Slashdot Mirror
Google To Prohibit Fake News Websites From Using Its Ad-Selling Software (reuters.com)
According to The Wall Street Journal, Google is working on a policy update that will prohibit fake news websites from using its ad-selling software. The move would ultimately make it more challenging for those fake news sites to earn revenue. Reuters reports: The policy change is imminent, Google spokeswoman Andrea Faville told Reuters. "Moving forward, we will restrict ad serving on pages that misrepresent, misstate, or conceal information about the publisher, the publisher's content, or the primary purpose of the web property," she said in a statement. The policy change comes amid an intensifying debate over how much responsibility technology companies bear for monitoring the accuracy of content as more and more people access news through sites such as Facebook rather than traditional media companies. Facebook, in particular, has been criticized over the spread of inaccurate articles promoting U.S. president-elect Donald Trump on the site. Facebook Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg has denied that the site influenced the outcome of the election. Google's AdSense advertising network is a key financial driver for many publishers. The company places various restrictions on where its ads may be placed, including bans on pornographic and violent content. Work on the policy update began before the election, Faville said.
There's been a shit ton of these stories on the front page already. Isn't there anything better to talk about? This is a big part of why Slashdot sucks now. It used to be a mix of lots of stories that would appeal to nerds, but now we get a barrage of stories about topics like this. Slashdot used to be a site where nerds and people working in IT could get practical ideas and keep up date on trends in hardware and software. Those days are long gone, and Slashdot pretty much sucks now. And no, I'm not saying this isn't relevant, just that we don't need more stories about it.
Just what we need... Google deciding what is and isn't real news. What could possibly go wrong?
The goal is to eliminate "fake" news, but the problem isn't even who defines what is real, what is opinion, and what is factually untrue. The real problem is google has stated its intention is to starve sites they dislike into nonexistance.
Are sites with news about "Ancient Aliens" banned? Easy to show as fake news, but as history channel shows - hugely popular and what many in the public enjoy. Real? Fake? Who cares, the public wants it.
News stories about Clinton Foundation "pay to play" corruption. "Someone" will decide if this is misleading fake news. No convictions yet, must be fake. Ban them and bury the story.
News story about Trump being racist? No proof he isn't, must be legit. Pay the website.
This is how the internet will die, in a flood of corporate decided and approved facts and filters.
Why buy the politicians anymore, when they can own and control what is considered worthy of being "legit"
there are a lot of people who visit the onion on purpose looking for satire/humor. plus the onion's biggest 'marketing' strategy (IIRC from a report I read) was actually social media sharing and the like.
The onion also doesn't "misrepresent, misstate, or conceal information about the publisher, the publisher's content, or the primary purpose of the web property," It readily admits that it is satire. so it shouldn't be affected by this.
For NBC then. Now we need Google to ban:
- sites that intentionally withhold news stories from the public for partisan reasons
- news sites that feed pre-selected questions to a candidate before a debate
- sites that frame Hillary getting investigated by the FBI as "Republicans pounce on Hillary allegations"
- Upworthy
- IPCC predictions
- political polling
- Twitter
- and the rest of everyone trying to troll and clickbait and hyperbolize current events
I think the alt-right and the alt-left are both a pack of delusional morons. This is the source of fake news; if you write it, no matter how absurd, there's some fucking retard partisan who will lap it up.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Maybe Google should just get out of the censorship business, rather than trying to use their ad service to micromanage what people see and hear. Fake news is not good, but it is not Google's job to "correct" it. By feeding the conspiracy theorists, they are just making the problem worse.
No one gives a fuck what viewpoint he is "having". Lots of us care very much about what viewpoint he is abusing his position as editor to spread.
Do you remember the 2 or 3 days last week when every 3rd or 4th story here was about how we were all going to die because Trump won? Guess who posted a big chunk of that...
"Trump Picks Top Climate Skeptic To Lead EPA Transition"
"How President Trump Could Destroy Net Neutrality"
"Donald Trump Won Because of Facebook"
"Slashdot Asks: Should The US Abolish The Electoral College?"
"Silicon Valley Investors Call For California To Secede From the US After Trump Win "
Is this what you want? Yet another site posting Democrat propaganda 24/7 with a sprinkling of technology news on slow politics-news days?
See that "Preview" button?
You've hit on an important point, but not carried it far enough. The reason we're inundated by fake news is that the more blatantly extreme and fake you make your story the more people will feel compelled to share it.
Every obscure website dreams of the riches that will result from one of their stories going viral. They've now caught on to the fact that making up political lies to get a fake "scoop" on something that will really outrage hyperpartisans into thinking that the future of civilization depends on forcing everyone they know to read your story is the most effective shortcut to do that. I'm sure some of these stories are manipulation for political reasons, but some of them are just in the interests of profit. And their profit is what google is hoping to make a dent in.
This space intentionally left blank