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.

32 of 294 comments (clear)

  1. How many fucking stories do we need about this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  2. Oh great.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Just what we need... Google deciding what is and isn't real news. What could possibly go wrong?

  3. Re:Washington Post Amazon by Xenographic · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What about CNN, that was lying about it being illegal to read Wikileaks? And yes, that was a lie, read this: https://popehat.com/2016/10/17...

    Why didn't they want us to know about it? Oh, because we have emails between CNN and the DNC, they leaked the debate questions. Then they brought Donna Brazille on there to tell us they were somehow modified. Except, not so fast, Donna: they have DKIM authentication, which provides non-repudiation. And make sure you actually read the damned DKIM headers, because they include the b and bh parameters. So if you try and tell me they only protect the headers, you're going to get a lecture on the DKIM specification, because you're not just wrong, you can be mathematically proven wrong.

    Anyhow, there's no great loss to the clickbait sites. Good riddance to such. However, inasmuch as they believe they can use this to control what people say and believe, I can only remind them of the Streisand Effect and laugh. Google took down the video from this story quite a few times before they started allowing it once it hit the news: http://www.usatoday.com/story/...

    In case you're wondering what Snopes says about it, they say it's "mixed." You see, there was a fender bender and the guy wanted to exchange insurance info before they brutally beat him and dragged him from the back of his own car, which they stole while nearly killing him.

  4. This is a backdoor way to kill free speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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"

    1. Re:This is a backdoor way to kill free speech by Lisandro · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Jesus H Christ, are we on such a low point that "sites will starve" unless Google gives your money?

      PS: What's with this shit about "no proof" on Trump being racist? He's on record making racists remarks during his own campaing, for fucks sake.

    2. Re:This is a backdoor way to kill free speech by Orgasmatron · · Score: 2

      Many of us have been asking (for close to a year and a half now!) for a verbatim racist quote and a video of the words coming out of his mouth. No takers so far.

      Are you up to the challenge? Should be easy, since you claim that he is "on record making racists [sic] remarks".

      --
      See that "Preview" button?
    3. Re:This is a backdoor way to kill free speech by Lisandro · · Score: 2, Informative

      “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

      –Presidential announcement speech, June 16, 2015

      “I can never apologize for the truth. I don’t mind apologizing for things. But I can’t apologize for the truth. I said tremendous crime is coming across. Everybody knows that’s true. And it’s happening all the time. So, why, when I mention, all of a sudden I’m a racist. I’m not a racist. I don’t have a racist bone in my body.

      – Interview on Fox News’ “Media Buzz,” July 5, 2015

      “What can be simpler or more accurately stated? The Mexican Government is forcing their most unwanted people into the United States. They are, in many cases, criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc.”

      – Statement about his June 16 comments, July 6, 2015

      You know, racism doesn't cease to be racism only because it sounds good to you.

    4. Re:This is a backdoor way to kill free speech by Orgasmatron · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't see any racism in any of those quotes. Even if I pretend that "Mexican" or "Mexican Government" is a race, I still don't see it. Many illegals are criminals. Is that even controversial? Are people claiming that only angels are crossing our southern border?

      Please explain.

      I've seen it said that the most racist thing that Donald Trump ever said was:

      So, ladies and gentlemen, I am officially running for president of the United States, and we are going to make our country great again.

      --
      See that "Preview" button?
    5. Re: This is a backdoor way to kill free speech by johanw · · Score: 2

      The term "racism" has been so misused that a lot of people now think "so I'm a racist whatever I do because I'm white, fine then I'll be a racist. Now fuck those niiggers".

    6. Re:This is a backdoor way to kill free speech by meta-monkey · · Score: 2

      Is that even legal under US constitution?

      Yes. The President has the authority to ban any group of people from coming here at any time for any reason. This is rather important because if you wind up in a war, it's nice to be able to say "we're banning all Germans from coming to the US" without getting sued for being racist against Germans.

      The free exercise clause only applies to people within the jurisdiction of the US. If you're a muslim in Saudi Arabia and you apply for a visa, you're still sitting in Riyadh when the immigration official stamps it "denied." Obama could ban all travel from left-handed lesbian Amish eskimos tomorrow and it would be perfectly legal.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  5. Re:Is this the end for the Onion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  6. Re:Is this the end for the Onion? by fustakrakich · · Score: 5, Funny

    It readily admits that it is satire...

    Which turns out to be more truthful than the "serious" sites...

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  7. Tough times ahead by Kohath · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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

    1. Re:Tough times ahead by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Google is drawing the line at fake news, there is nothing wrong with that. You are drawing the line at news not made in the best spirit, that is fine too. Just not where google chose the line.

    2. Re:Tough times ahead by Kohath · · Score: 2

      The main difference is that "news" stories in the US are almost all editorializing. For facts, we need to learn to pick through the subtext. Or read foreign news sources.

    3. Re:Tough times ahead by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Try Reuters or AP, they do simple factual statement style releases that the other news outlets then pick up and editorialize. The BBC has a more readable style and makes a genuine effort to stay neutral, if those two are too dry for you.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  8. Is anyone even reading these days? by Lisandro · · Score: 5, Informative

    "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".

    This is straightforward. Why is everyone acting like Google is trying to control news?

