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.

27 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 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.

    3. 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
    4. 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.

    5. 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 "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 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.

    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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. The Cutest Thing Ever? by Jim+Buzbee · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  6. 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.
  7. 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.

  8. 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).

  9. 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/