Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Tests "Satire" Tag To Avoid Confusion On News Feed
An anonymous reader writes "In an attempt to keep you from having to explain to your crazy relatives that despite what they read, Vice President Biden *didn't* get a grow light delivered to the White House under a fake name, Facebook is testing a "satire" tag on news feeds. A Facebook representative issued the following statement to Ars Technica: "We are running a small test which shows the text '[Satire]' in front of links to satirical articles in the related articles unit in News Feed. This is because we received feedback that people wanted a clearer way to distinguish satirical articles from others in these units."
...than it eliminates. Every time a politician opens their mouth, there will a headline tagged 'satire', and then they'll complain that Facebook is misrepresenting what they said, and then someone will have to explain to the politician what 'satire' actually means.
For example, every 'security' measure of the TSA is a cruel satire, but they are also actual rules that people are really subject to.
And who determines if the content at that URL is satirical in nature? Facebook? Looks like they've merely added that "tag" for all URLs from the Onion.
Better known as 318230.
PLEASE DONT
This is the social media equivalent of a warning label.
Seriously?
Some people are too stupid to breathe. Or breed.
Suppose you were an idiot and suppose you were a member of Congress
I've been getting tired of having to explain that TheLapine.ca and Huffington Post are fake news sites.
It's a sad commentary on society that this is necessary. Where did we go wrong? Sure... "Facebook", but I think it goes back further than that.
You forgot the satire tag on this article.
I'm guessing they're implementing this after The Huffington Post ran that article months ago confusing the difference between what a "Terms of Service" is compared to "App Permissions" in regards to the Facebook Mobile Messenger. Now any "News" site that talks ill of Facebook will be labeled "SATIRE"! Perfection. This is ingenious marketing on Facebook's part! Now they'll never look bad ever again!
I recently "Liked" a friends share from TheLadBible on Facebook and now my home page feed is NSFW. ;)
Just can't bring myself to Un-Liking it.
[satire]That's a fucking brilliant idea! I really really really mean it. Sincerely.
But don't forget the [lies-all-lies], [am-i-boring-you-yet], [pandering-listery], [corporate-shilling] and [too-stupid-even-for-you] prefixes.
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
Perhaps Slashdot could implement a [Facebook] tag for articles about or originating from [Facebook]?
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
Have gnu, will travel.
They will think that satires are some kind of automobile wheel.
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
Sometimes satire is obvious, sometimes it isn't. In the latter cases, you have to be familiar with the source or familiar with background information. When you are talking about a medium that supports a profound number of sources, it can be difficult to judge whether a source that you are not familiar with is satirical. When you are talking about a medium that can deliver news from all parts of the world from varying perspectives, it can be difficult to have the necessary background information to judge whether a portrayal is satirical. Sites like Facebook only compound that problem because it is not a news site in the traditional sense, nor is it a news aggregator. It is simply a site where people post links, links that may be informative or may be whimsical based upon their mood. Making matters worse, a lot of people don't even know their Facebook "friends" particularly well, which makes it means that you can't even use the source of the link as a guage.
While I do have deep concerns about how Facebook would go about vetting links, I can understand why some people would see this as a valuable feature.
satire.
I just wish people would stop linking to Daily Currant articles. Their version of "Satire" is posting articles that aren't funny, but ARE plausible, just to incite a reaction. Its not like The Onion where the humor is usually right in the headline.
I wouldn't have a problem with it if they were skilled writers and I cracked up laughing while reading the article. Except its crap like "Sarah Palin: âEat Less Chinese Foodâ(TM) to Reduce Trade Deficit" or "Hilary: I'm running!"
I wouldn't be surprised if Sarah Palin said something like that, and I wouldn't be surprised if Hilary Clinton was running for president. Except there's no humor in fabricating plausible stories.
It's sad that grown adults have to be helped in determining if something is satirical or serious.
This is the new media. Clearly label satire; obfuscate native advertising.
What a complete waste of time and resources to be developing for stupid people..
When reading information online (especially news) it's important to question material, and potentially follow up on the provided sources. By trying to say "if it doesn't have a satire tag, it's real" you're removing some of the incentive for average users to think about what their reading and not just accept it as fact. When someone gets "burned" for posting an obviously satirical article to Facebook they may think twice the next time they read any article. I wish more people would ask themselves "who wrote this? where did they get this information from? does this site have a good track record of posting solid stuff?"
Sometimes unknown satire is a powerful tool when it comes to making you realize your own bias and tendency to cherry-pick data. When you've gone half-way through the article nodding your head with conviction until you realize it's all a joke and none of the information you blindly accepted was true.
Lets not dumb it down for those who just post shit because it conforms with their views without actually reading it themselves.
On the east end of Long Island, NY, there's a free magazine called "Dan's Papers". A running article series has been written over two years on the subway system that connects several east end towns, from Southampton to Montauk. It's very well written, with continuous updates. say, about how the suggestion box at the Southampton station has been moved to an area where people will not bump against it anymore. And it is completely a goof. Still, I've met a few people who truly believe that an east end subway exists because, "It's in Dan's Papers! I've read all about it!" These people have asked me, with complete sincerity, if I know where the subway entrance is in their town. When I tried to tell one woman how I truly doubted that a subway exists (I didn't want to make her feel dumb), she left still sure of this subways existence. These are the same type of people who a few years back fell for the deer/lion hunt planned on the east end in order to help 'thin out the herd', another one of 'Dan's Papers' classic jokes.
http://danspapers.com/category...
Labeling an article as satire would take all the fun out of it for those of us who 'get it'.
