Facebook Changes Feed To Promote Posts That Aren't Fake, Sensational, Or Spam (techcrunch.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Facebook Changes Feed To Promote Posts That Aren't Fake, Sensational, Or Spam (techcrunch.com)

Posted by BeauHD on Wednesday February 1, 2017 @01:00AM from the fine-tuned dept.

TechCrunch is reporting that Facebook is prioritizing "authentic" content in News Feed with a ranking algorithm change that detects and promotes content "that people consider genuine, and not misleading, sensational, or spammy." The algorithm will also boost stories that are going viral in real-time. From the report: To build the update, Facebook categorized Pages that frequently share inauthentic posts like fake news and clickbaity headlines, or get their posts hidden often. It then used these posts to train an algorithm that detects similar content as its shared in the News Feed. Facebook will now give extra feed visibility to posts that don't show signs of similarity to inauthentic content. Meanwhile, Facebook wants to more quickly surface big stories going viral either because the topic is being posted about by lots of people, or a Page post about the topic is seeing tons of engagement. Facebook will then take that as a signal that you might temporarily care more about the topic, and therefore show it in your News Feed while it's still hot. Facebook says it doesn't anticipate significant changes to most Pages' News Feed distribution, but some might see a small increase or decrease in referral traffic or outbound clicks depending on if they share authentic, timely content vs inauthentic and outdated stories.

128 of 194 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Better late than never by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-01 01:07 · Score: 1

Would have been nice to do this before the election...
1. Re: Better late than never by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-01 01:20 · Score: 1
  
  Only idiots read anything facebook. Fake holy hillary stories obviously weren't fake enough.
  Ads upon ads, the reason I gave up stupid facebook centuries ago.
2. Re:Better late than never by ckatko · 2017-02-01 02:09 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  You realize #fakenews wasn't invented till AFTER the democrats lost the election, right?
  Don't believe me? Check Google Trends for fakenews.
3. Re: Better late than never by Maritz · 2017-02-01 02:27 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Only idiots read anything facebook. Fake holy hillary stories obviously weren't fake enough.
  Ads upon ads, the reason I gave up stupid facebook centuries ago.
  Newsflash matey. We are fucking drowning in idiots. What they think matters, sorry to say.
  
  --
  I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
4. Re:Better late than never by Gr8Apes · 2017-02-01 02:36 · Score: 2
  
  You realize #fakenews wasn't invented till AFTER the democrats lost the election, right?
  Don't believe me? Check Google Trends for fakenews.
  I don't know about #fakenews (like a hashtag means anything) but fake news was all over the media prior to the election.
  
  --
  The cesspool just got a check and balance.
5. Re:Better late than never by rotovator · 2017-02-01 02:43 · Score: 1
  
  But.... All the media was against Trump. Where could you find FAKE news benefiting him if there were NONE telling anything good about him?
  It doesn't make any sense.
  Trump won, despite all Media trying to make him lose. Do yo mean that only news from cnn, fox, etc. are the real ones and everything else is fake?
  Wake up and don't pretend people are stupid.
6. Re:Better late than never by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-01 03:18 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  But.... All the media was against Trump. Where could you find FAKE news benefiting him if there were NONE telling anything good about him?
  It doesn't make any sense.
  Trump won, despite all Media trying to make him lose. Do yo mean that only news from cnn, fox, etc. are the real ones and everything else is fake?
  Wake up and don't pretend people are stupid.
  most news consumed by Trump voters were by way of facebook. Tomi Lahren posts garnered more views per episode than Bill O'Reilly. That's the tip of the iceberg though. Fake sensentional articles written by pro Russian sponsored trolls were shared at an ungodly rate. Think I'm wrong, ask a Trump voter if their timelines are now devoid of Hillary killed X person posts or Obama secret something posts. Same as how they were bombarded with these fake articles, progressive peoples timelines now look like an anti Trump site. You're right that traditional news sources were all against Trump. Traditional news sources are subject to higher standards, verifications and/or editing. Those same sources aren't going to turn pro Trump because hes president now. The shitshow we have been seeing for the past 12 days is what they wrote about all along and will continue to do so.
7. Re: Better late than never by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-01 03:22 · Score: 1
  
  In some cases, videos and images posted and shared on Facebook served this medium of fake news. Simply skim a typical Trump supporters Facebook wall (not all) and you'll probably see lots of it, including conspiracy theory pages. These are information sources most people would quickly discount as uncredible (no reference information, sensationalist headlines and text, red flags of lots of bold text, varied fonts, opinions weaved in, etc.).
8. Re:Better late than never by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-01 03:50 · Score: 1
  
  You realize #fakenews wasn't invented till AFTER the democrats lost the election, right?
  Don't believe me? Check Google Trends for fakenews.
  I don't know about #fakenews (like a hashtag means anything) but fake news was all over the media prior to the election.
  Back in 2004 the CBS-pushed fake news supposedly from the 1960s but written in the default MS Word font at least CBS lawyers claiming it was "accurate".
  OK, that's only because Texas libel law shields purveyors of libel if they think the libel is accurate, but still...
  So the mainstream media has been pushing fake news for decades.
9. Re:Better late than never by TheCastro1689 · 2017-02-01 03:59 · Score: 1
  
  Scrolling past a Tomi Lahren video counted as viewing it since it autoloads.
10. Re: Better late than never by Archangel+Michael · 2017-02-01 04:03 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  What they think matters
  Only to them. But since it is easier to scream "Trump is banning immigrants!!!!!" than it is to say "Trump has suspended travel for 120 days from seven countries" all we get are the idiot posts because that is what people parrot.
  Keep in mind, Obama banned immigrants just last month, and nobody cared.
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
11. Re:Better late than never by Archangel+Michael · 2017-02-01 04:06 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Most news consumed by Obama voters was from the Daily Show. News masked as .... "Comedy". When caught in a lie, it was "comedic license" but the idiots believed it anyway.
  Excellent slight of hand there.
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
12. Re: Better late than never by Ayanami_R · 2017-02-01 04:16 · Score: 1, Flamebait
  
  If you look at the details in this case there is a vast difference between the 2 bans, I recommend looking at the details, then you'll understand why people are so pissed.
  
  --
  "Science is the power of man"
13. Re: Better late than never by Archangel+Michael · 2017-02-01 04:25 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  You make my case for me. I would suggest to you, that the ban from Cuba was essentially worse, because it wasn't telegraphed at all and was completely out of the blue. You cannot say the same thing about Trump, who telegraphed it from the primaries through the general election.
  I do know the details, but my outlook values certain details over others. Of course, I am a racist nazi for thinking the brown/black skin people of Cuba deserve to be refugees more than the brown skin people of states that foster radical Islamic terrorists, all other things being equal. The fact that we actually CAN vet the brown / black skinned people from Cuba almost universally means we know who they are when they get here.
  The sad thing is, I will be called a racist for pointing out that it has nothing to do with skin color.
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
14. Re: Better late than never by Archangel+Michael · 2017-02-01 04:29 · Score: 2
  
  Orange Buffoon vs Pantsuit Buffoon. PotAto - Potato
  
  Oh remind, what's the word used to describe something not true
  Actually it was quite true. Cuba ban and change of the wet foot/dry foot policy was essentially worse because there were people literally on the way who got turned away by change in policy. Yeah, facts are universal. Alternative facts are those that you dismiss because they don't suit your narrative.
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
15. Re: Better late than never by serviscope_minor · 2017-02-01 04:42 · Score: 1
  