    1. Re:Is anyone even reading these days? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Basically, Google is saying you can't advertise a website that purports to be ABC News if you are not ABC News. I'm still trying to figure out your problem with this.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  9. Finally... I hope by imidan · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Does this mean I can stop getting stories on my Google News page from 'Ecumenical News' and 'Christian Daily', two religious news web sites that apparently went belly-up some years ago, had their domains purchased by scammers, and now serve clickbait bullshit constantly? All they ever do is somehow zero in on some search term I used recently and then feed me fake headlines about that thing.

    Like, for months now, I've constantly had a story on my news page about Rick and Morty (which I searched for one day in July, and these stories started the next day) from one or the other of those sites. Today, it's "'Rick and Morty' season 3 update: Release date revealed and other spoilers" from Ecumenical News. I don't click them; they're just a gibberish mishmash of rumors from elsewhere on the web. I 'Personalized' my Google News feed and set both of these news sources to the lowest they'll go, but unfortunately, it seems impossible to exclude them completely.

    Before that, it was a constant stream of rumor-mill bullshit about The Arrow and the drama between cast members. These sites are NOT NEWS, they're just algorithmicly generated clickbait. Preferably, they would both die a fiery death, but in the meantime, if I could just get them off of my news feed, I'd be mollified.

  10. Re:Washington Post Amazon by frovingslosh · · Score: 3, Funny

    Of course it will apply to CNN, the New York Times and the Washington Post. If it didn't then it would just be more liberal bullshit.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
  11. Re:Trump didn't win by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  12. Fire BeauHD by bongey · · Score: 3, Informative

    F**king BeauHD cannot get over the butt hurt of the election. His twitter feed, "Trump is a saggy sack of shit. If any one of you is even remotely considering voting for him this November, please unfollow me. "
    "That sack of shit next to Hillary is attracting flies! #debate"
    "Clinton wiped the floor with Trump tonight. Say hello to your next president, America!"
    " It's only a story because it has the 'Trump' buzzword. Stupid media is stupid."
    "I bet Trump hired the climber for publicity."

    1. Re:Fire BeauHD by Orgasmatron · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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?
  13. Re: Washington Post Amazon by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Funny

    Jews are greedy, but they look out for follow Jews. Google is run by Jews, so you can be sure they won't blacklist other sites run by Jews.

    I'd have thought the election would have calmed you down a bit, Mr Bannon.

    http://www.nbcnews.com/politic...

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  14. Re:Define "fake"... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

    Because they can. What good is a monopoly if you're not going to abuse it to advance your agenda?

    Google doesn't have a monopoly, for the record.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  15. Re:Washington Post Amazon by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  16. The onion by thesupraman · · Score: 2

    How exactly will try differentiate between satire and fake news?

    The answer is if course that you cannot.

    Stupid announcement.

  17. Re:Trump didn't win by Gavagai80 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    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
  18. Re:Washington Post Amazon by Xenographic · · Score: 3, Interesting

    A) CNN didn't say anything about people with clearances, instead they divided the world into two groups, the media (where it's okay) and the rest, where it's not okay.

    B) That part is explicitly covered in the Popehat article which I linked, anyhow.

    C) Wikileaks publishes all verifiable and true material leaked to it and goes for maximum impact, but they're not a hacking group, they can only operate if they have leaks.

    For most leaks, you can simply go to ABC / CBS / NBC and avoid playing spy. Wikileaks was needed here, because the media themselves are complicit in many of the things in the Podesta dump. I mean, we have emails like this one showing them going behind their own lawyers' backs to send donors to the Washington Post's party, after being forbidden to put it on the price sheet. That really looks like a campaign donation of some kind, and their own lawyers explicitly forbade it. This is just one of many, many, many such examples. With the media doing things behind everyone's back, how can we be expected to just shut up and trust them, as CNN tried to encourage?

  19. Re:Washington Post Amazon by Kiuas · · Score: 4, Interesting

    rather than trying to use their ad service to micromanage what people see and hear

    But there's no way for them NOT to do that. Ad-revenue follows the amount of views, which means if they do nothing they're essentially taking a stance of 'we'll facilitate the spread of any type of mis-information as long as it makes us money". So they're already doing it now, they're just slightly changing their parameters. It's their product and platform, they have no obligation whatsoever to spread lies to make money if they don't want to.

    Fake news is not good, but it is not Google's job to "correct" it.

    And why not? It's a search engine, the point of which is to provide people accurate information. If some trolls/hackers/political shills/whatever try to skew the search results so that upon googling thing X, instead a completely unrelated/false article Y comes up, that means their product is not operating as intended and they should correct it.

    --
    "It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
  20. Fake News Site by Isendur · · Score: 2

    Oh man, Slashdot is screwed ;)

  21. Re:Washington Post Amazon by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

    or a hard worker for Putin

    Really? We're scared of Russia now? The Cold War ended because the Russian economy completely collapsed and still hasn't recovered to anything like the previous levels. Their GDP is under a tenth that of the USA or EU and has been declining steadily for years. Their GDP is slightly above that of Spain and well below that of Italy (two of the 'failing' economies in the EU, which are both a fraction of the size of Russia).

    Mexico has an economy that is only about 20% smaller than that of Russia. Should we now be afraid of them? After all, they're a lot closer to the USA

    China is at number 2 (3 if you count the EU as a single entity, even if you remove the UK), so they'd make a much more credible threat, but they aren't being touted as one because no one wants to offend a country with an economy that big.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News