Can they add a "blatant politically motivated lie" tag while they're at it?
Have gnu, will travel.
Couldn't they just put a label on the sort of people who not only believe satirical news, but, outraged, spread that "news" to everyone they know.
[Idiot] MagicBob97 shared [link].
[Idiot] catpiss wrote "typical fukink obamu!!!!!! [link]".
[non-idiot] sumdude wrote "uh, guys, teh onion is a satire site".
[Idiot] imtoorealforu shared [link].
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
Although the post of most satire is to make a statement about something through humor, the best thing about satire I find is that so many people often believe it to be true, because it sounds either so much like real life that it's believable, or because they're so arrogantly biased that the satire reinforces their existing misconceptions, making them look even more like idiots. Making an Onion article as satire basically ruins the effect.
<SATIRE>Facebook users are so smart!</SATIRE>
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
people are, you know, to stupid to get satire on their own.
Ergo, not a bad idea.
DaveyJJ
Never heard of that.
then there's no point in having satire.
... That is Facebook's entire business model.
smilies are for reetards
Those unable to distinguish satire will be more likely to believe non-tagged satire as true. [not-satire]
Like that's ever gonna work. /sarcasm
While I agree with your points about Facebook not being a News site, or a News aggregate site, who is providing the tag for satire? Facebook already sorts news it does not like away from people, and has been caught blocking content they don't like. If Facebook controls the tag then this will just be another tool for censorship, it's not even a question.
If a user chooses to label a post with said said tag, I have no issue with that. I personally would not use such a tag even if I used facebook (have not been there in over a year and even prior would log in every few months). In my opinion, people either get satire or they don't. If you don't get the joke you are the joke, and that is a big part of what satire is. Humiliate people into learning.
Censorship is already here and active, lets not pretend otherwise. Sites like facebook just make it easier to censor and shape public opinion.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
First of all it won't do any good. Most people won't even pay attention to a 'Satire' tag and still believe everything they hear. It could be reported all over the news that someone in a high profile case was acquitted of all charges and the news media keeps saying they are guilty and people still believe what the hear/read. O. J. Simpson got away with murder despite being found innocent, Michael Jackson molested children despite never being convicted of it, Casey Anthony killed her daughter despite being found innocent, George Zimmerman racially profiled Trayvon Martin and killed him out of racial hatred despite being found innocent and despite there not being enough evidence for the police to even charge him with a crime, just as examples of people believing more of what the news says than the cold hard facts.
My opinion is that all mainstream news media needs the 'Satire' tag (especially Fox News and CNN) because they don't report facts, only their own twisted made up B.S. that some people are gullible to believe. So a 'Satire' tag on Face(palm)Book isn't going to do a damn bit of good. "Stupid is as stupid does" ~ Forrest Gump
Won't this just lead to the tagging of the entire Internet? After all, who really wants to stand behind what they say? The number of potential misinterpretations is virtually unbounded. As I've previously mentioned on Slashdot, just the few lines I've typed here have the potential to bring out some far-out inference. There's no way I can predict what it'll be.
So. Just tag the entire Internet as satire, not really true, nothing to get upset about, etc.
I'm thinking that we could just hand out Mr. Yuck stickers with every Internet-capable device that's sold.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
A "seriously" tag should also exist. It's not the satire that's problematic--it's the real news that is so absurd it seems to be satire. This pops up with amazing frequency.
If you played GTA Vice City, you probably remember how utterly insane the political radio interviews were. I once posted as my status a chunk of one of those interviews, and watched people proceed to lose their shit in my general direction. If you don't realize I'm joking when you see me post, "It's simple: if you don't have a job, starve", we probably won't get along very well anyway.
I suppose that people who sent the petition forgot to put [satire] tag in front of it as well and now are bit scared of what they have started...
Also, anything Scottish related will be tagged as above
Jimmy: Do you like fishsticks?
Cartman: Yeah.
Jimmy: Do you like putting fish sticks in your mouth?
Cartman: Yeah.
Jimmy: What are you, a gay fish?
(South Park)
Dear Facebook members, check this page and report if it's a satire or not.
http://members.shaw.ca/rlongpr...
The Onion is probably the most accurate news source out there.
I know 18 year olds who are member of "libertarian groups" and say that seriously :(
Satire is useless.. When are they gonna add a dislike button!
#proofthatoldpeoplebarelyrealizetherearejokesontheinternet #whybother
Finally links to infowars/Alex Jones will be marked as satire. Tired of people thinking it's real journalism or news.
???
If you have to specify to your Facebook friends list that something is satirical in nature, you should probably consider a new set of Facebook friends rather than having to depict it as satirical.
It's not satire if it's declared...
Some of the best humor in the world is a result of idiots on Facebook not recognizing satire!
I wish I could find one particular Facebook screenshot of a bunch of right-wingers who took the "abortionplex" article seriously. Just pure gold.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
It is really telling how far out in lalaland this world has ventured when you need to tag satire so people don't take some absolutely way, way out in the realms of insanity at face value.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
And it looked like a reversed question mark.
Of course, slashdot will not support it.
They could just try to be funnier so people don't get confused.
Is this article for real? I can't tell.
The story is a gag!
Satire
Not satire
Same thing
a massive dataset for Facebook to fine-tune it's algorithm for sarcasm/irony detection.
That algorithm US spies are apparently missing in their toolbox:
http://slashdot.org/story/14/06/04/1620220/us-secret-service-wants-to-identify-snark
It seems there are ways to turn those millions of willing users into money, after all.
One considers buying some Facenook stock...