  Orange Buffoon vs Pantsuit Buffoon. PotAto - Potato
  Yeah no. Hillary may have been many things, but a buffoon was not one of them. So, basically, you're completely divorced from reality.
  Cuba ban and change of the wet foot/dry foot policy was essentially worse because there were people literally on the way who got turned away by change in policy.
  Literally worse for causing the same thing? Even if your claim of equivalence is true (it's not), you can't even get your facts straight about what happened.
  I think I understand your mindset though. You are utterly incapable of handling nuance, shades of grey or anything non binary. There were things wrong with bith Trump and Clinton, yet you declare them to b equivalent because as far as you are concerned, either nothing is wrong or everything is. Likewise with the policy on Cuba and that list of countries.
  Your thinking stems from the puritanical mindset. Basically, if you sin, you go to hell. It doesn't make much difference if it's stealing an apple off a tree or going on a murdering spree. Either you don't sin and are fine, or you sin and go to hell. No nuance, no shades of grey.
  That is the reasoning you are applying.
  Alternative facts are those that you dismiss because they don't suit your narrative.
  Alternative facts like the size of the crowd at the recent inaugration?
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
16. Re: Better late than never by jedidiah · 2017-02-01 04:46 · Score: 2
  
  Some of us view "conspiracy sites" as primarily entertainment, even those of us that didn't vote for Hillary.
  
  --
  A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
17. Re: Better late than never by Archangel+Michael · 2017-02-01 04:56 · Score: 1
  
  Crowd size is literally a distraction, and irrelevant. But make a big deal out of it because says "yuge deal" like crowd sizes.
  Women's March on DC was "YUGE" and yet there was no message to the march. It was and wasn't everything, depending on who you talked to. That muddled message was read loud and clear by me, "were protesting to protest". Here is an example. It was about "countering the rape culture" (and Trump's "grab her by the pussy" comment) until it is pointed out that one of the keynote speakers was a ... convicted rapist murderer, who raped and killed a handicapped gay man. Then suddenly it wasn't about any of that. I could go down the entire line of hypocritical placards at the event to show how it was and wasn't about each and every one of the major themes. Schrodinger's Cat of protests.
  So, large crowd of meaningless messaging is nothing but a distraction.
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
18. Re: Better late than never by Archangel+Michael · 2017-02-01 05:08 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  This is where you start calling me names: Racist, bigot, homophobe... or the generic "Hater". That always works!
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
19. Re: Better late than never by Wootery · 2017-02-01 05:16 · Score: 1
  
  So? Idiots get to vote. This stuff matters.
20. Re:Better late than never by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-01 05:17 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  The Daily Show *is* comedy, it's not news. As a viewer, I can quite easily separate the two. Jokes are made regularly against both parties, that's part of the skit. Jabs really hit home when there's an element of truth behind them.You'll see republicans (and Trump most recently) as the target of most skits because the targets are well known (people know them and have even formulated opinions) and many are full of material--some are walking jokes, lets face it.
  This comedic polarization is due to the current cast of characters (our politicians and current news events). The show slammed Anthony Weiner in more recent history because he's a joke too. They've also slammed Hilary with respect to her private email server. Joe Biden had his fair share of jabsl for some of the crazy/ridiculous stuff he said. Nancy Pelosi and fellow dems were slammed at their joke of a protest attempt at the Supreme Court last night.
  Obama didn't get slammed nearly as much because, quite frankly, there wasn't a lot of material. He was a fairly boring guy (which isn't a bad thing). They jabbed at his public speaking pauses, failures at Guantanamo, etc. but mocking someone with a lot of character for comedic pull isn't easy. You're lacking a lot of that basis of truth to work from.
  If you don't like being the brunt of satire, don't give the comedians material to work with.
21. Re: Better late than never by Ayanami_R · 2017-02-01 05:35 · Score: 1
  
  No, it's where I walk away from this, bye!
  
  --
  "Science is the power of man"
22. Re: Better late than never by serviscope_minor · 2017-02-01 05:38 · Score: 1
  
  Crowd size is literally
  It's relevant because the Trump camp lied about it, then called the lie an "alternative fact".
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
23. Re: Better late than never by knorthern+knight · 2017-02-01 06:30 · Score: 1
  
  > Then think about how stupid the average person is. Then half of them are stupider than that.
  And then there is the set of people who don't know the difference between the median and the average.
  
  --
  
  I'm not repeating myself
  I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
24. Re: Better late than never by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-01 07:03 · Score: 1
  
  "I have no words."
  Then maybe we should ask Trump, I hear he has the best words.
25. Re: Better late than never by pnutjam · 2017-02-01 07:16 · Score: 1
  
  Bullshit it was unexpected, although it was sudden:
  Since the rapprochement between Washington and Havana began in 2015, Cubans have been bracing themselves for the policy to be cancelled and the past two years have seen a sharp rise in the numbers of people seeking to move to the US while they still can.
  http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-38617615
  
  --
  Cheap storage VM.
26. Re: Better late than never by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · 2017-02-01 08:13 · Score: 1
  
  They were both unannounced, but I expected Trump to do something like this - not right away, but soon. I had no idea Obama wanted to do that at all. I think that's the difference AM was trying to make.
  
  --
  Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
27. Re:Better late than never by coastwalker · 2017-02-01 08:14 · Score: 1
  
  I bet they still publish the shit that comes out of the Daily Mail that won the Brexit vote in the UK. The Mail basically advocates killing immigrants and scroungers like the unemployed and disabled because fuck them eh?
  
  --
  Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
28. Re: Better late than never by Ayanami_R · 2017-02-01 08:19 · Score: 1
  
  I get that, but how does THAT fact make Obama's ban "worse?" that's why I just walked away.
  
  --
  "Science is the power of man"
29. Re: Better late than never by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-01 08:27 · Score: 1
  
  What makes Trump's ban stand out is how it retroactively rewrites the rules for people who already had visas, and suddenly found that the US had no intention of honoring them.
  I can't speak for the rest of the world, but what I deduce from that is "the US cannot be trusted to stand by its own freely-given, supposedly-legally-binding promises".
  So yeah. Why even try to make a deal with them, if they have no qualms about unilaterlally breaking it at whim?
30. Re: Better late than never by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-01 09:30 · Score: 1
  
  I get that, but how does THAT fact make Obama's ban "worse?" that's why I just walked away.
  Well, you see, according to ArchangelMichael's logic, it'll make Cubans have to actually fill out paperwork to show that they do have a legitimate humanitarian reason not to receive residence in the US, which is grossly unfair and discriminatory, since Cubans deserve to be treated differently than any other country, as they are totally not like any people elsewhere.
  It's also racist, to assume they would like, like it's racist to assume that blacks can't get ID from state bureaucracies set up to discriminate against them in order to advance the political interests of the Republican Party, as we should not assume Cubans don't all need to be protected from their oppressive government and aren't all wonderful baseball players deserving of a spot on the starting lineup of the New York Yankees.
  It's like you can't understand the thinking of a Right-wing troll at all.
31. Re: Better late than never by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · 2017-02-01 10:15 · Score: 1
  
  Fair point. I could see how Obama's felt more like a betrayal than Trump's did, and I wish I was surprised that people weren't talking about it as much.
  
