Slashdot Mirror
Facebook's 'Journalism Project' Seeks To Strengthen Online News (cnet.com)
Facebook is taking more responsibility over its role in the media industry. CNET reports on the company's announcement: The social network on Wednesday announced a new initiative called the Journalism Project, which seeks to put Facebook on steadier footing with the news industry. As part of the effort, the social network will work to help train journalists on how to use Facebook as a reporting tool and assist the public in figuring out how to sniff out misinformation. "We know that our community values sharing and discussing ideas and news," Fidji Simo, director of product for the project, wrote in a blog post. "And as a part of our service, we care a great deal about making sure that a healthy news ecosystem and journalism can thrive." The initiative is part of an about-face for Facebook, which for a long time shrugged off its influence on the news and downplayed the impact of misinformation circulated on Facebook on the 2016 presidential election. The company is now acknowledging the significant role it plays in the consumption of news online, along with its ability to shape journalism's future.
that post positive things about Trump, we know which side they're one. They are not on our side.
Same could be said about Twitter for not censoring Trump. They hate us and are against us.
There shouldn't be conservative or liberal news. There should just be news.
SJWs are the new boogeyman. -Me
So Fake News is the culprit for influencing the election? Fake news has *always* influenced the election. Anywho, I know of at least one person who offered their opinion on Facebook (that doesn't necessarily follow social views) and linked to articles supporting their opinion. Their account has been banned from posting for 60 days. Based on this, It's not necessarily fake news the puppet masters are after. It's censorship. America. Land of the Censored, Home of the Unaware.
This would benefit both FB and an organization like Snopes. When a story or link is shared, if the text checks out by some fact-checking source that is reputable, the story would get some type of icon showing that it is not pure garbage. If it is text, then it would be cryptographically signed somehow, so changing something in the story would make the icon disappear.
Let me see if I understand this... The people who bring you your misinformation on a silver platter, want to show YOU (their target sucker), how to "Sniff Out" misinformation. I think all I can smell, is bullshit from that direction. :-D
Facebook's problem isn't only with misinformation. Their filters are likely responsible for the increased partisanship in America and around the world.
I personally feel fixing the filters would do a great deal to stop the spread of fake news.
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
Facebook is not a news source. If conservatives don't like it, they can go somewhere else.
But they promise to filter 'fake' news. Facebook is the Oracle of Truth!
that they care that only the right kind of propaganda reaches the audience, and that inconvenient truths etc. are labeled as "misinformation".
However, Liberal lies will still get pumped up as truth(s).
Conservative lie being defined as anything fredrated disagrees with.
It needs to fuck off and leave this world alone.
There shouldn't be conservative or liberal news. There should just be news.
Nice in theory and if journalists actually aspired to be moral and ethical in their reporting it would be great. However, the problem with all this is NEWS (fake or not) is now a business. You have to sell advertisements or subscriptions to pay the bills... So what *you* think is news may just be some tall tale to somebody else and what gets reported is what makes the most money.
Facebook has already shown it's bias toward liberal news and expecting them to change their spots is fool hardy.
There is no chance that the republican party's Russia sponsored hacking and misinformation attack on America will ever really be stopped.
When a urine-soaked puppet of a foreign government showers the country with orange lies, you can be sure these lies will permeate facebook, like the urine of underage prostitutes permeates the sheets of a Moscow hotel's "presidential" suite...
^subject.
By that rationale the Chinese "Great Firewall" is also China taking responsibility into what content their people can consume or not consume. If anyone thinks Facebook filters will be objective and accurate, they should pay more attention to history classes.
(Now then again I don't understand why people get their news from Facebook at all, but that's a different topic)
if find("Russia+Hacked+Election+Trump)
There isn't a conservative out there disagreeing with you. But well, gee.....mainstream news is so actively liberal that they'll give their presidential candidate the debate questions.
We went other places. You damn New England liberals follow us everywhere. You ruined the north east. You ruined California. You ruined Colorado.
It's like you much up a place so bad that it's unlivable, then decide to move to the region where folks who don't want invasive government moved to when they left you. And then you just pass all the same stupid laws and taxes over until that place is ruined. In 20-30 years, Denver, Colorado will be an insane mecca of taxes and regulations that will be unbearable. Then you liberals will leave and move to Idaho, the Dakotas, etc.
Those states might get smart and just start shooting you all upon arrival. Though I think eliminating your right to vote in state elections for 5 years until you gain a feeling for the culture might be more prudent.
