fact check of the review is
able to be implemented in any manner. For example, the review
analyzes other reviews to determine if there is a common issue with
a product. Furthering the example, a fact check of "battery life is
too short" determines that 10 other reviews include the same or a
similar complaint. The fact check result is able to present a
result such as "10 reviews support this point." If reviews are
found that disagree with a point; for example, 10 reviews say,
"great battery life," then the result is able to indicate, "10
reviews disagree with this point." In some embodiments, the
supporting and/or disagreeing reviews or links thereto are
presented. In some embodiments, fact checking a product review
includes confirming the user actually purchased the item. For
example, the username for review is cross-checked with a database
of purchases by that user. Other sources are able to be used to
verify a user actually purchased an item such as social network
information. In some embodiments, when a user posts an issue in a
product review, the issue is verified as being possible with the
item. For example, a user complains that the lights do not work on
a toy, yet the toy does not include any functioning lights, the
issue is flagged such as "not possible" or "errant." In some
embodiments, the product review fact checking system reports and/or
confirms issues with the manufacturer, seller, and/or other entity.
For example, the manufacturer is able to confirm or deny that a
certain part is susceptible to breakage. In some embodiments, the
fact checking results are sent to the manufacturer.
[0412] FIG. 63 illustrates a flowchart of a method of fact checking
product reviews according to some embodiments. In the step 6300,
product reviews are monitored. In the step 6302, the product
reviews are processed (e.g., parsed). In the step 6304, the product
reviews are fact checked. In the step 6306, the fact check result
of the product review is indicated. In some embodiments, the order
of the steps is modified. In some embodiments, more or fewer steps
are implemented.
[0413] In some embodiments, the fact checking system monitors for
criticism of bias or inaccuracy of the fact checking system by
others, and when found, the source (e.g., a network, a commentator,
a website, and/or any other entity) of the criticism is monitored
to correct in real-time any misrepresentations of the fact checking
system. In some embodiments, when the source of the criticism is
detected making a comment about the fact checking system, fact
checking system statistics and/or comparative data is presented
automatically as described herein. In some embodiments, after a
source is determined, any future detection of that source
automatically triggers a display of fact checking system statistics
and/or comparative data. For example, the fact checking system
monitors broadcast information and determines that Commentator X
said, "this new fact checking system distorts the truth." The fact
checking system stores Commentator X's information (e.g., name,
show, network), and then specifically monitors Commentator X in
general and for specific comments about the fact checking system.
When Commentator X is detected again or when a comment by
Commentator X about the fact checking system is detected again,
information rebutting Commentator X is indicated (e.g., Here are
all of the fact checking results and sources or Here is a table
comparing the factual inaccuracies spread by the fact checking
system versus Commentator X). In some embodiments, an automatic
rebuttal to the initial criticism is automatically presented
including, but not limited to, accuracy statistics of the fact
checking system and/or the critic/critic's organization, a link to
the fact checking system home page, specific information/sources
disproving the criticism, and/or additional information. In another
example, when criticism is detected, rebuttal information of the
criticism is displayed for a designated time period (e.g., the next
five days) when the commentator, show, network, affiliates, and/or
another entity are detected. In some embodiments, a response to
criticism includes a reference to a source that is from the same
classification (e.g., political classification) as the commentator.
For example, a conservative commentator criticizes the fact
checking system as being biased for indicating a Republican
candidate's speech as factually inaccurate. The fact checking
system displays evidence including a citation from a Republican
source that the fact checking system was accurate in its
characterization of the speech. In some embodiments, a network
and/or associated entities are monitored, and statistics and/or
comparative data is displayed. For example, a host on Network Z
unfairly criticizes the fact checking system. When an associated
web site of Network Z (e.g., determined in a relational database)
is detected, the statistics/comparative data is displayed. In some
embodiments, when criticism of the fact checking system is
detected, the criticism is analyzed for taking the fact check
information out of context, and in response, context is provided by
the fact checking system. In some embodiments, if the criticizing
commentator points to a result by the fact checking system as
wrong, but the result has been corrected by the fact checking
system, the fact checking system is able to indicate that the
commentator is using old data, and the fact checking system has
updated its result, and the updated result is presented. In some
embodiments, if a critic presents statistics about the fact
checking system that are not correct, the fact checking system
provides correct statistics including a source or sources of the
correct statistics. In some embodiments, a user is able to flag
comments, commentators, networks and/or other information or
entities that criticize the fact checking system. The fact checking
system is then able to perform as described herein to rebut the
criticism and/or monitor for additional criticism. In some
embodiments, the response to the criticism is displayed on a second
device (e.g., criticism is displayed on a television, and response
is displayed on a smart phone).
