Facebook's Safety Check Activated For Fake Bangkok Bombing (cnet.com)

Fake news has plagued Facebook over the last year, and now even the social media giant is falling for it. From a report on CNET: The site's Safety Check feature has been crucial during terrorist attacks and natural disasters, helping friends and families find out if their loved ones are safe during emergencies. It's been activated across the world more than 335 times by its users, for events like hurricanes, mass shootings and terrorist attacks. On Tuesday, the automated tool went haywire, pushing out an alert about an explosion in Bangkok, Thailand, citing "media sources" as a confirmation. It was deactivated within an hour after those media sources turned out to be fake news. One of the sites used as a media source was Bangkok Informer, which scraped a video from the 2015 Erawan bombing.

Comments

i am confused

[Anonymous Coward]

Is the story of FB falling for fake news, fake news, and they didn't really fall for the fake news after all? Or was the fake news not fake news, so the story of falling for fake news was fake because the alleged fake news was not fake? Or both, so they didn't fall for the allegedly fake but not actually fake news, but they should have, since it wasn't fake, so the whole thing is fake from top to bottom?

Or maybe I'm just faking being confused. It's all so confusing.

Re:i am confused

[hey!]

The story is that Facebook's Safety Check feature began to propagate a fake news story but that Facebook figured that out and shut it down.

If you don't know what that feature is, it detects what might be a big event like a terrorist bombing or a natural disaster and tells you how many of your friends are in the affected area. If you are in the affected area it prompts you to confirm that you are OK and relays that information to your friends. It's actually quite a useful feature but of course if activated in response to fake news could easily start a panic.

Re:i am confused

[AmiMoJo]

It's because people have realized they can influence people by spreading fake news on social media, even if it is eventually debunked. In this case you have people just waiting for the next terror attack so they can push their isolationist/xenophobic agendas, and then a larger number of useful idiots who will repost and react to it.

Centralization fail...try something else...

[vvaduva]

Like Cell 411, which is decentralized: http://getcell411.com/

Re:Centralization fail...try something else...

[ELCouz]

Civilians playing cops...what can go wrong?

Re:Centralization fail...try something else...

[vvaduva]

Oh no...because cops never ever kill dogs, kids and brown people for no reason.

Re:Centralization fail...try something else...

[ELCouz]

It's not about the "patrol" (it's what they call it in Cell411) shooting but also being shot/entrapped/raped? Vigilantism is a gray area.

Re:Centralization fail...try something else...

[vvaduva]

It allows users to build trusted cells...no strangers are involved unless you want them to. If your brother shows up and rapes you when you ask him for help, you have bigger problems to worry about. just saying...

Re:Centralization fail...try something else...

[Highdude702]

Why did you have to bring skin color into it? Cops kill more white people than "brown" people every year. Why couldn't you just leave it at people. This is what's wrong with slashdot and the world for that matter. Nobody can reply to someone without trying to bait someone into stepping on their own dick.

Sad news ... Carrie Fisher, dead at 60

[slashdice]

I just heard some sad news on talk radio - Star Wars actress Carrie Fisher was found dead in her LA hospital room this morning. There weren't any more details. I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will miss her - even if you didn't enjoy her work, there's no denying her contributions to popular culture. Truly an American icon.

Re:Sad news ... Carrie Fisher, dead at 60

[Anonymous Coward]

Rip in peace. #2016IsTheWorst

Re:Sad news ... Carrie Fisher, dead at 60

[iggymanz]

did social media confirm this news? -- millenial tard

Re: Sad news ... Carrie Fisher, dead at 60

[Zorpheus]

She was brought to an emergency hospital after a great attack to she had on a flight before. It was on the news a few days ago.
Found in a hotel you say? Didn't hear that she got out of hospital.

Facebook?

[Anonymous Coward]

Only terrorists and pedos have Facebook accounts, does it matter if they're safe?

Sounds more like "Fake Algorithm"

[Anonymous Coward]

This case sounds like some news outlet updated a 2015 article on a bombing that happened in 2015 and Facebook whoopsied and thought it was a new story. Much like the United Airlines stock crash caused by Google detecting an updated six-year-old story as "news". Except back then we blamed Google for fucking up their algorithm, while today Facebook can do no wrong and can bear no responsibility, and therefore this problem must have been caused by Fake News (TM).

One Night in Bangcock!

[Anonymous Coward]

Makes a hard man rumble! Get! It! On! Bang! A! Gong! Sunshine!

Look and listen, friend. Facefuck is not a place to go unless you imagine yourself being facefucked a good thing. Believe me, friend, getting face fucked is not.