...it's not what (most? many?) people want. They want their prefabricated beliefs to be bolstered by the "news" they consume and are very much not interested in "real news", aka facts. Just wade through the other comments here claiming FB will now just filter out everything from one end of the political spectrum in favor of the other. Those people will likely use the "fact checked" indicator as a marker of stories to avoid, since they are obviously going to be slanted and "fake".
I have also noticed an interesting trend recently. A number of political articles on Snopes and fact check sites, where the conservative viewpoint or statement was in fact CORRECT. And they even discuss the evidence of such. But interestingly enough, in several of these cases the fact check articles NEVER post a conclusion. They don't include their "True or False" meters, etc.
And I have wondered, why is it that these articles where either the criticism of a conservative is debunked or the criticism of a Democrat confirmed, are not given truth-meters?
Hmmm...
Because, these sites are extremely biased. Even when their articles are correct, they regularly pick and choose what issues to pursue. And numerous substantiated criticisms of Democrats will never ever get an article on these fact check sites.
Facebook is going through an awful lot of trouble to justify its firing of human news editors. Why not just go back to what worked?
I find YouTube to be the best fact checker.
The media claimed that Trump mocked a disabled reporter, or more to the point, that Trump mocked a reporter for his disability. Trump did in fact mock a reporter who is disabled. However, there are videos on youtube that will show you that those body movements of his are used regularly, not for mocking disabilities but to personify his view of someone who doesn't have an answer.
Most of the mainstream media also claimed that Donald Trump said soldiers that commit suicide are weak. He said no such thing. Go to youtube and watch the actual speech. He was discussing the lack of care available for our veterans, particularly the lack of mental healthcare. He was discussing triggers, and our soldiers being left without the support they deserved. Every soldier and veteran I know who watched that video loved it. In fact, it was the first, and almost the only time I watched Donald Trump and thought to myself that he looked presidential.
Watch MSNBC, they'll show you protestors at a Tea Party rally outside one of President Obama's townhall meetings. They'll show you a man carrying an AR-15 on his back. They'll state how this is intimidating and seemingly rather racist. Go to youtube and you'll find the another video of that same rally. Except this video will clearly show the man in question with an AR-15 strapped to his back is in fact a black American.
So ya.....trust me, conservatives are very aware of how fake most of the mainstream news is. Liberals on the other hand are stuck thinking the only fake news is Fox/Faux News. Well, it is fairly fake. But it doesn't have the market nor is it even close to being top dog.
I'll start to believe this hoo-ha about "fake news" being a SERIOUS effort to raise the standards of journalism when I see one reputable mainstream outlet reporting that 'hands up don't shoot' in Ferguson was ALSO 'fake news'.
Until then, it's just "my party lost" biased after-election whinging.
-Styopa
Why is there 'news' on Facebook at all? How about they put a big disclaimer on the front page that says "Facebook is not a news source, anything posted claiming to be 'news' should not be taken seriously unless verified by actual news organizations, you have been warned"?
1: Weaken the integrity of the field of journalism by up-feeding fake news. 2: Promise to strengthen the integrity of journalism for money. 3: Profit.
Now our fake news is called ads that pay to post it
conservatism = big business
Slashdot loves CEOs and other big business to tell them the news esp. Conservative news
Voting should be a constitutionally protected right.
SJWs are the new boogeyman. -Me
where folks who don't want invasive government moved to
Or you could give up trying to get what you can't have. You have no right to live as an island.
"Old man yells at systemd"
Hmm, why does this remind me of a quote?
This is the power of the free market.
--
rumen_mire
That pee-Trump document is definitely from the Intelligence agency (see Trumps tweet accusing them of leaking it, so he's clearly seen it before).
Are you suggesting the Intelligence agency is complaining it lost the election? Lots of the memos are before the election!
Cohen for example, it says his wife is Russian descent, and her father a Moscow property developer, and he met with Kremlin figures in Prague in August to deal with the Manafort revelation.
And if the memo is from the intelligence agencies, then they have the flight record for Cohen during that week that story broke (12-18th August), so that would be the first thing they'd check. They'd have the record for his wife, and her father's family details. It would be in the marriage details.
There's no money in that, though
Exactly. We need to limit access to what Trumps says in order to protect freedom.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PX9reO3QnUA
And you claim the hand thing and Trump saying "you should see this guy" doesn't refer to this guys actual physical hand? Bizarre!
..and you have no right to impose your slippery slope end-justifies-means logic on everyone else.
or is it?
Nobody knows for sure!