[0414] FIG. 64 illustrates a flowchart of a method of monitoring
for criticism of the fact checking system according to some
embodiments. In the step 6400, information (e.g., broadcast) is
monitored for criticism of the fact checking system. In the step
6402, criticism is detected. In the step 6404, information in
response to the criticism is presented. In some embodiments, the
order of the steps is modified. In some embodiments, more or fewer
steps are implemented.
[0415] In some embodiments, the fact checking system alerts users
who are interested in fact checking but are not aware that the fact
checking system exists. For example, a device detects that a user
is interested in news programming, and it is also determined that
the user does not have a fact checking app or fact checking
television, so a notification is presented to the user of the fact
checking system, and a way (e.g., a link) for obtaining the fact
checking system is provided.
[0416] In some embodiments, a device (e.g., a smart phone) detects
that a user watches or listens to factually inaccurate content, and
presents (e.g., pops up) advertisements to download/obtain the fact
checking system.
[0417] In some embodiments, basic/simple videos and/or other
information is provided to help people understand a complex point
such as the national debt/deficit.
[0418] In some embodiments, a runny tally or clock of the amount of
time (or number of times) discussing/showing each candidate, topic,
entity, and/or other information on a show, a website, a channel, a
set of channels, or a group of information distributors (e.g.,
conservative news channels, radio and web sites or liberal media
channels, groups, web sites) is determined, collected and
displayed. In some embodiments, the analysis includes determining
if the candidate/topic is discussed positively, negatively, or
neutrally. For example, in a simple version, it is determined that
Channel X discusses Candidate A for 500 minutes and Candidate B for
550 minutes in October. In a more complex version, it is determined
that 450 minutes of the discussion about Candidate A is negative
and 50 minutes is neutral, and 520 minutes of the discussion about
Candidate B is positive and 30 minutes is neutral. Determining the
amount of time or the number of times a candidate, entity, topic
and/or other information is discussed, and whether the discussion
is positive, negative, or neutral is able to be performed in any
manner including, but not limited to, detecting keywords in a title
of a segment of a show, detecting keywords throughout the segment
of a show, detecting by facial or voice recognition as described
herein, detecting loaded words as described herein, detecting bias
as described herein, based on user flagging (e.g. users flag
start/end times of a story as being about and/or involving
Candidate A and whether the story is positive, negative, or
neutral), based on fact checking, and/or any other manner. In some
embodiments, the amount of time and/or number of times an
entity/topic is discussed is able to be used in determining bias.
For example, if a network discusses a first candidate positively
significantly more often than an opposing candidate, biased for the
first candidate is able to be determined. In some embodiments, the
analysis is performed automatically, automatically and verified
manually, or manually.
[0419] FIG. 65 illustrates a flowchart of a method of calculating
the amount of time or number of times an entity or topic is
discussed according to some embodiments. In the step 6500, an
entity/information is detected. In the step 6502, an amount of time
the entity/information is detected is computed. In the step 6504,
the amount of time is presented (e.g., displayed on a television
automatically when a user watches a specified channel). In some
embodiments, the order of the steps is modified. In some
embodiments, more or fewer steps are implemented.
[0420] In some embodiments, fact checking is implemented
selectively. For example, information (e.g., broadcast information)
is monitored and processed, but fact checking only occurs when
specific words or phrases (also referred to as triggers) are
detected or when a specific entity (e.g., commentator) is detected.
