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.

42 of 225 comments (clear)

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

    What could possibly go wrong?

    1. Re:Cool by thaylin · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    2. Re:Cool by tiberus · · Score: 2

      Hmmm, I think I'd rather be able to add a link to snopes.com.

    3. Re:Cool by BasilBrush · · Score: 2

      Same thing happens here.

    4. Re:Cool by sideslash · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You mean "fewer people", not "less people".

      So how about when a bunch of religious people flag a story on evolution as false? Sounds like this semi-curating of stories will turn more on Facebook demographics than on objective facts.

    5. Re:Cool by ganjadude · · Score: 3, Informative

      actually my FB feed has been doing exactly that for a while. when an article is posted, "similar stories" are posted right below it. quite often i see snopes in that list

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    6. Re:Cool by ohnocitizen · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Instead you'll get atheist or "the wrong religion(tm)" posts being flagged as false. Plus, not all political messages are such that "false will probably do". Which of the following political statements should be marked false?

      "The economy was hit hard by the housing crisis"

      "Unchecked human industry is negatively impacting the environment"

      "Medical expenses are the number 1 cause of bankruptcy in America"

      "The US constitution prohibits establishment of religion by congress"



      I think all of them are true, but not everyone will agree.

    7. 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

    8. Re:Cool by jythie · · Score: 2

      Beyond political and religious messages, I suspect it will be a useful tool in getting competing businesses's news buried. In the past all you could do was game things so your stuff got highlighted, but to be able to negatively impact someone else's stuff? Consulting and marketing 'services' will probalby be folding it into their toolbelt as soon as it goes live.

    9. Re:Cool by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2

      Unchecked human industry? Ever dealt with the EPA? They view their primary goal as STOPPING human industry wherever possible.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    10. Re:Cool by ohnocitizen · · Score: 2

      Like it or not, Facebook is used to share stories and opinions. So of course the political and religious will factor in. Its a bit ridiculous to say they don't belong on a social network.

    11. Re:Cool by dcw3 · · Score: 2

      Agreed, but then don't confuse faith with the word false. I'm not a religious person, but the lack of tolerance I see here is pathetic. People believe, so let them, as long as they're not trying to push their ideas on you, why do you give a fuck? Sure there are fringe religious wackos out there, and I would agree that they should be shunned. But the same could be said about some atheists I know.

      If you can't be tolerant, you're part of the problem.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
  2. Not "like Slashdot" by bondsbw · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Slashdot doesn't have a "False" moderation... and it could use one.

    --
    All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    1. 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".

    2. Re:Not "like Slashdot" by Richard_at_work · · Score: 2, Insightful

      +1 underrated.
      -1 overrated.

      Job done.

    3. 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.

    4. Re:Not "like Slashdot" by jellomizer · · Score: 2

      Now nearly any story posting an opinion will get voted false. As there will be people disagreeing with each others facts.

      Any articles about religion. Will be marked false from the atheists.
      Any articles against religion. Will be marked false from all the religious.
      The Right will mark false everything that is left leaning.
      The Left will mark false everything that is right leaning.

      Now granted it will be much more peaceful without a lot of this stupid bickering as most peoples opinions are worthless in the grand scheme of things. However once in a while a truly new piece of information may come out to inspire further investigation, and shouldn't be shut down so quickly because it doesn't immediately fit our world view.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    5. Re:Not "like Slashdot" by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 4, Funny

      A lot of "facts" really are opinions anyway.

      That's your opinion. Mine is different. /toungeincheek

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    6. Re:Not "like Slashdot" by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 3, Funny

      Any articles about religion. Will be marked false from the atheists.
      Any articles against religion. Will be marked false from all the religious.
      The Right will mark false everything that is left leaning.
      The Left will mark false everything that is right leaning.

      This gives a new meaning to "false flag" operations! :-D

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    7. Re:Not "like Slashdot" by Kierthos · · Score: 2

      As an atheist, I typically just ignore the religion posts on FB, unless they're by certain friends, who tend to post interesting stuff (i.e. not dogmatic "DIE UNBELIEVER") on the topic. I mean, just because I'm an atheist doesn't mean I don't occasionally want to read more on what, for example, the Pope is saying on a topic.

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    8. 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.
  3. Subject to the whims of the masses... by robinsonne · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So if enough people don't believe something and flag it false, it becomes "false." Something else for paid shills and opinionated people to do I suppose.