Look, Trump's tweet accuses the intelligence agencies of leaking this document (which he calls fake news).
So you can confirm its source right from Trump himself.
This document:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3259984-Trump-Intelligence-Allegations.html
Trump confirming its source in his "nazi" quote as Intelligence agencies:
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump
And you can confirm Cohen's Twitter silence in the period from when New York times asked for comment until the week later when he popped up on Fox on the 18th to deny deny deny, dispute dispute dispute. When the strategy clearly had been already set.
Look at his media, you'd expect him to blitz twitter as the Manasfort story is breaking:
https://twitter.com/MichaelCohen212
So you want to dismiss the unpleasant links, but that's just denialism. Better to go check the details.
Is the "Rossotrudnichestvo" the Russian Cultural Office in Prague a FSB front office? Well go look at Google street view, it's in district 6, it has large satellite comms dishes on thr roof and its a deep deep building for promoting "culture" in such a small country! So yeh, its suspicious as fuck.
Logic isn't "imposed". It's used as part of a debating process.
If you can't beat these tactics in debate, that's your problem. You don't get to ban them. You need to find counter-arguments that sway opinion, 'cuz that's how democracy works.
However, the problem with all this is NEWS (fake or not) is now a business.
Now? Really? It's always been a business, and it's not the business of selling news, it's the business of selling advertising, and always has been. Those that have tried to sell news (subscriptions) have not done well at all.
Your eyeballs are the product, and to survive, the news has to show your eyeballs what you want to see, true or not. Whether or not something actually happened is completely unconnected from whether or not it's "news." Only whether or not you'll watch it.
Indeed. It should also be done by well informed, educated people who research the issues and candidates, and make choices based on the common good of everyone.
And if we had unicorns that farted cinnamon flavored rainbows, the world would be a more colorful place, too!
Tell him that.
That's not true. It was until recently a business of selling news. People both the news paper they liked. Often people chose a news paper that was aligned with their own political view. Advertisers paid more for more popular news papers.
Today it's different with the internet. I've seen many cases were a social media group asked companies to boycott come media source, whether it is a news paper, a radio channel or a website. Companies are influenced by these social media groups. Often the people who 'like' a call to boycott never read that news or don't know why they want a boycott. But when they like they are automatically siding with the 'good people'.
And what is most important for many people? To be on the 'good side'. Like a charity, even when you don't donate, and you are a generous person. Like a sick child and even when you don't give a f****, you are a compassionate person. And what is most important for advertising companies? To be on the good side too. I've seen too many cases in my country were news papers lost advertisers because of the power of social media.
You damn New England liberals follow us everywhere. You ruined the north east. You ruined California. You ruined Colorado.
It really doesn't matter where the people came from that moved into your state. People don't just move in and take over like that, no matter what it looks like.
It's the cities. The higher your population density, the more liberal the policies.
The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
I believe news always has a bias, and has always been a business.
Fixed it.
You are confusing "information" with "bullshit". Please don't.
Which is why I dont get my news from businesses... or sites with obvious agendas.
I'd find sources like the BBC to be trustworthy than the Guardian who I find more trustworthy than the Daily Mail which is Fox New's redneck cousin who moved to England and pretends to be erudite.
But I don't trust any one source 100%, there are some I trust reasonably but there are sources such as Fox and the Daily mail who I distrust 100% until I see the news from a less biased source, even then I still treat the article as suspect and wont quote it.
The reason I trust the BBC and similar organisations in Australia (ABC) and Canada (CBC) because they're rarely caught lying, when they are it's almost always an error and a correction is always issued. The reason I distrust the Daily Mail and Fox News is because they've consistently been caught lying, when they are it's found they deliberately fabricated something and they never, ever issue a correction. They are taken to court over these kinds of things often enough that they have a fund to pay off litigants.
BTW, news (or reality) does not have a Liberal bias, in fact it's slightly conservative... It's just that extremists live outside reality.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Or is that your insistence that it be their definition? Because the definition of "conservative lies" are "lies by conservatives". Or do you think that no conservative ever lies? Maybe you "think" that if a liberal disagrees with something, that cannot mean that something is wrong, it has to be because it's a liberal that they're disagreeing.
And you merkins wonder why you're so bats hit insane, especially, and massively in the majority, the conservatives to everyone not in your country. You INSIST that there cannot be anything other than partisanship, that lies are only political bigotries,that reality is nonexistent, because and disagreement from "the other side" cannot be because reality has informed them of the correctness of disagreement. And, like I said, it's overwhelmingly the conservatives who do it.