In some embodiments, triggers for the selective fact checking
include, but are not limited to, a specific event (e.g., "Iraq
War"), a specific network/channel/show/commentator/guest (e.g.,
network XYZ), a specific topic (e.g., "taxes"), a specific
characterization (e.g., "liberal"), a recent news story (e.g.,
"fiscal cliff'), an item related to a user's importance as
described herein (e.g., "jobs" or related words), an entity with a
validity rating below a threshold (e.g., Guest X has a validity
rating of -10), popular items (based on trending information), time
relevance (e.g., story is about recent events), recent purchases by
the user (e.g., user just purchased a Make/Model X car), recent
searches by the user (e.g., search inputs to search engines),
social network information, personal information of the user,
political affiliation of the user, a controversy, a controversial
comment, a hashtag, and/or any other trigger. For example, the
system monitors for comments about a specific event such as "Iraq
War," and when the phrase is detected, fact checking occurs. The
words/phrases/entities to be detected are able to be stored in a
data structure or searched for in another manner, and when a match
is detected, the entity, phrase, word, or phrase the word is in is
detected. In some embodiments, users are able to specify the
words/phrases/entities to be detected. In some embodiments, users
specify words/phrases/entities to be detected by flagging (e.g.,
voice command to a television to flag a word). The selectivity is
able to be implemented in any manner, for example, separating
content into opinion and facts, and only fact checking facts. In
another example, the content is separated into opinion and facts,
and the opinion is analyzed for bias, and the facts are fact
checked. In another example, fact checking only occurs when a
political word or phrase is detected, and surrounding information
is fact checked (e.g., the phrase the word is in or several seconds
before and/or after the word is detected). In some embodiments,
detecting a word triggers fact checking a segment of a show (e.g.,
until a commercial break), a web page, or another subset of
information. For example, a web page is analyzed, and if the web
page does not contain any trigger words, the web page is not fact
checked. In some embodiments, a web page, show, and/or other
content is fact checked only if the number of trigger words exceeds
a threshold.
[0421] FIG. 66 illustrates a flowchart of a method of implementing
selective fact checking according to some embodiments. In the step
6600, information is monitored. In the step 6602, the information
is processed. In the step 6604, a word/phrase/entity is detected.
In the step 6606, information related only to (e.g., by
spatial/temporal proximity) the detected word/phrase/entity is fact
checked. In some embodiments, the order of the steps is modified.
In some embodiments, more or fewer steps are implemented.
[0422] In some embodiments, initially a single fact check monitors
an entity (e.g., a commentator, a show, a network), but if the
number of misleading comments, incorrect comments, and/or other
characterizations exceeds a threshold, additional fact checking
systems monitor the entity using different criteria for fact
checking (e.g., different sources). In some embodiments, exceeding
the threshold results in the fact checking system sending a
notification to a group, agency, or another organization. With
additional monitoring and fact checking, it is more likely that if
one fact checking system does not catch a misleading comment, other
fact checking systems will. The additional fact checking systems
are able to parse the monitored information differently, compare
the information with different sources and/or indicate the results
of the comparisons differently. In some embodiments, the multiple
fact checking systems provide a single result, and in some
embodiments, multiple results are presented. In an example, if a
network continues to perpetuate falsehoods, and exceeds a first
threshold, and then a second threshold, and then a third threshold,
a fourth fact checking system/implementation is used which provides
a user supplemental information such as comparable networks that
have a better accuracy rating. In some embodiments, one additional
fact checking system/implementation is utilized after each
threshold is exceeded. In some embodiments, the number of
additional fact checking systems/implementations increases
exponentially (e.g., 2, 4, 16, 32) after each threshold is
exceeded.
[0423] In some embodiments, similar to described above, multiple
thresholds are implemented for each entity where the thresholds
change the effect of the fact check result. For example, for the
first five misleading comments (or biased comments, and/or any
other characterization) a commentator provides, the fact checking
system indicates "misleading" (or other characterization) for each
comment. After the fifth misleading comment (fifth being the first
threshold), a message that the commentator appears to be biased is
displayed. After the tenth misleading comment (tenth being the
second threshold), a suggestion to change the channel is displayed
with a suggestion of other channels that are more factually
accurate. The thresholds are able to be based on a per show basis,
per day/week/month/year basis, starting from 0 and not resetting,
or any other basis. In some embodiments, the message does not
change after each threshold, but the presentation of the message
changes. For example, the message gets bigger after each threshold,
or sound effects are applied and the sound gets louder, or the
message is presented in 3-D after a threshold is exceeded. Any
other effect described herein is able to be applied after any
threshold is exceeded. In some embodiments, both the message
changes and the presentation of the message changes.
[0424] FIG. 67 illustrates a flowchart of a method of implementing
fact checking using multiple thresholds according to some
embodiments. In the step 6700, information is monitored. In the
step 6702, the information is processed. In the step 6704, the
information is fact checked. In the step 6706, a number of
inaccuracies (or other characterization such as bias) of the
information is computed (e.g., each time an inaccuracy is detected,
a counter increases). In the step 6708, the number of inaccuracies
is compared with a threshold. If the number is not above the
threshold, then a first message (e.g., "misleading") is presented
or displayed, in the step 6710. If the number is above the
threshold, then a second message (e.g., "commentator is biased") is
presented or displayed, in the step 6712. In some embodiments,
additional thresholds are implemented, and if the number is above
the additional thresholds, additional messages and/or actions are
implemented (e.g., suggesting a channel change). In some
embodiments, the order of the steps is modified. In some
embodiments, more or fewer steps are implemented.