  --
  Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
32. Re: Better late than never by ArmoredDragon · 2017-02-01 10:17 · Score: 1
  
  Not only is it true, but you'd have to be living under a rock to not remember that. It was called memogate, and CBS's lead anchor for 30 years, Dan Rather, got fired over it because he kept insisting that it was authentic on the air even though CBS's own document examiners were essentially calling BS.
  There were similar other attempts at pushing fake news to try to derail that election, including a false accusation of Bush supposedly trash talking the Constitution (that one landed on slashdot by the way, IIRC posted by the king of dramatic liberal headlines at the time, Kdawson) and reports of Bush supposedly being on heavy antidepressants.
  Pretty much every election this shit happens. And to be honest, between this and "the election was hacked!" rhetoric, Hillary supporters are by far more annoying than I thought Trump supporters were.
  That was her election to lose, and she fucking did it anyways. Besides, I don't think anybody actually wanted her to win, they just hated Trump's rhetoric more than Hillary's.
33. Re: Better late than never by Jesus+H+Rolle · 2017-02-01 18:55 · Score: 1
  
  Visas are not permission to enter a country. They are only permission to be in it.
34. Re: Better late than never by Jesus+H+Rolle · 2017-02-01 19:04 · Score: 1
  
  And then there is the set of people between the median and the average. They're a boring lot.
35. Re: Better late than never by Archangel+Michael · 2017-02-02 04:11 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, Trump camp made a big deal about it, to distract you from the other thing he did yesterday, And tomorrow, it will be another distraction.You think this is ego, when it is about distracting idiots who make big deals about stupid Crowd Sizes. Keep in mind, it was the Press that started it with the stupid crowd size comparisons. Trump just took advantage of the situation the press set him up with.
  The problem is, you think it is about "crowd sizes" when the reality is, it is about distraction. But go ahead, and make it about Trump, that just gives him more ammo to distract you from what he is doing over there --------------->
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
36. Re: Better late than never by Archangel+Michael · 2017-02-02 04:13 · Score: 1
  
  Ever watch a master illusionist? If you have, he is making you watch what he wants you to watch, while he does his thing where you aren't watching. The act, is just that, and part of the distraction. You're being played .
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
37. Re: Better late than never by Archangel+Michael · 2017-02-02 04:17 · Score: 1
  
  How can you say Trumps was "unannounced" when he campaigned on it?
  It was unexpected because you thought he was a politician and no politician would ever do such a thing? That is your mistake for assuming he is like everyone else before him. That is a lot of people's mistake. And that is part of the reason why he actually won (popular vote yeah yeah ... not how we elect presidents).
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
38. Re: Better late than never by Archangel+Michael · 2017-02-02 04:19 · Score: 1
  
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
  Black people don't know how to use the internet either. Or cell phones. Or know where the DMV is.
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
39. Re: Better late than never by serviscope_minor · 2017-02-02 04:43 · Score: 1
  
  Well you've certainly fallen for his distraction hook, line and sinker.
  It's not about crowd sizes. It's about telling lies and then calling them "alternative facts".
  And I don't know what press you've been reading, but it's full of the incredibly skeezy and unethical things the Trumapanzee-in-chief and the republicans have been doing.
  The provable fact that the Trump camp lies brazenly simply typifies the problem. All I can say you lot are fucked, but in a different way from us, who are also fucked.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
40. Re: Better late than never by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · 2017-02-02 08:49 · Score: 1
  
  It was unannounced because it went into effect pretty much at the same time it was announced; that is, there was no specific warning. People who were in the air were affected.
  
  If you had kept reading, you would have seen that I said "I expected Trump to do something like this - not right away, but soon".
  
  --
  Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
41. Re: Better late than never by ArmoredDragon · 2017-02-03 05:49 · Score: 1
  
  And of course, nobody asked question of Bush's service again.
  Actually there's a very good reason for that:
  http://bernardgoldberg.com/a-l...
  Can that be absolutely confirmed? Probably not, but it's by far more credible than an obviously fake memo, and there's no actual credible evidence in support of the Rather narrative.
  Furthermore, it doesn't seem likely that Bush would be depressed given his statements about how easy it is being president at the end of his second term.
  And the guy who originally reported about Bush trashing the Constitution was well known, even at the time, to write stories that were faked.
  Honestly if you believe any of this crap, you're part of the reason fake news persists.
Automatically demotes stories by tomhath · 2017-02-01 01:10 · Score: 2, Interesting

From:
Washington Post
Fox
Huffington Post
USAToday
NYT
MSNBC
NPR
Vox
1. Re:Automatically demotes stories by courteaudotbiz · 2017-02-01 01:40 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  17 reasons why they should demote stories that begin with "17 reasons why they should demote stories that begin with "17 reasons why they should demote stories that begin with "17 reasons why they should demote stories that begin with "17 reasons why they should demote stories that begin with "17 reasons why they should demote stories that begin with..... ^c
  
  Damn. There must be something wrong with my code...
2. Re:Automatically demotes stories by Adriax · 2017-02-01 01:42 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Breitbart articles trigger a warning siren and a mechanical hand pops out of the computer to smack the poster with a rolled up newspaper.
  
  --
  I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
3. Re:Automatically demotes stories by tomhath · 2017-02-01 05:37 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, I skipped lunatic fringe sites. There are too many to list here.
4. Re:Automatically demotes stories by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · 2017-02-01 08:16 · Score: 1
  
  You forgot BuzzFeed.
  
  --
  Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
5. Re:Automatically demotes stories by herbierobinson · 2017-02-03 12:03 · Score: 1
  
  Way to jump right in there Comrade...
  
  --
  An engineer who ran for Congress. http://herbrobinson.us
People who get their news from Facebook by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-01 01:10 · Score: 5, Insightful

Are probably not really that interested in whether the 'news' is real or not.
1. Re:People who get their news from Facebook by Highdude702 · 2017-02-01 01:28 · Score: 1
  
  Wish i had mod points. This deserves +1 Insightful!
2. Re:People who get their news from Facebook by AmiMoJo · 2017-02-01 02:06 · Score: 2
  
  I don't think many people go to Facebook to get news, it just comes down their feed because their friends keep clicking "like" and reposting on it. It's then just a case of being too lazy to go to a reputable site to figure out of it's true or not.
  Don't underestimate the power of this. Even people who think they are immune are influenced by the endless torrent of stories pushing a particular angle, unless they get a regular dose of counter views.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
3. Re:People who get their news from Facebook by tlhIngan · 2017-02-01 06:32 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think many people go to Facebook to get news, it just comes down their feed because their friends keep clicking "like" and reposting on it. It's then just a case of being too lazy to go to a reputable site to figure out of it's true or not.
  Don't underestimate the power of this. Even people who think they are immune are influenced by the endless torrent of stories pushing a particular angle, unless they get a regular dose of counter views.
  You'd be surprised then. True, they don't go to Facebook to look at news specifically, but they get exposed to it and thus believe they've got the news.
  I've known several friends who basically eschewed traditional MSM and get all their world events knowledge through Facebook and Reddit. If it didn't happen there, it didn't happen, period.
Seems likely to fail by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-01 01:13 · Score: 5, Insightful

So it

promotes content "that people consider genuine
Isn't the real problem that people consider anything that matches their confirmation bias to be genuine?
1. Re:Seems likely to fail by The-Ixian · 2017-02-01 02:06 · Score: 1
  
  This is not a bug, it is a feature....
  