Fake fake news

[fluffy_1969]

Fake news is bad? What's even worse is fake fake news. A news site pretending to be a fake news site but in reality it's a serious news site. For example Fox news. On First sight you think this so so terrible it must be a joke. You wouldn't believe it, but in reality they trying to be a serious site.

Automated news is the real problem

[michaelwigle]

I think the real problem here is that media sources are turning to automated scrapers instead of using human beings to investigate and report the news. Look at some of the sources that rebroadcast this fake report. The BBC, Telegraph, Mirror, and MSN news. How can anyone take an article they read from a news source seriously knowing that automated scripts likely wrote it. This is a growing trend as well. A growing number of news articles are the result of automated reporting scripts. From my point of view, if news agencies want to increase the speed with which they report and the number of stories they can get out there by using automated scripts they should at least use their existing humans to proof and sanity check stuff before it goes out.

Re:Automated news is the real problem

[Cro Magnon]

It's what I've said before. Bloggers aren't as good as real journalists, but "real journalists" have gotten as bad as bloggers.

Re:Automated news is the real problem

[Anonymous Coward]

"...but "real journalists" have gotten as bad as bloggers."

I can't really agree with this; there are many fine "Real Journalists", yet more and more of them are becoming unemployed every day or relegated to "Stringer" status. Publishers looking at the bottom line find mining the Blogosphere to be a cheaper alternative. Yet even they are under pressure; Craigslist pretty much gutted the lucrative local Classified Ad markets.
At one time, one could pull stories from the AP, UPI or Reuters leased teletypewriters and send copy right down to the Compositors, or to the guy in front of the camera. Good Copy Editors might insert something to give it a "Local" angle. A good Reporter might get on the phone and call contacts to get an interview to flesh out the story. And amazingly, there was a news stand Ethic that worked: Plop in your quarter, and take one, and only one copy. Ads were irritating yes, but one was unlikely to be poised to poison you. That is all fading now. People who block Internet Ads just out of self-preservation are labeled Pirates or Criminals by the Industry, but there is _no_ viable Internet Subscription model yet, and even if there was, as we've seen with Wired and Forbes, the Publishers are too damn lazy, or too damn corrupt, to guarantee that their subscribers won't get poisoned anyway.

No, the real problem is that the Public got spoiled. Generally, post WWII, Journalism as a Profession came to be respected, at least in the US. The Andersons, Woodwards and Bernsteins, the Cronkites, Murrows, the Huntleys and Brinkleys, and Rathers were _trusted_ to tell the Truth. Before WWII, it was far worse, the era of "Yellow Journalism", of William Randolph Hearst, who not only made up News, but then made it real, especially as with Hearst, (Apocryphally?): "You furnish the pictures, and I'll furnish the war." For the TV Networks, News was always a money-losing proposition, so they could actually afford a little Prestige. It was CBS who first made money in News, eventually a lot of it, especially with their "All News" radio stations, and the Industry noticed. Ad money poured in.
With the recent explosion of Fake News, now practically a Plank in the Republican Platform, distrust of Institutional Journalism is rapidly growing. Of course, this may likely backfire, when even rabid fans of Fox News get wary of being repeatedly lied to.

Just maybe... a New Journalism? One based on Ethics, Honesty, and absolute Personal Integrity will emerge, and it may very well emerge out of the Blogosphere. For that, there will be a need for Peer Review, independent Fact Checking as part of the Feedback Loop, (As with the "New Yorker" for decades.) This will likely be expensive at first; a Subscription Model not available to the General Public, but only to those who can well afford it.

Re:Automated news is the real problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, you throw Fox under the bus, but make no mention of DNC shills CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS or PBS?

Re:Automated news is the real problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I threw Hearst under the bus, after listing a number of News people who were not known for any particular political view, although Woodard was a registered Republican, and Anderson tended towards deeply Conservative Republican, (Supporting Joe McCarthy.), until he grew to have contempt for everybody. (Um, did you forget the Dodd and Eagleton Muck?)
To condemn "DNC shills CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS or PBS" is to buy into that "Vast Left Wing Conspiracy Theory" that _everybody_ in News is a Leftie, except those valiant, brave and impartial folks at Fox. Now if you had picked out "Democracy Today!" or MSNBC, (With the exception of the three hours a day given to "Morning Joe".), you might have had a point, but as it is, you just come off as just another Raving Right Wing Loon.

Vote my Committee

[randomErr]

The only way something like this would work would be to have a human look at this. Think Reddit just for Facebook news. If you push out an article like this you need a disclaimer saying this has not been fully reviewed, please review. You would get tons of people waiting to vote on that when they see that disclaimer.

A Wired article about Fb's Safety Check...

[antdude]

I just read this in my hardcopy and found it online for anyone to read on Wired web site.