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.
[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"
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
Some people are too stupid to breathe. Or breed.
The stupid people appear to breed quite well. It's the neckbeards with the Cheetos-stained fingers that are unsucessful at breeding.
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
Where did we go wrong? Sure... "Facebook", but I think it goes back further than that.
Indeed. In other contexts it goes much further back, but for the internet, September 1993 has never been recovered from.
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.
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.
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?
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.
It is a good thing that intelligence is not determined by genetics.
Citation needed --- and not to a stupid failed experiment that drew the wrong conclusion.
Yes. I know. It's politically incorrect to think that intelligence does have a genetic component. My anecdotal examples certainly leads my belief that there is a causal relationship.
And no. I'm not saying that genetics is everything; nor am I saying that all children of two intelligent people are intelligent. Anyone who has even the simplest understanding of genetics knows that not all children of brown haired parents have brown hair. But only someone who has baked their brain in a politically correct stew would think there is no genetic component.
It's sad that grown adults have to be helped in determining if something is satirical or serious.
Tragedy of the commons. There are a lot of people out there that are just about smart enough to work a computer. Problem is, they don't know the difference between real and self affirming echo chambers. So if something comes along that seems plausible, they hop right on it.
We shouldn't complain though, because some dork getting pranked by The Onion is almost always as funny as the original satirical article.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
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.