[0425] In some embodiments, information displayed as a result of a
fact check includes a step-by-step process of why the fact checked
information is correct, incorrect, misleading, and/or any other
characterization.
[0426] As described herein, in some embodiments, email is fact
checked. In some embodiments, an input implementation (e.g.,
command button) is included with/on a web page, web browser, or any
application, such that when a user affects the input
implementation, the email is fact checked. For example, a web page
for sending/receiving email includes a button to fact check
selected email or all email. The button is able to be used before
the email is sent, before a received email is opened, after an
email is opened, or any other time. In some embodiments, the
content of the email is able to be selected by a user, and only the
selected content is fact checked after the user presses the fact
check button. In some embodiments, all or some email is fact
checked in the cloud before being received at a user's inbox. In
some embodiments, a user is able to specify types of email (e.g.,
only political emails) and/or email by specified senders to be fact
checked in the cloud. In some embodiments, a column or other area
of an email inbox display indicates a fact check result for each
email. For example, next to each email subject, an icon, text,
number rating, and/or any other indication is displayed. Furthering
the example, an email that is extremely factually inaccurate based
on a fact check receives a "1" next to the subject, and a factually
accurate email receives a "10" next to the subject. In another
implementation, the number indicates the number of factually
accurate and/or misleading content in the email. In some
embodiments, a folder is implemented with the email system similar
to a spam email but for fact checked emails that have a factual
accuracy below a threshold. In some embodiments, the content within
the email is modified based on fact checking results. For example,
factually inaccurate and/or misleading information is highlighted,
faded, stricken through, and/or any other effect is applied. In
some embodiments, emails are color-coded in a user's inbox, outbox,
and/or any other folder based on the factual accuracy of the email
content. For example, email subjects, email tabs, or any other
email descriptors/labels are color-coded. Furthering the example,
an email that is found to be factually accurate is color-coded
green, an email that is found to be somewhat factually accurate
(below a first threshold) is color-coded yellow, and an email that
is found to be factually inaccurate (below a second threshold) is
color-coded red. As described herein, the fact checking and color
coding is able to occur before the user opens the email, thus
assisting the user in determining which email to read and which to
ignore. In some embodiments, statistics are collected based on the
fact checking of the emails, and the statistics are able to be
associated with a sender's email address and/or other identifying
information. For example, if the majority of the emails from
sender-x are factually inaccurate, this information is able to be
used in filtering emails as spam or factually inaccurate, for
labeling emails, and/or for providing users with additional
information about the emails/senders. In some embodiments,
selective fact checking is implemented as described herein.
Similarly, the selective fact checking is able to be implemented
based on the type of email, the content of the email, the subject
of the email, the sender of the email, and/or whether there is an
attachment with the email. For example, after a sender's emails
have exceeded a threshold for the number of factually inaccurate
emails, every additional email from that sender is fact checked. In
another example, when political terms or phrases are detected in an
email (e.g., as determined using a database), the email is fact
checked. In another example, if the subject of the email is
factually inaccurate, the content of the email is fact checked, but
if the subject of the email is factually accurate, the content of
the email is not fact checked. Any selectivity of fact checking
emails is able to be implemented. In some embodiments, when an
email, tweet, and/or any other communication is determined to have
factually inaccurate information and/or misleading information (or
factually inaccurate/misleading information exceeding a threshold),
an email or other communication is automatically generated and/or
automatically sent to the sender of the communication. The
communication sent in response is able to include corrections to
the factually inaccurate or misleading information, highlighting of
questionable and/or biased information, a notification to the
sender that he sent spam, and/or any other information. In some
embodiments, the communication sent in response goes to the sender
as well as any other recipients of the communication, and/or any
other senders of the communication. In some embodiments, the
communication sent in response indicates a countdown/warning. For
example, after the first email is determined to be spam based on
the amount of factually inaccurate content in the email, a warning
email is sent to the sender that "this is your first strike, and if
you receive two more, your email address will be added to the spam
filter for filtering." Then, if three (or any specified number)
emails that are determined to be spam based on factual inaccuracies
are received from the sender, that email address is added to the
spam filter. In some embodiments, when an email determined to be
spam based on factual inaccuracies is received, a link and/or
advertisement is sent to the sender to acquire a fact checking
system. In some embodiments, if a sender has a number of strikes
against him for spam above a threshold, the sender is required to
fact check (e.g., send an email to a fact checking system or
utilize an automatic fact check system) before the user is able to
send the email. In some embodiments, the email sent by the sender
and the fact check of the email are sent to other contacts of the
sender and/or originator of the email. For example, using social
network information such as Facebook.RTM. contacts and/or a user's
address book, the email and fact check result are sent to others to
convince the user to stop sending misinformation. The
implementations described herein related to email are able to be
applied to any communication including, but not limited to social
media, text messages, and/or instant messages.
