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.
Just with different rules about what needs to be banned?
https://yro.slashdot.org/story...
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"
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
Are these the same "fact checkers" who told us that Iraq had nuclear weapons?
Warning labels aren't censorship.
If you don't want a warning label don't create fake made up shit.
Fake news or, in other words, a narrative not supported by the State.
Yes.
Did you actually think I was a liberal and would be triggered by that?
While it is acknowledge they do tend to have a liberal slant, this is not fully correct:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
FactCheck noted that Barbara Mikkelson was a Canadian citizen (and thus unable to vote in US elections) and David Mikkelson was an independent who was once registered as a Republican.
I have come to the sad conclusion that in the USA at least we're living in a "post-fact, post-truth" world where it no longer matters if anything is truthful or accurate if enough people believe it.
Like, "Hillary's gonna win and Trump has no chance," or do you mean like "Bernie lost fair and square"?
Too many people I know just don't care anymore about whether anything is accurate if it matches up with their political beliefs or attacks those they disagree with.
Like the anti-Trump protesters in San Jose, Los Angeles, and San Diego, who were assaulting innocent people passing by Trump rallies?
Wait until a war gets started on a tweet that is a lie.
Like, "Assad and Russia are butchering civilians and we need to do something to protect them" kind of Tweets?
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.
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.
1.) Dailycaller (lmao)
I'd be much more interested if it was an article about how snopes did a poor job of fact checking. Instead it's a big ol cry fest about how she's a liberal. Read: I don't give a shit if the job is getting done correctly.
Snopes? Politifact? Facebook? .... REALLY? ..... these are all Democrat-aligned entities staffed primarily by Democrats/Socialists whose political contributions and editorials are all favorable to Democrats, so much so that about a year ago Facebook realized that they, as a corporation, were having trouble even communicating with conservatives. Even now, Google is trying to hire people who know some Republicans/Conserrvatives/Libertarians because they have few contacts with such people and need to figure out how to relate to them with Democrats out of power in DC starting in late January.
The people who were all cuddly with Team Hillary, and eagerly parroted all the fake news her campaign and supporters shoveled..... the people who spent the past year providing fake polls showing Trump could not win, and fake news about how "open" Hillary was while she never held a single actual press conference through an entire presidential cycle, and fake news about the greatness of the economy and employment (as Obama became the first US President in history to never manage to create a single quarter of growth of at least 3% and pushed the labor participation rate down to levels only matched by Jimmy Carter in the 1970s) .... THOSE HYPER-DISHONEST and HYPER-PARTISAN freaks are going to censor your news?????????
They are just doubling-down n their Democrat activism. They are going to become unabashed propagandists who will make the communications of the 3rd Reich look amateurish. Anything that is critical of Democrats or of these Democrat-aligned internet entities will be labelled "fake news" and their users will be encouraged to ignore any of this contrary communication. This is a continuation of the 8-year long Obama rants against Fox News and the left-wing meme that the only news outlet not kissing Obama's posterior was "Faux News" and is unprecedented in our history (previous presidents complained about their coverage, but they did not label particular news outlets as "fake" from the white house podium).
I have come to the sad conclusion that in the USA at least we're living in a "post-fact, post-truth" world where it no longer matters if anything is truthful or accurate if enough people believe it. Too many people I know just don't care anymore about whether anything is accurate if it matches up with their political beliefs or attacks those they disagree with.
I think somewhere along the line sociopolitical positions (which, IMHO, in the broad center are neither good nor bad, true nor false) began to get pushed using selectively chosen "facts" to make the advocated policy seem as if it, too, was factual in nature. It was a kind of rhetorical persuasion, almost like sales techniques -- "Everybody knows that that less housework makes a wife happy, and the Vacuum2000 really reduces housework. If you won't buy one, ask yourself why you want an unhappy wife."
Anyway, I think this began to highlight a conceptual difference between truth and facts. I would argue that nearly every thing that is *true* is made up of a constellation of related facts. Cherry-picking facts allows you to manufacture a truth, but when that truth diverges significantly from reality it causes a cognitive dissonance, and people generally tend to side with the truth most closely aligned with their perceived reality.
I think this has led us to the point where people ignore facts -- too often they're not used to try to accurately describe a perceived truth, but to create a truth.
I think globalism is probably a great example. Lots of people using facts to advocate for it as embodying the ideal outcome, yet for millions of people, despite the facts that seem to support it, see their life undermined by globalism -- jobs moved away, problems with immigrants, and so on. Do you believe the facts or the truth around you?
(And I'm not meaning to take a position on globalism. I'm sure the benefits of trade are great, but they're poorly distributed. Cultural diversity is nice, in a Disney Epcot way, but I think humans generally do poorly when they hold divergent views on many topics, and the results are usually ugly at best or grinding warfare at worst).
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.
You mean like the Associated Press saying Hillary Clinton won the Democratic Nomination, when she didn't and on the eve the California Primary? You mean fake news like that...
By "black supremacist" you mean an African-American who is concerned they are far more likely to be unarmed and yet still shot to death by a police officer than a white American.
I'd give him the benefit of the doubt and say he means the actual black supremacists, and not whatever strawman you're thinking of. Or are you under the impression that only white people are capable of being racists?
Forbes has a pretty good article covering Politifact's issues related to their truthiness judging.
In 2008, Politifact rated as True Obama's claim that if you like your plan you can keep it. The Forbes article notes that the author of that truth-o-meter article didn't check with any health-care skeptics.
In 2009, Politifact changed their rating for the claim to 1/2 true.
In 2013, Politifact labeled it the "lie of the year."
Politifact's 2008 rating was "widely repeated by pro-Obama reporters and pundits, and had a meaningful impact on the outcome of the election."
So, was Politifact's wrong analysis of Obama's 2008 claims "fake news?"
Were they lying or just being too lazy.
When they judge Trump's claim that Obama was the founder of ISIS in the literal sense but don't rate Hillary's comment that Trump is a recruiting sergeant for ISIS at all, either literally or metaphorically, then yes, I'll claim that Politifact is lying or at least intentionally distorting the truth.
Facebook absolutely has the right to determine what gets posted on their site and people have the right to use their product or not. The government on the other hand has no business promoting censorship of anything, including fake news. Fake news isn't new and people have a personal responsibility to explore the "truthiness" of what they read, hear and see.
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.
This is the worst kind if post-truth bullshit. There is no "personal truth", just because you don't like the facts doesn't mean you can simply pick some that better suit you.
Obviously no one is perfect, but Snopes and PolitiFact do a more than adequate job of basic fact checking. The kind of stuff that would have prevented some idiot going to a pizza restaurant with an automatic rifle. The kind of easily debunked bullshit that the far right lives for.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
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?