  --
  My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
2. Re:Seems likely to fail by Opportunist · 2017-02-01 02:10 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Didn't you get the memo? We're so democratic now that reality has to bend to the wishes of the majority.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
3. Re:Seems likely to fail by Ol+Olsoc · 2017-02-01 02:22 · Score: 1
  
  So it
  
  promotes content "that people consider genuine
  Isn't the real problem that people consider anything that matches their confirmation bias to be genuine?
  This AC needs to be at +5 insightful. In the short time I've been on Facebook, what has happened is the feed has adjusted itself to my friends, relatives and those people who I originally got on Facebook for in some groups that I run.
  So I get both liberal claptrap and conservative bullshit. Especially because I regularly talk to and interact with both sides.
  Now, if a person gets a lot of liberal info that they don't like, they might be associating with people who's political views they aren't in line with.
  And it's not like a person can't block anyone they need to not see.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
4. Re:Seems likely to fail by jedidiah · 2017-02-01 04:48 · Score: 1
  
  That includes that notion that there is even a "majority" that actually thinks the same thing. That proposition has always been a bit bullshit in the US. Both factions are entirely too full of themselves and think they have much wider support than they really do.
  
  --
  A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Requires integrity by LabRatty · 2017-02-01 01:14 · Score: 1

which they don't have, so this is only going to end up with frenzied REEEEEEEEEEEEEEing from one group or another. It is going to be hilarious if you don't give a shit.
Fake MSM News by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-01 01:15 · Score: 1

This will be an excellent way to highlight our masters propaganda efforts. At least you'll know what NOT to believe. Well done facebook!
Click here by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-01 01:19 · Score: 2, Funny

Facebook changed their feed...CLICK HERE to see what happens next! The results may SHOCK you!
Third-party fact checkers scares the... by randomErr · 2017-02-01 01:20 · Score: 5, Informative
Third-party fact checkers scares the hell out of me. Snopes, FactCheck.org, Politifact, ABC News, and AP can be argued not to be impartial and to have a political agenda. If that can be proven out then only one voice will truly be heard on Facebook.
- Snopes ran by Kim Lacapria who self describes herself as 'openly left-leaning and a liberal.'
- FactCheck.org and Politifact - Trump quoted an article about the number of deaths via the poorly ran Vetrans Adminstration. Trump was reported as giving false facts. When the original CNN article came out the article was reported as completely true.
I can point out similar instances with the other sources. I'm not totally against using these sources but I want a balance from the other sources on the other side of the political aisle.
--
You say things that offend me and I can deal with it. Can you?
1. Re:Third-party fact checkers scares the... by Highdude702 · 2017-02-01 01:40 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  The problem is that most of the people that use those services dont really give a fuck about facts. They feel if youre not part of their bubble, you dont matter to them. especially if you disagree.
2. Re: Third-party fact checkers scares the... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-01 01:53 · Score: 1
  
  What keeps these organizations honest is that all they have is their reputation. They check facts as best they can, and if one outlet gets something wrong, another can point that out and further it's own reputation. This is how journalism works to uncover the truth, this is how fact checkers work to uncover the truth. Each may have its own motivations but as a set they keep each other honest.
  In the past and in the present too, people looking to commit atrocities and siese power have needed to silence the truth. Sometimes that means arresting journalists. Sometimes that means drowning out the truth with falsehoods, so many that people cannot tell what is real and what is not. And this newest tactic, attempting to discredit the very idea of truth, this is the most insideous of all.
  Journalism and fact checkers are not the enemy. They're not a homogeneous group. They have a strong moral imperative not to lie. The keep each other honest. If it seems like they're all a bunch of scoundrels, then maybe instead of embracing that thought, take a step back and figure out where it originated, why, and who it really benefits. Because it certainly isn't you, not in the long run.
3. Re:Third-party fact checkers scares the... by rickb928 · 2017-02-01 01:57 · Score: 1
  
  Yes. I'll be praying for you, and not randomly.
  
  --
  deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
4. Re:Third-party fact checkers scares the... by AmiMoJo · 2017-02-01 02:02 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  Snopes, FactCheck.org, Politifact, ABC News, and AP can be argued not to be impartial and to have a political agenda.
  All humans have personal opinions. What Snopes and the other sites do is investigate and publish with a list of their sources and explanation of them. That allows them to be publicly scrutinised and challenged. Fake news avoids such scrutiny, or accuses it of bias and conspiracy.
  
  I'm not totally against using these sources but I want a balance from the other sources on the other side of the political aisle.
  Sorry, there is no "balance" when it comes to facts and the truth. Something is either true or it isn't. Alternate facts are just lies.
  Perhaps you want sites with an open conservative bias to also do fact checking. That's reasonable, but of course they will be open the same scrutiny as anyone else. Can you suggest one with a record as good as AP or Snopes or the BBC?
  Oh, and Kim Lacapria is a woman.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
5. Re:Third-party fact checkers scares the... by PopeRatzo · 2017-02-01 02:14 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Third-party fact checkers scares the hell out of me. Snopes, FactCheck.org, Politifact, ABC News, and AP can be argued not to be impartial and to have a political agenda. If that can be proven out then only one voice will truly be heard on Facebook.
  Snopes ran by Kim Lacapria who self describes herself as 'openly left-leaning and a liberal.'
  FactCheck.org and Politifact - Trump quoted an article about the number of deaths via the poorly ran Vetrans Adminstration. Trump was reported as giving false facts. When the original CNN article came out the article was reported as completely true.
  You know, there's a simpler explanation. Maybe fact-checking is a more "left-leaning and liberal" preoccupation. The same way fake news appears to be favored by the alt-right.
  http://www.npr.org/sections/al...
  
  I'm not totally against using these sources but I want a balance from the other sources on the other side of the political aisle.
  Facts are not "balanced", nor should you expect them to be. The molar mass of nitrogen is 14.0067 g/mol. I don't need to consult someone from the "other side" to tell me that nitrogen doesn't really exist, it's only a liberal conspiracy, or to give me the molar mass in units of fetal souls.
  Fact-checking sources provide citations I can check. Remember what happened when "Conservapedia" came out? It was going to be a "conservative" alternative to Wikipedia. They beshat themselves so badly that the only people who visited that site were those seeking to ridicule it. Remember the president's spokesperson giving us "alternative facts"?
  Remember which power structure is ascendant during this Age of Alt-Facts. Do you believe it is coincidental that it coincides with an effort to make people believe that nothing is true, no information can be trusted?
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
6. Re:Third-party fact checkers scares the... by Ol+Olsoc · 2017-02-01 02:29 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I can point out similar instances with the other sources. I'm not totally against using these sources but I want a balance from the other sources on the other side of the political aisle.
  Here's the interesting thing AFAIAC. People want, people want.
  Don't want - do!
  If you want conservative fact checking and conservative media and conservative teachers in schools - become one. Have so many conservative fact checkers that the liberal ones are just reduced to the noise background, so that their lies are laughable among the truth that the conservatives hand out.
  Because if we allow liberals to run these things, we'll just turn out more liberals that listen to more liberal lies.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
7. Re:Third-party fact checkers scares the... by Maritz · 2017-02-01 02:35 · Score: 1
  
  When you fear independent corroboration of things, it means you're sold on bullshit. Yeeeah I'm sure Snopes is all woolly liberals - unless it agrees with you of course.
  
  --
  I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
8. Re:Third-party fact checkers scares the... by The-Ixian · 2017-02-01 02:36 · Score: 1
  
  I just imagine you kneeling down next to your bed and praying to <god> to bless 0xdeadbeef.
  
