Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Facebook Will Let You Flag Content As 'False'

Posted by Soulskill on from the things-that-definitely-certainly-won't-ever-be-abused-at-all dept.

jfruh writes: If you're tired of seeing fake or misleading news articles posted by your friends to Facebook and then spreading like wildfire, you might be in luck. In a system that's something like Slashdot comment moderation on a grand scale, you'll now be able to flag a story as false. Links that have been flagged this way by many users will appear less frequently in people's newsfeeds, or with a disclaimer attached.

9 of 225 comments (clear)

  1. Cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What could possibly go wrong?

    1. Re:Cool by mysidia · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Exactly, dont like the political/religious message so flag it false and less people will see it.

      If they want to go Slashdot mod style, they should offer a dropdown with multiple different 'false' tags.

      As in, multiple different statements you can apply to a post, and your friends should be able to see how many friends applied different labels:
      (1) Awesome content
      (2) Interesting
      (3) Very Funny
      (4) Agree 100%
      (5) Disagree with this
      (6) Inaccurate Information
      (7) Partisan political bullshit
      (8) False and Dangerous
      (9) Clickbait
      (10) Scam/Bogus offer or contest
      (11) Broken link, or cannot view content
      (12) Page says you have to 'like' before you can see content (13) Links to malicious software, adware, or security attack
      (14) Common Misconception
      (15) Suspected Hoax
      (16) Definite Scam
      (17) Fraud or phishing attempt

  2. Not good enough by jandrese · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There should be a requirement that if you flag a story as false, you have to provide a link to a reputable source refuting it.

    I already do this on Facebook, but I always provide a link to Politifacts or Factcheck or even Snopes. If you don't, you'll just be that guy who says "no" because he's to naive to believe that Obama already has secret death panels that kill millions of Americans each year.

    --

    I read the internet for the articles.
    1. Re:Not good enough by ledow · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Obligatory XKCD:

      http://xkcd.com/250/

    2. Re:Not good enough by OzPeter · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There should be a requirement that if you flag a story as false, you have to provide a link to a reputable source refuting it.

      Years ago I did this at work when some administrative staff person sent around the chain email warning you not to press a certain sequence of buttons when on your home phone as that would let the bad guys do all sorts of nefarious things. (#90 scam I was nice about it, only replied to the person who originated the email and pointed them to the Snopes article showing the said information was a hoax.

      In return, instead of thanks, I got a blistering email about who I was wasting company time by looking at things on the internet. From that, and other attempts to point out wrong things, I have come to the conclusion that some people would rather be in denial to the truth than admit that they were taken in by a hoax, and get very angry when confronted with their own stupidity.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
  3. Re:Not "like Slashdot" by sribe · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Exactly my 1st thought. Maybe not "false" exactly, but I've long wanted to be able to mod comments "-1 incorrect". Of course I also want a "+1 funny AND insightful".

  4. Re:Subject to the whims of the masses... by GIL_Dude · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Well, that just calls for a reputation service so that the flagging gets the appropriate weight. Perhaps that is where meta-modding comes in (to give it a slashdot spin). But at some point, a pattern emerges that can be seen, analyzed, and corrected for when someone mods every story they see about a certain topic as false. I'm betting a company with the kind of data a Facebook or Google has can probably come up with a reputation engine for weighting the flags too that will work - not perfectly - but probably "good enough".

  5. Re:Not "like Slashdot" by Lussarn · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You should not get bad karma because you are wrong, the post can still contribute, and the poster get the chance to be corrected. A lot of "facts" really are opinions anyway.

  6. Re:Not "like Slashdot" by SydShamino · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Giving up mods to reply...

    When something has been previously moderated "+1 Informative" but it is factually incorrect, then the previous moderation was wrong and the post is overrated. "-1 Overrated" corrects for the previous moderation in this case. This represents by far most of my use of the moderation.

    When something has been previously moderated "+1 Insightful" but it is trite or inaccurate, then the previous moderation was wrong and the post is overrated. "-1 Overrated" corrects for the previous moderation in this case. This is pretty rare as I try to read deep meaning into even the shortest of "Insightful" posts.

    I never use "-1 Overrated" for something that was previously rated as "+1 Interesting", as interesting is completely subjective. Nor do I ever use "-1 Overrated" for something that was previously rated as "+1 Funny", though if it's racist or sexist then "-1 Flamebait" might apply.

    I rarely if ever use "+1 Underrated" at all, and never use "-1 Overrated" on something that has not previously been moderated up incorrectly.

    --
    It doesn't hurt to be nice.