[0427] FIG. 68 illustrates a block diagram of various
implementations of fact checking according to some embodiments.
[0428] In some embodiments, a hologram output 6800 is utilized to
present the fact checking results. The hologram output displays the
causal relationships found within a comment including highlighting
the strength of a causal relationship. For example, strong causal
relationships are shown brightly, while weak causal relationships
are shown lightly and no causal relationships are shown
disconnected. In an opposite manner, weak or missing causal
relationships are highlighted. For example, a commentator states,
"gas prices are going through the roof because of this President."
Based on fact checking results, a hologram output shows one
connection of gas prices to investor speculation, another
connection shows gas prices tied to global demand, and a
highlighted connection shows there is no or little evidence of the
President's policies causing an increase in gas prices. The
hologram output is able to be any representation, for example,
pillars, where each pillar represents a component of an argument,
and highlighted pillars represent incorrect causal relationships.
Furthering the pillars example, the pillars hold up a structure
representing an argument, and if the causal relationships are weak
or non-existent, then the pillars and structure are presented as
falling down. In some embodiments, the hologram output is
interactive such that users are able to move/interact with the
hologram using gestures, voice and/or any other way. The
interaction is able to be detected using a motion sensing/detection
mechanism or any other mechanism.
[0429] In some embodiments, a device's power supply 6802 is
operatively coupled to a fact checking system. In some embodiments,
when inaccurate information is determined, the power supply is
wasted/drained or not charged (e.g., decoupled), and when accurate
information or a correction is determined, a power source,
generator or charger is activated to provide new power to the power
supply. The generator is able to be any type of generator such as a
solar power generator. For example, a mobile device includes a
solar cell which is operatively decoupled when inaccurate
information is determined until accurate information is determined
as described herein. And when operatively coupled, the solar cell
recharges a battery of the device. In some embodiments, a device
screen becomes brighter (up to a desired level) incrementally as
accurate information or a correction to misinformation is
determined, and the screen becomes darker (until black or other
desired level) incrementally as inaccurate or misleading
information is determined.
[0430] In some embodiments, a fact checking device is coupled
(e.g., wirelessly) to a storage device 6804 (e.g., DVR, hard drive,
cloud storage), and when a fact check result is determined in
information (e.g., factually inaccurate), the information segment
associated with the fact check result is automatically stored in
the storage device along with the fact check result. In some
embodiments, additional information is stored such as a quantity of
each type of fact check result or total fact check results within a
program or segment. In some embodiments, the storage device
performs the fact checking and storing of the information. For
example, a parsed television program segment is detected to have a
factually inaccuracy, and the segment is automatically stored on
the storage device. In some embodiments, users are able to select
which type of fact check result (e.g., only inaccurate information)
is used in automatically storing information. In some embodiments,
a menu is provided for searching for and playing the recorded
information. The menu is able to be sorted based on fact checking
characteristics. In some embodiments, the recorded information is
searchable based on fact checking characteristics. For example, a
user searches for all misinformation. In another example, a user
searches for all of the misinformation with an importance of the
information above a threshold. In another example, a user searches
for inaccurate information with a significance/relevance above a
threshold. In some embodiments, the recorded content is able to be
shared via social media/networking. For example, only friends of a
user with an importance rating for the environment of 8 or higher
receive a fact checking result involving a video clip about global
warming. In some embodiments, shows/programs/segments/other
information are stored only if a quantity of fact check results
with a negative characteristic (e.g., factually inaccurate and
misleading) is not above a threshold. For example, a user selects
to record a news analysis program, but only if the program's
quantity of negative fact check results are not above a threshold.
In some embodiments, the program is recorded and fact checked while
ongoing, and if the fact check results exceed the threshold, then
the recording stops and the program is automatically deleted. In
some embodiments, a combination of selective recording (e.g.,
keyword detection) and the fact checking threshold are utilized in
recording shows. For example, the user inputs a key phrase "gun
control," and only TV shows or segments with that phrase detected
and with negative fact checking results below a threshold are
recorded.