  --
  My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
9. Re: Third-party fact checkers scares the... by Gr8Apes · 2017-02-01 02:51 · Score: 1
  
  Journalism and fact checkers are not the enemy.
  Facts are not the enemy. Journalism is largely dead in the mainstream. "Fact checkers" as they're currently self-labelled rarely operate without an agenda.
  I'd rather have a fact checker with an agenda any day over the opinionated loon reporting "alternative facts". At least with a fact checker there will be backing data.
  
  --
  The cesspool just got a check and balance.
10. Re:Third-party fact checkers scares the... by iris-n · 2017-02-01 03:12 · Score: 1
  
  I dream of the day we will have again an honest, reality-based right. Say whatever you want about Thatcher and Reagan, at least they had no fight against established science and peddle "alternative facts".
  
  --
  entropy happens
11. Re:Third-party fact checkers scares the... by PopeRatzo · 2017-02-01 03:31 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  one could easily argue that the Trump photo was taken at a different time
  Yes, you could "easily" argue that, but you would be factually wrong. The photos I saw were taken within 5 minutes of the exact same time on their respective inauguration day.
  
  many people don't know what to believe.
  This is by design. Again, you have to remember which power structure is ascendant in an age when "many people don't know what to believe". It is not a coincidence and it is not accidental.
  
  Right now I'm leaning towards Trump because I've yet to personally meet a violent, irrational Trump supporter,
  https://www.vice.com/en_ca/art...
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
12. Re:Third-party fact checkers scares the... by AmiMoJo · 2017-02-01 04:22 · Score: 1
  
  My bad, he did say "herself". Time for new glasses.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
13. Re:Third-party fact checkers scares the... by serviscope_minor · 2017-02-01 04:27 · Score: 1
  
  Facts are not "balanced", nor should you expect them to be. The molar mass of nitrogen is 14.0067 g/mol. I don't need to consult someone from the "other side" to tell me that nitrogen doesn't really exist
  Bullshit. It's not nitrogen, it's phlogisticated air. Don't believe me? Try burning something in it. It won't burn because the so-called "nitrogen" is already full of phlogiston and can't take up any more.
  And what's that liberal claptrap about it having a positive mass? If you fill a very large, very light balloon with that phlogisticatd air, it will rise, so its mass is clearly negative.
  Any fool can see the truth here. Wake up sheeple and stop taking liberal "facts" from Main Stream Science.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
14. Re: Third-party fact checkers scares the... by rickb928 · 2017-02-01 04:40 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe 02deadbeef20, but that is the fallback...
  
  --
  deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
15. Re:Third-party fact checkers scares the... by jedidiah · 2017-02-01 04:54 · Score: 1
  
  When it comes to things I have personal knowledge of those sites are total bullshit. They distort just as much as any primary propaganda site. They just try to wrap themselves up in this pompous air of self importance.
  They are inferior to something like NPR that will give you enough information to make your own conclusion even if the journalist has his own obvious bias.
  
  --
  A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
16. Re:Third-party fact checkers scares the... by jedidiah · 2017-02-01 04:57 · Score: 1
  
  > one could easily argue that the Trump photo was taken at a different time
  > Yes, you could "easily" argue that, but you would be factually
  > wrong. The photos I saw were taken within 5 minutes of the
  > exact same time on their respective inauguration day.
  Actually no. The "media narrative" photo was taken later. There is even a clock tower in that photo that you can zoom into. That picture has a physical world time stamp.
  This is is why there is a mismatch between "narrative photos" form behind and other photos take from the front.
  
  --
  A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
17. Re:Third-party fact checkers scares the... by jedidiah · 2017-02-01 04:59 · Score: 1
  
  > When you fear independent corroboration of things, it means you're sold on bullshit. Yeeeah I'm sure Snopes is all woolly liberals - unless it agrees with you of course.
  It disagrees with my first hand knowledge of events. That's a problem you can't wriggle out of. It dissembles and dismisses key relevant details to support liberal narratives.
  
  --
  A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
18. Re:Third-party fact checkers scares the... by AthanasiusKircher · 2017-02-01 05:19 · Score: 1
  
  Negative. Alternate facts *are* facts, just from a different lens.
  That is true. It's well-known in political debate for "alternative facts" to play a significant role. Pro-Choice folks might give stats on how many women aren't forced to give birth to unwanted babies, or how many single mothers (and children) aren't forced into a life a poverty to try to struggle to support a kid. Pro-Life folks might give similar stats, except noting the number of "babies who were killed."
  Both of these are arguably "facts" -- they are just told from different perspectives. (Yes, they depend somewhat on the definition of "baby" vs. "fetus" or whatever, but given the common fact that pregnant mothers of whatever political persuasion often refer to their "baby" even when it is only weeks or months after conception, I'm not going to say the Pro-Life statement is using a false definition.)
  Anyhow, yes, it is DEFINITELY possible for two political sides to "talk past each other" in giving factually true statements that simply come from their perspective. Statistics are frequently manipulated for such purposes too -- by telling one part of the stats, you can make it sound like it supports X; by emphasizing a different stat from the same data, it can support Y.
  Both stats may be "facts" in some sort of absolute sense, just working from different assumptions. (In some cases, it's easier to argue that the assumptions from one side are more flawed than the other. In other cases, it's difficult to choose one side that's a more reasonable INTERPRETATION of the facts.)
  
  Just because somebody says something is a fact doesn't make it so, however. It might just be alternate bullshit, but to think that only one set of facts apply to any given argument shows a remarkable lack of maturity of thought.
  Yeah, the problem is that where this ALTERNATIVE FACTS thing came up recently is one of those cases. One could imagine a debate of "alternative facts" emerging:
  Person A: "The crowd size that attended Trump's inauguration was smaller than Obama's."
  Person B: "The number of people who watched Trump's inauguration worldwide was the largest ever."
  Based on photographic evidence and other metrics (e.g., public transport usage), person A's statement appears to be true. From what I've seen of sources trying to sort out person B's statement, it COULD be true, because of the amount of people watching via TV, internet streaming on various devices, etc. -- it's difficult to tell, but B might in fact be true.
  If we just grant, for a moment, that B is true, then we have two "alternative facts" that are different metrics for the popularity of this event. Of course, there may be reasons why the facts are biased too by things other than the assumed "popularity" -- for example, streaming devices have become much more available and people use them much more than a few years ago. Perhaps it was just more convenient for people worldwide to watch it. Or maybe the fact that it was predicted to be a rainy day caused crowdsize to be smaller. There are all sorts of other factors that could be at play.
  HOWEVER, this is NOT the debate that Sean Spicer got into and which was later labeled an "alternative fact." What he said was:
  
  We do know a few things, so let's go through the facts. [...] This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration -- period -- both in person and around the globe.
  Thus, Spicer's statement implies that A is false and B is true. But A is demonstrably true. And this is the statement that Conway was attempting to defend as "alternative facts." That's NOT an alternative fact -- that's at minimum a factual error, and perhaps (depending on what you believe about the administration's motivation here) a deliberate lie.
19. Re:Third-party fact checkers scares the... by dgatwood · 2017-02-01 05:50 · Score: 1
  ... despite claims of the contrary, there is no such thing as "alternative facts" ...
  That's not actually true. To understand why, you have to look at the parable of the three blind men and the elephant.
  Three blind men enter a room and are asked to tell what the object in the room is. One man walks up to a leg and says that the object is a tall, leathery post. The second man walks up to the tusk and says that the object is a hard rocklike statue. The third man walks up to the talk and says that the object is soft, thin, and hairy. Which of those blind men was lying?
  The reality of the matter is that all news inherently has some bias. They present the subset of facts that they feel are the most important, and by doing so, must leave out other facts. Most of the time, this filtering does not affect the accuracy of the story. However, if folks aren't careful, they can end up reporting only the subset of facts that support a particular viewpoint. If that happens, then and only then can there be alternate facts that should reasonably change our perception of truth.
  With that said, at a fundamental level, facts are either objectively true or they aren't. So if one side says that something happened and the other side says that it didn't, evidence will prove one side or the other to be correct. These truths are irrefutable; only the interpretation of what those facts mean is arguable—their relevance, for example. If an apparent fact appears to contradict another apparent fact in a way that cannot readily be explained away by some set of odd circumstances in which both facts are true at the same time, then one of them must be a lie.
  To give two concrete examples:
  
