Slashdot Mirror


Facebook Is Clamping Down On Fake News, Partners With Fact Checkers To Flag Stories (slate.com)

After weeks of criticism over its role in spreading fake news during and after the 2016 U.S. Presidential election, Facebook said today it is taking concrete steps to halt the sharing of hoaxes on its platform. From a report on Slate: The company announced on Thursday several new features designed to identify, flag, and slow the spread of false news stories on its platform, including a partnership with third-party fact-checkers such as Snopes and PolitiFact. It is also taking steps to prevent spammers and publishers from profiting from fake news. The new features are relatively cautious and somewhat experimental, which means they may not immediately have the intended effects. But they signal a new direction for a company that has been extremely reticent to take on any editorial oversight of the content posted on its platform. And they are likely to evolve over time as the company tests and refines them. First, it's trying to make it easier for users to report fake news stories. The drop-down menu at the top right of each post in your feed will now include an explicit option to report it as a "fake news story," after which you'll be prompted to choose among multiple options, which include notifying Facebook and messaging the person who shared it.

15 of 415 comments (clear)

  1. basically doing the same as china? by NotInHere · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Just with different rules about what needs to be banned?

    https://yro.slashdot.org/story...

    1. Re:basically doing the same as china? by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And once again, Facebook is a private organization, and has the right to remove any content they want to. Don't like it, go use some other social networking platform.

      Of course, that does mean the fake news purveyors are likely to start losing the large audience they had relied on, but is that such a bad thing? There's always Breitbart and Stormfront!

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:basically doing the same as china? by admin7087 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nice trolling. China doesn't do fact checking, they censor. Checking news stories for facts is not censoring but responsible journalism. Whether FB should act as such an editorial filter is another question, but the two things have nothing in common.

    3. Re:basically doing the same as china? by Bartles · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Maybe we should just have the FCC classify them as a common carrier, and then not allow them to favor any particular communication over another that happens to be transmitted across their network.

    4. Re: basically doing the same as china? by tripleevenfall · · Score: 5, Insightful

      At least AOL wasn't trying to pass Snopes and Polifact off as being unbiased.

    5. Re:basically doing the same as china? by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There is no difference. Facebook is a soapbox owner, and as a soapbox owner, it has the right to determine who gets to stand on the soapbox. Your right, as it were, is to use some other soapbox. The First Amendment protects Facebook as much as it protects you.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    6. Re: basically doing the same as china? by skids · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm sure they'd be amenable to mixing in conservatiive-leaning fact-checking operations as well. Know of any?

  2. Libel law? by anthony_greer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If Facebook labels some small time news site as "fake news" would there be a case to be made for defamation if the stories in question were actually factual? For example What about "facts" that are in dispute? Did the Russians hack the DNC or was it an internal leaker who handed the stuff to Wikileaks? One could write an article siting very reputable sources on both sides of that story so which side of that story would be "fake news"

  3. Re:Facebook committing corporate suicide by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There is nothing in this that says that they are getting rid of all fake news, just the fake news (and not so fake news) that Politifact and Snopes do not like.

    --
    The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  4. One more step towards 1984 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Fake news or, in other words, a narrative not supported by the State.

  5. Gab.ai is looking good by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And once again, Facebook is a private organization, and has the right to remove any content they want to. Don't like it, go use some other social networking platform.

    Of course, that does mean the fake news purveyors are likely to start losing the large audience they had relied on, but is that such a bad thing? There's always Breitbart and Stormfront!

    On that note, a Twitter replacement called Gab.ai has sprung up that claims to enforce free speech.

    It's currently in beta so signups are put on a waiting list, but I managed to get in pretty quick (the wait was less than a week). It's not as sophisticated as Twitter is *currently*, but I really like the free speech aspect of it.

    Speech they don't tolerate are things that are patently illegal in the US, plus doxing: Illegal pornography, threats and terrorism, and private information.

    If you're bothered by someone, you can set a personal filter to remove their posts from your feed. If you're bothered by certain words, you can set another filter to remove posts with those words.

    Beyond that, they claim that they will make no restrictions on free speech.

    In the 2 months since it started it's become reasonably popular. According to Alexa rankings, it's currently about the same as Slashdot (after 2 months!).

    ATM gab seems to be under-represented by the left. People are mostly civil, and...

    wonder of wonders... the humour channel is actually funny.

  6. If I may point out by H3lldr0p · · Score: 5, Insightful

    that our issues with factual discourse have little to do with the quality of the news and everything to do with the ability to synthesize information into emotional & cognitive context.

    That is to say, it doesn't matter if you tell someone who is pro-war that their country is murdering children. This hypothetical individual is effectively immune from this fact through a combination of propaganda and cognitive biases. It doesn't matter that in all other circumstances this hypothetical individual screams, "Won't someone think about the children", you will not be able to break through to them. At least not directly.

    What we are seeing in the US. What we have been experiencing for about 30 years now, is a confluence of certain philosophical positions coming together. In the last couple of days I had it pointed out to me something that should have been far more obvious. There are a lot of my fellow citizens that live by the Just World Hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis/. Combine this with our friend the Prosperity Gospel, and I think you can contextualize so much of the past year.

    Given this, we cannot attack the problem directly. Because the problem isn't fake news. The problem is an inability to connect one's actions to the world at large. And I feel that this disconnection is due to a massive amount of wishful thinking. The wishful thought that everything will work itself out. The wishful thought that you get what you deserve. The wishful thought that your one vote doesn't make a difference.

    To get around this, we need people to understand that the world doesn't just exist in their household, their neighborhood, or just their town. That we are acting and operating on a global level these days. The world is simultaneously larger and smaller than it has been ever before. It does matter if you choose to get a fuel-efficient three or four cylinder car vs the monstrous SUV because within your lifetime people will be displaced because of that choice. How fast that happens depends on what you choose. You are a part of that chain, whether or not you want to be. And it is up to you to stay current with how you impact things. Even in the smallest, out of the way place in the middle of no-where. This choice makes a difference. And each day, going forward has to be a learn-unlearn-relearn process.

  7. Re:It is The Fatal Flaw of The Left by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Concocting stories of pizzeria pedophile rings is not "other serious opinions". It's deliberately fabricated fake news.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  8. Re:Conservatives and Fact Checking by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think there are a great many conservatives who are not fact-free lunatics and morons, but the tribalism that is taking over politics in the Westerns world means that they, like their counterparts on the left who might hold some fiscally conservative views, have to sublimate that to retain their membership in the club.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  9. What could you possibly have against them? by UpnAtom · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Whilst no fact-checking service is perfect. ... why is having them annotate what is 99.9% likely to be fake news worse than freely allowing bullshit to pervert democracy?