[0431] In some embodiments, for radio content 6806 or other
information, using a slight delay of a broadcast, the information
is automatically fact checked as described herein, and then when
the broadcast occurs to an audience, the voice is modified (or
other effect is applied such as playing background music) when
incorrect, misleading, and/or another characterization is
determined. For example, a radio broadcast occurs, but the
broadcast to the audience is delayed by 30 seconds (or another time
amount), so that the delayed broadcast is able to be fact checked
(to prevent cutting off a sentence), and when the radio broadcast
is presented to the audience, any determined characterization is
altered to indicate the fact check result in real-time. Furthering
the example, a speaker's voice is altered to a higher pitch when an
inaccurate comment is made by the speaker, and an echoing effect is
applied when a misleading comment is made by the speaker. The
modification of the voice is able to occur in any manner, for
example, a signal or code is embedded (e.g., in a stream) which is
detected and triggers the start of the sound effect and ends when
an ending signal/code is detected. In another example, the tempo of
the speaker's voice is increased or slowed based on the fact
checking result.
[0432] In some embodiments, a sound effect is automatically applied
immediately after a characterization is determined in real-time. In
some embodiments, a light flashes on the dashboard, or a screen on
the dashboard is used to indicate a fact check result.
[0433] In some embodiments, olfactory radio fact checking 6808 is
implemented where the fact checking system communicates with or
using a vehicle ventilation/heat/air conditioning(A/C) system in
conjunction with a multi-scent device (e.g., similar to an air
freshener) on a vent or multiple air fresheners on separate vents,
or positioned elsewhere in the vehicle. When a fact checking result
is determined, the vehicle A/C system is triggered to blow air to
cause a specified scent to disperse. For example, when a misleading
comment is detected, a rotten smell is emitted, but when valid
comments are made, a flower smell or fresh air is emitted. In
another example, a mobile device performs the fact checking and
sends the result to a vehicle computer which is configured to turn
on/off the A/C system based on the fact checking result. In some
embodiments, a similar implementation is performed without a
vehicle (e.g., at home, a scented device with one or more scents is
used in conjunction with a fact checking system). In some
embodiments, the scented device is merely pluggable into outlets
controlled by the fact checking system which turn on/off a desired
outlet, or a smart scented device is used to achieve the desired
scent. Similarly, heat and cold are able to be used to indicate
accuracy versus inaccuracy or other characterizations. For example,
an electric heat/cold pad is triggered based on the fact checking
result. In some embodiments, the pad is able to be pressed for more
information. In another example, a steam or smoke machine or
similar device is utilized with the fact checking system, and a
puff of steam is emitted to indicate a fact check result.
[0434] In some embodiments, game content 6810 is utilized with
and/or affected based on fact checking results. In some
embodiments, game content is overlaid on a device such that a
character of the game affects the content being fact checked. For
example, Pac-man eats the factually inaccurate closed-captioned
information displayed on a television. The incorporation of the
gaming content is able to be performed in any manner such as
incorporated within the signal or projected on the content to only
appear to eat the information. Any other game content is able to be
applied to any characterization of the information. For example,
fighting game characters beat up misleading content, or a princess
hugs a correction of incorrect content.
[0435] In some embodiments, a fact check result is used as input to
a separate game. The game receives the input and is configured to
perform a standard game function based on the input. For example,
when a factually inaccurate comment is determined, space invaders
get one step closer to the bottom of a screen, and if there are too
many inaccurate comments determined, the game ends. In another
example, each time a misleading comment is determined, a bird is
slingshot at a structure hurting a pig in the structure. In another
example, a game of pong with the opponents being truth and fiction
is presented, and if an inaccurate statement is detected, the blip
is shown as passing by truth's paddle giving fiction a point.
[0436] In some embodiments, a user plays a game which is affected
by fact checking results. In some embodiments, the game is able to
be played without the fact checking results, but the fact checking
results add extra features. For example, each time an inaccurate
comment is determined (e.g., by monitoring and fact checking
broadcast information separate from the game), the player within
the game loses a life, each time a misleading comment is determined
the player loses power or another effect, each time a correction is
determined, the player gains a life, and when hyperbole is
determined, the player gains energy. In some embodiments, a user
loses points in a game when misinformation is determined. In
another example, a user plays a handheld fighting game which
includes power lost as usual from being hit by the opponent, but
the handheld game also monitors and fact checks or receives fact
checking information from a television, and when misinformation in
the television broadcast is detected, the user loses power as if
being hit.