So what's "lameness detected" here?
Mostly because when liberals do it, they're generally berated and pilloried for doing so, but someone like Bundy can go apes hit and threaten to kill police officers, and they get food parcels allowed in to their illegal occupation by the very police forces that Bundy has threatened *while armed*. Buchaningers tried that, and the SWAT team would be in there with their tank and blasting in 5 minutes. If it were muslims, then mosques would be bombed a week later in addition, and calls for all muslims to be deported.
Trump is the king of fake news and post-truth politics. His method is to simply claim that everything that doesn't praise him is fake and everyone is part of a conspiracy against him. People accept it because they have come to think that all politicians lie all the time about everything, and facts are just something you search the internet for to back up your opinion.
If a child did it, you would dismiss it as an immature argument. Because Trump is an old man and now PEOTUS people are forced to take him seriously.
It's very difficult to combat because even when he tells easily demonstrable lies and gaslights America, people don't care. The truth is what they want it to be, and they want Trump to be true because he promised to kick out immigrants and get their jobs back. Just saying "this man is a liar" doesn't work, the only way to win is to tell more attractive lies than he does.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Or was that supposed to indicate that you're fine with WaPo making up stuff about Trump to make him look even worse than he is, as long as you get to add yet more bullshit made up fake news?
It was bunchaningers.
Lame.
Why not frigging well say "racial epithet",then I'll know what isn't allowed.
I hope it HURTS. I hope your butthurt is so bad your great-great-great grandchildren will never be able to sit down.
You smug, close-minded, virtue-signalling progTARDS deserve it.
And I'm LAUGHING at you and your whiny petulance.
See, this is why we can't have nice things.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
There shouldn't be conservative or liberal news. There should just be news.
This is, quite frankly, late 20th-Century thinking. Since the inception of the printing press, news reporting has been partisan. A lot of papers even named themselves after the party/cause they were promoting. This is why every major town in the USA used to have at least two newspapers. You could tell what a person's politics were by the papers they took.
It was only the advent of large national broadcast media that got us the modern conception of "balanced reporting". Unlike newspapers, not just anyone can get up a national radio/TV network. Probably just as importantly, its helps to keep the Federal Government from interfering with the monopolistic practices required to do this if neither major party feels like you have it out for them specifically. But they still had an agenda, just one that the Federal Government can't complain about: pro-US and anti-extremist. If you were too far to the left or right for the comfort of the national media, heaven help you. The sainted Edward R. Morrow these types like to point to reported live sympathetic pieces from the London Blitz at a time most in the US wanted to stay out of WWII. That's not really "balance" (and a damn good thing he did). Balance was never a real thing. Its just a smokescreen for saying the media's bias should be within a certain range in the middle of the political spectrum, wherever that middle happens to be today.
So this talk about being neutral, unbiased, or balanced is just a bunch of hooey. It was a polite fiction we all agreed to pretend to believe for 50 years while it was useful. But the broadcast era is dead and buried now. Anyone can start up a podcast, website, or twitter account, and report the news any way they damn well please.
More to the point, reporting on evil in a "balanced" way is neither desirable nor moral. For all the talk about "balance", Murrow understood that.
Trump is the king of fake news and post-truth politics.
Trump doesn't spread fake news.
Trump just reports what he hears on the Internet (there's a video of him saying that almost literally, and the left loves repeating it to discredit him). But why is that a problem? He's just doing the same thing the media does. Refer to your own other post just now regarding "hands up don't shoot"
Trump just reports what he hears without verifying if what he hears is true. Just like the media reporting that some witnesses heard "hands up don't shoot" without verifying if the claim is true. You know the old Fox news slogan: "we report, you decide"
If it's ok when your side does it, it's ok for Trump or Fox News to do it too, and beat you at your own game. That's why he won, and you lost.
You can try to mock and make fun and be post-factual as you want, but the truth remains:
Trump won
Brexit voted leave
Your side is losing
It's very difficult to combat because even when he tells easily demonstrable lies and gaslights America, people don't care. The truth is what they want it to be, and they want Trump to be true because he promised to kick out immigrants and get their jobs back. Just saying "this man is a liar" doesn't work, the only way to win is to tell more attractive lies than he does.
Yeah, attractive lies like "Fake news helped Trump won", "Trump is a puppet of Russia", "not my President"
Keep telling yourself those, and keep lying to yourself that you're winning by doing that.
At this rate I predict the left will lose in 2020 too.
