One of the main promises of technology development is for it to be adopted by people, organizations, societies, and governments -- incorporated into their life, work stream, or processes. Often, this is socially beneficial as it automates mundane tasks, frees up more time for other more important things, or otherwise improves the lives of those who use the technology. However, these beneficial results do not apply in every scenario and may not impact everyone in a system the same way. Sometimes a technology is developed which produces both benefits and inflicts some harm. These harms may come at a higher cost to some people than others, raising the question: {\it how are benefits and harms weighed when deciding if and how a socially consequential technology gets developed?} The most natural way to answer this question, and in fact how people first approach it, is to compare the new technology to what used to exist. As such, in this work, I make comparative analyses between humans and machines in three scenarios and seek to understand how sentiment about a technology, performance of that technology, and the impacts of that technology combine to influence how one decides to answer my main research question.

The reporting and analysis of current events around the globe has expanded from professional, editor-lead journalism all the way to citizen journalism. Politicians and other key players enjoy direct access to their audiences through social media, bypassing the filters of official cables or traditional media. However, the multiple advantages of free speech and direct communication are dimmed by the misuse of the media to spread inaccurate or misleading claims. These phenomena have led to the modern incarnation of the fact-checker -- a professional whose main aim is to examine claims using available evidence to assess their veracity. As in other text forensics tasks, the amount of information available makes the work of the fact-checker more difficult. With this in mind, starting from the perspective of the professional fact-checker, we survey the available intelligent technologies that can support the human expert in the different steps of her fact-checking endeavor. These include identifying claims worth fact-checking; detecting relevant previously fact-checked claims; retrieving relevant evidence to fact-check a claim; and actually verifying a claim. In each case, we pay attention to the challenges in future work and the potential impact on real-world fact-checking.

We describe the third edition of the CheckThat! Lab, which is part of the 2020 Cross-Language Evaluation Forum (CLEF). CheckThat! proposes four complementary tasks and a related task from previous lab editions, offered in English, Arabic, and Spanish. Task 1 asks to predict which tweets in a Twitter stream are worth fact-checking. Task 2 asks to determine whether a claim posted in a tweet can be verified using a set of previously fact-checked claims. Task 3 asks to retrieve text snippets from a given set of Web pages that would be useful for verifying a target tweet's claim. Task 4 asks to predict the veracity of a target tweet's claim using a set of Web pages and potentially useful snippets in them. Finally, the lab offers a fifth task that asks to predict the check-worthiness of the claims made in English political debates and speeches. CheckThat! features a full evaluation framework. The evaluation is carried out using mean average precision or precision at rank k for ranking tasks, and F1 for classification tasks.