[0437] In some embodiments, smart jewelry 6812 (e.g., bracelet,
necklace, ring, pin) is implemented capable of receiving an input
such as a fact check result from another device (e.g., smart phone
implementing fact checking system) and producing an output based on
the input. For example, a bracelet is configured to wirelessly
receive a fact check result (e.g., 000 indicates misleading, 001
indicates inaccurate, 010 indicates bias) which then causes a
lighting component (e.g., LED) in the bracelet to turn on for a
period of time or as directed to turn off by the fact checking
system. Similarly, clothing (e.g., armband/shirt) is able to
include light effects.
[0438] In some embodiments, a microchip 6814 or other device
configured to be inserted within a user is used for fact checking
and/or receiving fact checking results. The microchip is configured
to be able to trigger a physiological effect on the user such as a
tingling sensation upon determination of misinformation. The
microchip is able to be used separately or in conjunction with
another device. For example, a user's smart phone or television
monitors, processes and fact checks information, and then sends
fact check results to the microchip (with a receiver) which
provides an effect to the user. The effect provided by microchip is
able to be implemented in any manner, for example, configured with
an electrical output to generate a tingling or warming sensation in
a user. In some embodiments, the microchip is configured to send
signals to a user's brain to indicate to the user information is
incorrect or another characterization. In some embodiments, the
microchip is positioned in or near a user's nose (or other
location) to generate a sensation (e.g., specific odor) that is not
actually there.
[0439] In some embodiments, fact checking results are indicated
based on information about the user (e.g., age, sex, occupation,
political affiliation, and/or any other information about the
user). For example, if a user is a farmer, when a fact check result
of the comment, "global warming is a hoax" indicates false,
additional content such as droughts which have or will affect the
farmer's crops are indicated. In another example, when a fact check
result of the comment, "the President is going to take away all of
our guns," indicates false, a picture of the guns being targeted by
new legislation is indicated, or a specific note to the user
states, "you own guns X and Z which are unaffected by the proposed
legislation." In another example, each user's device is configured
for that user to provide an output to specific to the user. For
instance, a same fact checking result is communicated from another
device to user's televisions, and each user's television indicates
the results in a manner specific to the user. Furthering the
example, all user's watching Show Z receive a signal on their
television that Commentator A's comment was misleading, but
teenager User J's television shows the misinformation exploding,
and elderly User K's television presents a clear explanation in
large print of why the comment was misleading. The user's
information is able to be acquired, known, and used in any manner
such as based on social network information, provided information,
stored information, recent purchases, visited web sites, and/or
channels watched.
[0440] As described herein, a fact check source collection system
is able to be implemented. The collection system searches for,
processes, organizes, and stores sources to be used for fact
checking. In some embodiments, sources not to be used are discarded
or listed to be ignored.
[0441] In some embodiments, a database or other structure is
maintained and utilized to automatically indicate a commonly spun
word or phrase and also to indicate bias or a political position
based on the word or phrase used. For example, the database
contains the phrase "estate tax" which is the legal term, and an
associated column includes the phrase "death tax" which is a
conservative term. The associated words/phrases are able to be
stored as well as political classifications associated with each,
and any other information (e.g., who coined the phrase or the
factual accuracy of the phrase). Detecting the word/phrase is also
able to be used in determining bias of the speaker. For example, a
person who uses the phrase "death tax" is likely a libertarian or
conservative and not a liberal.
[0442] In some embodiments, a size or length of a fact check result
is user selectable. For example, a user is able to select that he
wants the fact check result to only be or mainly be emoticons,
acronyms, shorthand, words, phrases, sentences, or paragraphs to
indicate a result.
[0443] As described herein, the fact checking system is able to be
used in many applications such as real estate, plumbing, roofing,
painting, electrical, landscaping, mechanics, pest control, tech
support, cable, phone, daycare, tutoring, contractors, event
planning, dry cleaning, caterers, accountants, veterinarian,
healthcare, tailors, hair/nail salons, fitness, security, masseuse,
house cleaners, banking, restaurants, job placement, legal,
engineering, art, media, entertainment, customer service,
education/schools, government, marketing, nonprofit, retail/sales,
writing, and/or any other services. For example, for real estate,
fact checking is able to be used to fact check prices and property
information. For services, pricing, reviews, documentation, and/or
any other information is able to be fact checked. Supplemental
information is able to be provided for these applications as
well.