Nice in theory and if journalists actually aspired to be moral and ethical in their reporting it would be great. However, the problem with all this is NEWS (fake or not) is now a business. You have to sell advertisements or subscriptions to pay the bills... So what *you* think is news may just be some tall tale to somebody else and what gets reported is what makes the most money.
This is exactly why I think CNN, the sole major national news outlet striving for actual "balanced reporting", is IMHO worse than all but the worst partisan outlets. As much as I might dislike Fox News and disagree with their morals, at least they have some. They tried a bit to tell people how bad Trump would be for the country, and covered other Republican candidates. CNN OTOH realized Trump was ratings gold, precisely because he was so bad for the country, and practically became the 24/7 Trump channel. CNN would happily torch the entire country for a 1 point bump in their own Nielsens.
Trump won
Brexit voted leave
Your side is losing
Losing with millions more votes than Trump, who only won through a technical victory, who barely outperformed Bush in 2004? Who is well behind Obama's voting margins?
Yeah, I'm scared. Same with Brexit. Theresa May still can't get it done, if she even genuinely wants it, which I doubt. She just wants to say she did it, while changing nothing, because she can't afford the cost of a real breakaway. Trump will end up in the same position on the ACA, there is a reason he has not presented an alternative.
The only way Republicans win in 2018, let alone 2020, is if Democrats are kept from voting. Which if that happens, will justify revolution.
We went other places. You damn New England liberals follow us everywhere. You ruined the north east. You ruined California. You ruined Colorado.
It's like you much up a place so bad that it's unlivable, then decide to move to the region where folks who don't want invasive government moved to when they left you. And then you just pass all the same stupid laws and taxes over until that place is ruined. In 20-30 years, Denver, Colorado will be an insane mecca of taxes and regulations that will be unbearable. Then you liberals will leave and move to Idaho, the Dakotas, etc.
I bet you'll find that the thing "ruining" Denver is people moving from places like Idaho and the Dakotas because the young people are trying to escape socially repressive areas and college graduates are looking to move to a place with an economy, culture and opportunity. I expect the next places to be ruined will be Texas between Austin, Dallas, and Houston and Georgia with Atlanta as they similarly gain people from the surrounding red states.
Losing with millions more votes than Trump, who only won through a technical victory, who barely outperformed Bush in 2004? Who is well behind Obama's voting margins?
Yeah, that Trump. Hillary can't even beat that. You can't even beat a 70 year old racist/sexist/islamaphobic/whatever else you call him grandpa
That's more damning proof that your side is losing.
The only way Republicans win in 2018, let alone 2020, is if Democrats are kept from voting. Which if that happens, will justify revolution.
No, there are plenty of other ways for the Democrats to lose. One is what you're doing right now, and what AmiMojo has been doing for the last few years. Keep on blaming everybody else that you lost. Keep on antagonizing people who don't agree with you as stupid, racist, sexist, manipulated, hacked by the Russians, etc. Keep giving them reasons to continue not voting for you. Keep on eating your own like Hillary did with Bernie supporters so even more people leave the Democrats, sometimes straight for the Republicans
No one asked to live in an island. We just asked that you quit cutting down all the trees and then moving after you turn lush forests into deserts.
Right...and big cities were strongly a northeastern system. The problem is they move to a region that doesn't have huge cities. They migrate toward towns and turn them into cities. Then when those become big cities and destroy the region, the migrate to another region and repeat the process - so on and so on.
See Colorado for current example.
Go to youtube and you will find Donald Trump using similar behaviors of others, usually whenever they don't have an answer. I still think mocking like that was immature.
Did Donald Trump mock a reporter? Yes
Did Donald Trump mock a reporter who had a handicap? Yes
Did Donald Trump mock the handicap of a reporter? No
But funny, how liberals forget when Obama mentioned his low bowling score in an interview, and proceeded to state that he bowled like someone in the Special Olympics.
Gee, guess criticism doesn't apply if you have a [D]
But funny, how liberals forget when Obama mentioned his low bowling score in an interview, and proceeded to state that he bowled like someone in the Special Olympics.
Gee, guess criticism doesn't apply if you have a [D]
Because it's not as if anyone can label anything they don't like BS, right?
If you want to play the Popper card and say we have to be intolerant of intolerance, then just remember that this was justified in terms of self-defense against those who would use "fists or pistols" instead of rational argument. So Popper is more properly invoked against the jihadist types who actually encourage others to murder people in truck attacks and such and those who defend them.