  Trump's claim that more people attended his inauguration than Obama's is provably false. You can look at photos taken as the inauguration began and see how many people were there at that moment. He claims that A > B, and the photo shows that A < B, so clearly those "alternate facts" are, in fact, lies.
  Trump's claims that he never said various things are a different story, because to at least some degree, the argument is over how to interpret specific statements. In those situations, alternate facts can exist that support various interpretations of his statements, but only to the extent that we're arguing over whether he conveyed a particular message. If we're arguing over whether he said specific words in a specific order, we're back to facts that are either true or false, and cannot simultaneously be both.
  The biggest problem with the world today is that so many people don't understand the difference between those two examples above. They don't understand the difference between facts that are inherently contradictory (A && !A) and facts that are only apparently contradictory (A && !B, where A and B seem to be measuring the same thing at first glance). And unless we teach our kids critical thinking skills, this is only going to get worse. Unfortunately, our public education system has taught kids to mindlessly regurgitate facts instead of teaching them to think and reason for themselves and shows few signs of improvement in this area, so I won't hold my breath. *sigh*
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
20. Re:Third-party fact checkers scares the... by Solandri · 2017-02-01 05:52 · Score: 2
  
  You know, there's a simpler explanation. Maybe fact-checking is a more "left-leaning and liberal" preoccupation.
  
  That's mostly irrelevant. It still means that "fake news" which conforms to left-leaning biases is more likely to slip through the fact-checking.
  
  e.g. Every major media outlet calling it Trump's ban on Muslim immigrants, when it's actually a 120 day freeze (not that I agree with with it). By their definition, Obama banned pay raises for government workers (2 years > 120 days). Or how they unilaterally decided to call them "undocumented" immigrants instead of illegal immigrants, much to the confusion of the public (ask most people what Trump's view of legal Mexican immigrants is, and they'll quote you things he said about illegal Mexican immigrants - because the media deliberately failed at their job to inform the public in order to advocate their own political biases).
  
  There's a saying that was popular when I was growing up: "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Sadly, that no longer seems to be the case. The new version seems to be "I disagree with what you say, and I will do everything in my power to impede your ability to say it." When you take up the mantra of fact-checking, you are by definition agreeing to cast as critical an eye on stuff you agree with as that you disagree with. I've seen them fail at that numerous times. In one discussion with the folks who run Snopes, they told me you could refuse to hire followers of Al Qaeda because they consider women to be chattel thus violating the EEOC prohibitions against discrimination "on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex." I had to point out to them that, as they had just written, that would violate the EEOC's prohibition against discrimination on the basis of religion. If you're not gonna hire an Al Qaeda follower, it should be because they murder people, not because you disagree with their religious beliefs.
21. Re:Third-party fact checkers scares the... by PopeRatzo · 2017-02-01 08:01 · Score: 1
  
  Turns out it's journalists who hold said bias
  Having a bias is not the same thing as presenting "alt-facts" (aka "lies").
  I expect journalists to have bias. Journalists have always had bias, because people have bias. That's why it's important to have multiple sources for news, and why fact-checkers are important.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
22. Re:Third-party fact checkers scares the... by PopeRatzo · 2017-02-01 08:03 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Actually no. The "media narrative" photo was taken later. There is even a clock tower in that photo that you can zoom into. That picture has a physical world time stamp.
  The two most famous of these side-by-side pictures show times of 11:19am and 11:22am.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
23. Re:Third-party fact checkers scares the... by PopeRatzo · 2017-02-01 08:07 · Score: 1
  
  That's mostly irrelevant. It still means that "fake news" which conforms to left-leaning biases is more likely to slip through the fact-checking.
  
  No, because well-known fact-checkers can still be relied upon to call out fake news no matter the bias.
  http://www.snopes.com/trump-cr...
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
24. Re:Third-party fact checkers scares the... by coinreturn · 2017-02-01 08:29 · Score: 2
  
  Actually no. The "media narrative" photo was taken later. There is even a clock tower in that photo that you can zoom into. That picture has a physical world time stamp.
  The two most famous of these side-by-side pictures show times of 11:19am and 11:22am.
  Stop using facts. It isn't fair.
25. Re:Third-party fact checkers scares the... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-01 08:41 · Score: 1
  
  I'll admit the possibility that the crowds were smaller if you admit the possibility that time stamps can be faked.
  Not PopeRatzo, but nope. Either you can recognize Trump's bloviation from his own insecurities, leading him to have to hyperbolically claim triumphs even in the face of failures, or you leave yourself unable to actually recognize the pompous windbag for who he is.
  See, the thing is, you're asking us to believe that not only did almost everybody fake a bunch of pictures to lie about Trump's crowd sizes, when he had an easy out of blaming the weather, you're asking us to believe that nobody took any contradictory pictures.
  Yeah, I'll go with Trump following his characteristic pattern, exaggerate, then when called on it, throw a tantrum. He's been doing that since the 1980s.
  
  Agreed, it is not accidental. Is it the dying throws of a corrupt disease in the process of being purged or is it the overthrow of an generally good government?
  Or is it the perversion of the truth through a sudden infection, or is it a deliberate poisoning by those who know a cure is worse for them?
  
  I said the word PERSONALLY for a reason
  By asserting that you "personally" have to encounter somebody, that means you are presenting yourself as important, when you're not.
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbnRnhrNFEY
  https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2016/sep/22/no-racism-until-obama-says-an-ohio-trump-campaign-chair-video
26. Re:Third-party fact checkers scares the... by PopeRatzo · 2017-02-01 11:24 · Score: 1
  
  Here's the photo shown everywhere: https://www.icetrend.com/wp-co...
  