    1. Re:Subject to the whims of the masses... by KermodeBear · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That was my immediate reaction as well.

      "I don't agree with the political / religious / philosophical point of the article, so I am going to flag it as false, even if I know that it is true."

      Just what we needed, yet another tool to promote drama and division among people.

      --
      Love sees no species.
    2. 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".

    3. Re:Subject to the whims of the masses... by internerdj · · Score: 3, Informative

      Motivation for Facebook or Google: maximum time on website. The most profitable reputation engine is one that feeds the user his or her own preferences back to them (Judging by my news feed Yahoo is doing this). This is exactly how Fox News or Huff Post works except that instead of self-selecting news that supports my worldview it is being done without any internal processing. You might could get away with expert truthfulness on some issues. However, the scariest thing for me is that things that are opposing opinions will have an assigned truth value and the best metric would be popular opinion.

  4. 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 good enough by dywolf · · Score: 5, Informative

      Reality has a well known liberal bias after all.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    4. Re:Not good enough by internerdj · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'm so sorry that you've been mislead. That really is a picture of Hitler passing Obama a fake birth certificate.

    5. Re:Not good enough by meta-monkey · · Score: 4, Funny

      My wife's grandmother sends those things out in mass email forwards. And in all caps.

      A few months back her computer running Vista was so horribly bogged down with viruses and malware that I formatted it and installed Mint. When she asked what she could do to thank me I said "never, ever, ever, ever, forward me an email." Haven't gotten one since, so well worth the effort I'd say.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  5. ahh good for dictatorships by Kkloe · · Score: 2

    well now goverments can have the option to make that the links of beating by a policeofficer is false or some other crap they want to hide and make fb mark it as false

  6. The Cutest Thing Ever? by Jim+Buzbee · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Isn't my new baby the cutest thing ever?" - FALSE

  7. Uhmmm... by blackbeak · · Score: 4, Funny

    Fox News has a Facebook page, right? Just thinkin'....

    --
    Everything and its opposite is true. Get used to it.
  8. So what? by GrumpySteen · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This changes nothing.

    Facebook isn't a reliable news source. It was never meant to be a reliable news source and will never be a reliable news source.

    Nobody should ever rely on Facebook to provide reliable news in the first place, so making it less reliable and more biased should have no effect on anyone who isn't a complete fucking idiot.

  9. tag, but don't hide! by Unordained · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'd rather that people who would normally see such a hoax article in their feed, always go ahead and see it -- with the disclaimer attached. They're likely to see it elsewhere anyway, why not use the opportunity to inform them that it's likely false? Instead, they get to see a story on Fox, then open their Facebook feed, and see nothing about it ... now not only are they not told it's false, it even looks like a liberal conspiracy to cover-up the truth! So very helpful.

  10. All posts? Or just shared stories? by meta-monkey · · Score: 2

    All posts? Or just shared articles?

    "Little Bobby was great in the school play!"

    Tagged as FALSE: "Little Bobby sucked!"

    --
    We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  11. False Flag by pipingguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What about false flagging 'False' flags? I can't see any kind of coordinated abuse of this system at all, especially on political issues (which of course, don't exist on Facebook).

  12. -1, Pointless by argStyopa · · Score: 2

    Yeah, I'm sure these will be used with at least the same intellectual rigor and restraint of any internet discussion, and not applied willy nilly to everything people disagree with emotionally or politically.

    --
    -Styopa
  13. Re:Posters do not case if they are false by ic3m4n1 · · Score: 2

    Many people that share political/religious items do not care if they are false.

    People dont care but Facebook seemingly cares and wants to get rid of them from news feed.
    Maybe its their idea of improving site, may be it is to collect more personal data.
    Or may be all those spam posts are making their spy algorithms go nuts.

  14. Re:Posters do not case if they are false by jmyers · · Score: 2

    I am sure this change helps them to understand underlying bias of individuals who post and who flag as false. I would say helps the spy algorithms or at least presents the opportunity to learn more about the product (users). It gives them easy to evaluate statistics without having to analyze the comments. You can pretty much guess the position of the person who tagged false. They could even have their own fact checkers researching popular items so from the FB perspective you could know the position of the person that posted/shared, the position of people who tag false and then the unseen true/false flag sent by Facebook to gauge the user's bias.

  15. Re:Cool features coming by rwa2 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Excellent! Next up: ranking everyone on Facebook from best to worst!

    Obligatory XKCD panel #3: http://xkcd.com/451/