[0444] Utilizing the fact checking system, method and device
depends on the implementation to some extent. In some
implementations, a word processor uses fact checking to assist a
user in preparing a document, a television broadcast uses fact
checking to fact check what is said or shown to the viewers, and a
mobile application, in some embodiments, uses fact checking to
ensure a user provides factually correct information. The fact
checking is able to be implemented without user intervention. For
example, if a user is watching a news program, the fact checking is
able to automatically occur and present the appropriate
information. In some embodiments, users are able to disable the
fact checking if desired. Similarly, if a user implements fact
checking on his word processor or mobile application, the fact
checking occurs automatically. For a news company, the fact
checking is also able to be implemented automatically, so that once
installed and/or configured, the news company does not need take
any additional steps to utilize the fact checking. In some
embodiments, the news company is able to take additional steps such
as adding sources. In some embodiments, news companies are able to
disable the fact checking, and in some embodiments, news companies
are not able to disable the fact checking to avoid tampering and
manipulation of data. In some embodiments, one or more aspects of
the fact checking are performed manually.
[0445] In operation, the fact checking system, method and device
enable information to be fact checked in real-time and
automatically (e.g., without user intervention). The monitoring,
processing, fact checking and indicating of status are each able to
occur automatically, without user intervention. Results of the fact
checking are able to be presented nearly instantaneously, so that
viewers of the information are able to be sure they are receiving
accurate and truthful information. Additionally, the fact checking
is able to clarify meaning, tone, context and/or other elements of
a comment to assist a user or viewer. By utilizing the speed and
breadth of knowledge that comes with automatic, computational fact
checking, the shortcomings of human fact checking are greatly
overcome. With instantaneous or nearly instantaneous fact checking,
viewers will not be confused as to what information is being fact
checked since the results are posted instantaneously or nearly
instantaneously versus when a fact check is performed by humans and
the results are posted minutes later. The rapid fact checking
provides a significant advantage over past data analysis
implementations. Any of the steps described herein are able to be
implemented automatically.
Examples of Implementation Configurations:
[0446] Although the monitoring, processing, fact checking and
indicating are able to occur on any device and in any
configuration, these are some specific examples of implementation
configurations. Monitoring, processing, fact checking and
indicating all occur on a broadcaster's devices (or other emitters
of information including, but not limited to, news stations, radio
stations and newspapers). Monitoring, processing and fact checking
occur on a broadcaster's devices, and indicating occurs on an
end-user's device. Monitoring and processing occur on a
broadcaster's devices, fact checking occurs on a broadcaster's
devices in conjunction with third-party devices, and indicating
occurs on an end-user's device. Monitoring occurs on a
broadcaster's devices, processing and indicating occur on an
end-user's device, and fact checking occurs on third-party devices.
Monitoring, processing, fact checking, and indicating all occur on
third-party devices. Monitoring, processing, fact checking, and
indicating all occur on an end-user's device. These are only some
examples; other implementations are possible. Additionally,
supplemental information is able to be monitored for, searched for,
processed and/or indicated using any of the implementations
described herein.
[0447] Fact checking includes checking the factual accuracy and/or
correctness of information. The type of fact checking is able to be
any form of fact checking such as checking historical
correctness/accuracy, grammatical correctness/accuracy,
geographical correctness/accuracy, mathematical
correctness/accuracy, scientific correctness/accuracy, literary
correctness/accuracy, objective correctness/accuracy, subjective
correctness/accuracy, and/or any other correctness/accuracy.
Another way of viewing fact checking includes determining the
correctness of a statement of objective reality or an assertion of
objective reality. Yet another way of viewing fact checking
includes determining whether a statement, segment or phrase is true
or false.
[0448] Although some implementations and/or embodiments have been
described related to specific implementations and/or embodiments,
and some aspects/elements/steps of some implementations and/or
embodiments have been described related to specific implementations
and/or embodiments, any of the aspects/elements/steps,
implementations and/or embodiments are applicable to other
aspects/elements/steps, implementations and/or embodiments
described herein.
[0449] The present invention has been described in terms of
specific embodiments incorporating details to facilitate the
understanding of principles of construction and operation of the
invention. Such reference herein to specific embodiments and
details thereof is not intended to limit the scope of the claims
appended hereto. It will be readily apparent to one skilled in the
art that other various modifications may be made in the embodiment
chosen for illustration without departing from the spirit and scope
of the invention as defined by the claims.
* * * * *