  I think it's instructive in a discussion of "fake news" that you had to go to "www.icetrend.com" to find a copy of the photos that were literally everywhere in the media.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
27. Re:Third-party fact checkers scares the... by Ol+Olsoc · 2017-02-02 03:20 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, but fact checking is hard work. If you're going to do it, do it right.
  You'll know when you are doing it right - because when you do, both sides will accuse you of being the other side.
  The concept of fact checking will always have accusations thrown at it. Let's say I was a flaming liberal, saying some ridiculous Pro Hillary Clinton things, and a fact checker showed that as usual, I was a lying liberal. What would be my defense? Attack the fact checker. Call them a tool of the RNC, or something like that.
  And it is true - most fact checkers tend toward the liberal side of the fence. So what do you want to do about that?
  But I've been around long enough to know with nearly 100 percent certainty that facts are remarkably flexible things in the world outside of science, because so many people are not interested in hearing truth, they are interested in hearing what they believe. So what they want to believe becomes the fact. And a fact checker that reports something not in accordance with their sphere of belief becomes a liar of whatever political stripe that they need to demonize. This is whether well documented and credible "facts" are involved or not.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
28. Re:Third-party fact checkers scares the... by PopeRatzo · 2017-02-02 17:17 · Score: 1
  
  Who is pushing for "fact checking"? The government, left-leaning media corporations and political foundations.
  You just made my point: Fact-checking is a preoccupation of the Left and fake news is a right-wing phenomenon.
  That's why in an age of fake news we have fascists ascendant. Fascism can only spread when people are convinced that nothing is true.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
Wait... what? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-01 01:25 · Score: 2, Insightful

How do they decide "what isn't fake"?
"ranking algorithm [...] that detects [...] 'that people consider genuine [...]'"
Ah, OK. Mob expertise. But that's a game Slashdot & Reddit have learnt to play *much* better.
Somehow they want the advantages of traditional media (control, reputation, gated communities, branding) without paying the price (a small army of professionals). Typical parasitic behavior. I sincerely hope they shrivel up and die, victims of some self-defense mechanism society at large invents. I truly hope... for the benefit of society at large.
Don't get your news from fb by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-01 01:26 · Score: 2, Interesting

Simple solution is to read multiple news sources. Anyone who uses only one source be it FB or the NYT will have a skewed perspective and miss things.
What about the rest of the BS? by ausekilis · 2017-02-01 01:34 · Score: 3, Interesting

I've had to report and ignore more than one idiot still on their soapbox about vaccinations causing autism.

5 minutes with Google will pull up that mercury was used as a preservative, had some correlation to autism, and hasn't been used since the Gov banned it in the 70's or 80's. And those research papers everyone pulls up? They all reference 1 paper, done in the 60's.

I can't wait for the braindead, unwashed masses to actually have a few braincells capable of independent thought. Since these same idiots believe everything they read on the internet (primarily Facebook), changes like this may actually help.
1. Re:What about the rest of the BS? by budgenator · 2017-02-01 02:09 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  It's not that hard;
  No publication date -1,
  No Author -2,
  No links to supporting articles -2,
  verbatim copying of other site without quote, or a blockquote -2,
  tries to get your Email address -3,
  tries to get you to like page with a popup -3,
  tries to get you to like page with a popunder -4,
  dingus.tv or dear hughesnet subscriber popunder -5,
  autoplay video -6,
  any adds about herbal viagra, why a celeb doesn't talk about an offspring, or pictures being banned or embarassing -5,
  
  --
  Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
2. Re:What about the rest of the BS? by The-Ixian · 2017-02-01 02:28 · Score: 1
  
  I am just waiting for the day that we discover that vaccinations do actually cause autism but not for the reasons anybody knew about. Not that I think it will happen, but it could, you never know.
  Everyone in their camp. Vaxxers vs. Anti-Vaxxers, Trump vs. Anti-Trump, Global Warming vs. Anti-Global Warming. Each side so vocal and so adamant that the other side conform to their views. Each side digging in the more they come under assault. Doubling down on their beliefs. The critical voices actually confirming their positions.
  Nevermind that one side might have more truthiness in their argument. No side has the full truth. It's always spun and mixed with insults and rhetoric in order to make the attack against the other side more profound. The "sane" voices come off as patronizing, pandering or are just lost in the noise.
  It's the play of human nature unfolding and accelerated by the global communications medium. Tiny tribe mentalities built up into world-wide juggernauts. It's pretty fascinating to sit back and watch.
  
  --
  My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
3. Re:What about the rest of the BS? by Ol+Olsoc · 2017-02-01 02:49 · Score: 1
  
  I can't wait for the braindead, unwashed masses to actually have a few braincells capable of independent thought. Since these same idiots believe everything they read on the internet (primarily Facebook), changes like this may actually help.
  Intelligence is not required for reproduction. In fact, the stupid people are winning.
  Some people think that the movie Idiocracy is predictive of the future. I think Mike Judge was on the right path, but he's way too optimistic.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
4. Re:What about the rest of the BS? by blivit42 · 2017-02-07 09:11 · Score: 1
  
  I thought it was related more to the 1998 Lancet paper that really kicked off the anti-vaccination movement. That paper has since been thoroughly debunked, and retracted due to fraud and ethics violations. A good synopsis of the affair can be found here:
  
  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
I saw an algo change TWO DAYS AGO. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-01 01:38 · Score: 1

The posts force-fed to the top were from people that I don't talk to or care about, they were all politically motivated, and they ironically were mostly "reposts" or "retweets" from other nobodies. Things not politically motivated disappeared.
My guess is they made what they were doing too obvious and need to make some "tweaks." You can see the same thing go on with the "trending" section that also pushes someone's political agenda and irrelevant drivel. e.g. "Cardassians ATTACKED! (1k views)" - there are ALWAYS 1k+ talking about the Cardassians being attacked, so the entire thing is a GIMMICK.
But I wasn't born with an iPhone in my hand, so what do I know.
1. Re:I saw an algo change TWO DAYS AGO. by rickb928 · 2017-02-01 01:54 · Score: 1
  
  It's not like Star Trek: The Next Generation is 'fake news'. C'mon, man.
  
  --
  deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
2. Re:I saw an algo change TWO DAYS AGO. by Maritz · 2017-02-01 02:30 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  e.g. "Cardassians ATTACKED! (1k views)" - there are ALWAYS 1k+ talking about the Cardassians being attacked, so the entire thing is a GIMMICK.
  I kind of lost track of what the Cardassians were up to after all that Dominon shit they got mixed up in. Have they still got beef with the Federation?
  Incidentally, you think it's more likely that you didn't 'notice' an algo change. But hey, maybe you did, maybe you can just sniff the bits.
  
  --
  I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Re:"get their posts hidden often" by Highdude702 · 2017-02-01 01:43 · Score: 4, Interesting

When i read that i thought the exact same thing. So some easily offended people dont like seeing posts about certain things and "hide" them, now they get used as examples of fake news? what if it says "Donald Trump Is the 45th President of the United States of America" and liberals dont like that fact so 1 million of them hide that post. Is it now considered fake news? even know its a 100% true statment? Because from the summary thats exactly how it sounds like its going to work.
Re: So who decides somthing is "authentic"? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-01 01:44 · Score: 1

An algorithm, trained on sensationalist and false reporting. It's right in the summary.
So who decides what's "sensationalist" or "false"?
SSDD
I give this at most a week by alvinrod · 2017-02-01 01:44 · Score: 3, Insightful

I give this at most a week before something obviously fake gets promoted or the spammers figure out how to get around the algorithm and Facebook has to apologize again and looks completely inept.
1. Re:I give this at most a week by The-Ixian · 2017-02-01 02:33 · Score: 1
  
  I am sure that people will come up with circumvention techniques but FB is not exactly going to be sitting idle either. It's a cat-and-mouse game like everything else.
  If you are saying that it only lasts for a week in it's current form as implemented today, I might agree with you.
  If you are saying that they scrap the whole thing at the first sign of trouble... I disagree.
  
  --
  My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
2. Re:I give this at most a week by alvinrod · 2017-02-01 03:54 · Score: 1
  
  They won't scrap it, because replacing the algorithm with human bodies to do it is far more expensive. However, it's a defensive game from Facebook's perspective. It doesn't matter if they're right 99 times out of 100, it's when they get it wrong and part of their user base throws a giant tantrum and puts their giant persecution complex on display that Facebook will have to apologize and take their lumps in order to appease everyone. Hell, I think this has already happened a few times with their existing algorithms promoting something that was completely off the reservation.
Re:Wait... what? by Highdude702 · 2017-02-01 01:45 · Score: 1

Facebook fucked up an entire generation of people. Making them dumber by the day. About 3 years ago my fiance and I gave up Facebook because of the bullshit drama it caused. We have been a lot happier since that day.
Facebook Changes Feed by cc1984_ · 2017-02-01 01:46 · Score: 3, Funny

And you won't guess what happened next!
Re: So who decides somthing is "authentic"? by rickb928 · 2017-02-01 01:56 · Score: 2

"So who decides what's "sensationalist" or "false"?"
The herd decides. Or rather, they decided. Hehe.

--
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Re:"get their posts hidden often" by rickb928 · 2017-02-01 01:58 · Score: 1

That's not news.

--
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Prioritize advertisers by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-01 01:59 · Score: 2, Interesting

They will prioritize their advertisers, while links to competitors will be down graded.
Links to HuffPo, CNN and WaPo will get priority while Fox, Breitbart and Drudge will get marked down.
If you can't shift the perspective, what is the point of being a billionaire, except to own a Hawaiian Island?
1. Re:Prioritize advertisers by Notabadguy · 2017-02-01 03:08 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Jesus - I just paid a visit to CNN, and their front page "news" article about Trump nominating a Supreme Court justice was full of shit like this:
  "It was a sweet moment of vindication for the Republican Party -- especially its social conservative and evangelical wings who had defied expectations that they would desert Trump over his three marriages and often vulgar tone.
  Whatever he said, and whatever he did, conservatives clung on to the tiger's tail, convinced Trump would deliver them a Supreme Court pick they could get behind. Looking on were Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan, savoring their reward."
  "But the President is also known to place great value in someone's appearance and might have concluded that Gorsuch, tall, fit with a square jaw and immaculately cropped gray hair looks the part of a Supreme Court Justice."
  That's why I consider CNN to be as fake news-y as anyone else. I want to read fucking NEWS. I don't want interpretations of what the people might have been thinking, or derogatory assumptions, or portrayals of any sort. I just want news.
Re:"get their posts hidden often" by originalmouse · 2017-02-01 02:07 · Score: 1

summary != exact
Not fake, sensationalist or spammy? by Opportunist · 2017-02-01 02:07 · Score: 1

Guess Fakebook will no longer be celebrities' love child, then?

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:"get their posts hidden often" by Maritz · 2017-02-01 02:38 · Score: 1

You actually think that's how it works? LOL.

--
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Re:Seen on facebook: "TIME TO INVEST IN" by Maritz · 2017-02-01 02:42 · Score: 1

Go get your coat.

--
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Re:So who decides somthing is "authentic"? by hey! · 2017-02-01 02:46 · Score: 1

Well whoever decides what is "authentic" or not, hopefully it would be someone who'd take the time to read the summary before agreeing or disagreeing with it.

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
It works, indeed! by ctrl-alt-canc · 2017-02-01 02:57 · Score: 1

My feed today is completely empty...
Well .... by nospam007 · 2017-02-01 03:01 · Score: 1

"Facebook Changes Feed To Promote Posts That Aren't Fake, Sensational, Or Spam"
I noticed, they chose 'Stupid' instead.
Perhaps a silly question. . . by Salgak1 · 2017-02-01 03:35 · Score: 2

. . .but why not let the USERS decide what they see and don't see ?
Ooops, I forgot, on Facebook, the "users" are the PRODUCT. . . . because (insert the deity or deities of your parents' choice here) forbid we don't deliver vaguely-targeted irritating advertising with a patina of user sharing to make it look like "social media". . .
Show us the algorithm by RogueWarrior65 · 2017-02-01 03:36 · Score: 1

Based on the description alone, it would seem that the only way to detect this is by majority vote. Things could get past the filter and still be wrong or misleading if enough people were misled.
1. Re:Show us the algorithm by fish_in_the_c · 2017-02-01 04:35 · Score: 1
  
  that sounds correct. I remember a case where a Microsoft AI experimenter was made to scan the internet and use frequency and then later discussions with human beings to determine 'truthfulness'. It was shut down for the 'opinions' is stated expressing about race, women etc.
  That might have been because the users thought it was fun to mess with it.
  
  --
  âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
It's confusing because we're framing this wrongly. by hey! · 2017-02-01 03:58 · Score: 1

It's not a matter of protecting people from exposure to falsehood: that's a fool's errand. The real problems are intellectual laziness, parochialism, and moral cowardice. It's views becoming widespread because they've been seriously challenged, and then intractable because they're what "everyone" believes, and most people are conformists.
You should focus on the achievable, which is achieving the maximum justifiable certainty.
The very notion of "balance" is broken; it is profoundly wrong-headed. You can't just present an unsubstantiated or even demonstrably false opinion on an equal footing with a well-substantiated one and invite people to choose which they like best. It is evidence that must be treated equally.
So the question with a fact checker like Snopes or Politifact isn't whether they're an infallible oracle -- they're not. The issue is whether they show their evidence so you can judge for yourself. The importance of their final rating on any matter is actually much less important.

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Hmmmm by JWW · 2017-02-01 04:08 · Score: 2

Arbiters of what is real or what is fake?!!
And the only "problem" anyone sees in this is that they might not find all the "real" fake stuff.
The real problem is we've given control of information and news to people who cannot be unbiased because no human can.
You will see what they let you see. What they let you see will be "correct".
The terrifying thing is not that "there's incorrect stuff on Facebook!!!" The terrifying thing is "Facebook" is actively monitoring and controlling what you see in an effort to get you to believe the "correct" things.... (note any interpretation of correct, that is not one you make yourself, is coercion, manipulation, and propaganda by definition).
The commitment to "cleanse" fake news from the world is one of the most totalitarian efforts I've seen undertaken on a mass scale in my entire life...
So that is the reason? by codeButcher · 2017-02-01 04:17 · Score: 1

Is that why I haven't seen a single post about Trump all day?

--
Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
In other news by JustAnotherOldGuy · 2017-02-01 04:34 · Score: 1

"Facebook Changes Feed To Promote Posts That Aren't Fake, Sensational, Or Spam"
In other news, "Facebook Feeds Dropped By 99.7%"

--
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Steem by BeerMilkshake · 2017-02-01 05:09 · Score: 2

Recommend taking a look at steem.io and steemit.com. Steem offers financial reward for writing, curating, mining and other positive activities. FB has zero cost to post and very little incentive for liking or disliking, so c**p has no resistance to propagation.
How is "The Onion" categorized? by ripvlan · 2017-02-01 06:32 · Score: 2

It'll be interesting to see how this works - what is the definition of "fake" news. Will CNN drop from view? What about The Onion? (which is the definition of Fake news - although considered highbrow satire). Posts about SNL mocking Trump?
Will this stop the those who embrace alternate facts? Or fuel the conspiracy that liberal media is controlling the story? Look at FB who is now "blocking" access to the stories that people want to read - and the reason will be defined as attempting to hide the real story!!! Or hiding the stories that the media doesn't want you to read. The "Go do your own research!" movement will not die on the vine because their favorite stories are harder to find on FB. I predict that people will move to alternate sites to get their fix.
Times - they are a changing.
"that people consider" by bobmajdakjr · 2017-02-01 06:58 · Score: 1

and that is why it will fail. people are fkn stupid.
"Authentic" by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · 2017-02-01 08:11 · Score: 1

So... they're getting rid of BuzzFeed and ~80% of Salon then?

--
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.