Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Shows Related Articles and Fact Checkers Before You Open Links (techcrunch.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechCrunch: Facebook wants you to think about whether a headline is true and see other perspectives on the topic before you even read the article. In its next step against fake news, Facebook today begins testing a different version of its Related Articles widget that normally appears when you return to the News Feed after opening a link. Now Facebook will also show Related Articles including third-party fact checkers before you read an article about a topic that many people are discussing. If you saw a link saying "Chocolate cures cancer!" from a little-known blog, the Related Article box might appear before you click to show links from the New York Times or a medical journal noting that while chocolate has antioxidants that can lower your risk for cancer, it's not a cure. If an outside fact checker like Snopes had debunked the original post, that could appear in Related Articles too. Facebook says this is just a test, so it won't necessarily roll out to everyone unless it proves useful. It notes that Facebook Pages should not see a significant change in the reach of their News Feed posts. There will be no ads surfaced in Related Articles.
she said so
Also eagerly supported by the WaPo, WSJ and other verified news sources.
Coincidence, or is somebody pushing an agenda?
KotakuInAction savages everybody's bullshit and gained most of its users after exposing a huge fake news scandal. For $ome rea$on these fake "fake news" stories never mention it.
I'm betting news articles for certain viewpoints will contain "helpful" alternative viewpoint links, while articles with favored viewpoints won't have any links to "other perspectives on the topic". Yep, no way this can't be abused.
These aren't so called citizen journalists. You are making up an alternative meaning for the phrase fake news. In reality this phrase refers to collections of websites constructed for the purpose of attracting links with inflammatory headlines, regardless of the veracity of the headline or story content. Most are run out of southeastern Europe, primarily the Balkans, due to the poor economies but availability of some for of communication network with Internet access. It is the easiest way to make money there. Efforts to identify and remove fake news have no political intent but a business motive in ensuring the utility of the Facebook network for its users.
You're over generalizing. I run a decently successful conservative Facebook page and I am a resident of the Silicon Valley.
The only thing Wikileaks has really proved lately is that Julian Assange is a fascist. (Check his Twitter.)
You are making up an alternative meaning for the phrase fake news.
Nah. It's well understood at this point to mean, "People using widely consumed platforms to spread information they know is incorrect, and doing so while presenting those lies as facts." So, when someone on CNN says there is a "Muslim ban," they know they're lying and that they're producing and spreading fake news. You know they are, their informed audience knows it's fake, and some small number of non-critical-thinking dolts take it as fact. But it's fake news. Click-bait factories in Eastern Europe are NOT the only or even a predominant source of this. Most of it comes right out of mainstream media habitats right in the US.
It is the easiest way to make money there.
It's true. When an operation like MSNBC spends an entire news cycle hyping the fact that their head fake-news-talking-head is going to "release Trump's taxes," when they know perfectly well they have no such thing and will do no such thing (except a readily available snipped that - even by itself - undermines their own narrative) ... when that happens, and they get a big ratings boost from that lie, yeah - easy money if they don't care about the fact they have to lie to do it.
Efforts to identify and remove fake news have no political intent
Hilarious.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
You should try reading for context and actual meaning rather than snipping quotes such that you can wildly misinterpret them.
Oh please, no one really gives a shit about sites like realcnn.ru or honesttruenewsreutersnoseriouslythisisgoodjournalism.kz; certainly not enough to justify the sudden immense effort to combat them. As Wapo overzealously laid bare in the early days of the faux outrage, the end goal is to create a vague, amorphous category that they can easily lump "bad" news outlets into in order to censor them. Breitbart runs a story you don't like? Get your Trusted Non-Partisan Fact Checkers to call them liars based on an irrelevant detail or alternative interpretation, get facebook and google to give them the scarlet "F" of #FakeNews, and any guilt liberals might experience over ignoring conflicting viewpoints magically vanishes. Concurrently wage a twitter war against their advertisers and hopefully in 5 years they're out of business completely.
It's either that, or Hillary Clinton woke up on November 9th and suddenly noticed for the first time in her fucking life that people sometimes lie on the internet and decided to add that to her list of excuses for blowing it.
Trump made up the fake news narrative. Granted Fox news was doing it and he saw that he could use it to his advantage in the presidential race and everyone in the US that has a college education knows how full of shit he is. Meanwhile the Walmart rednecks are cheering going "That there is going to make American a great island agaeein !!" despite the fact that he cheated on his taxes, Colluded with the Russians to discredit Hillary and has had his hands in several shady business dealings and has forced himself on many women and not been properly called out on it publicly.
I think that the US is in for a rude awakening if they think that this is the way to run a country. We are pretty screwed until we get a legitimate president and a legitimately elected Senate and Congress (without jerrymandered districts) and the supreme court is appointed by the president in office at the time of the vacancy coming about rather than congress delaying so they get their guy in if and only if someone from there party gets the election. (the right pulled that one out of their ass and it was not constitutional.)
you mean...he is spreading fake news.....
I'll do my OWN fact checking thank you very much.
I don't need some partisan jackass deigning to shovel their "right-think" at me.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
also known as "Alternative Links"
The "related articles widget" amounts to little more than clutter. This is part of facebook's "chaining" mechanism, devised to increase "engagement" (at the cost of hijacking the user's media consumption flow and shortening their attention span).
The same goes for the associated "featured for you" widget, along with "people also shared" and "popular from ", and all other related garbage.
I threw together a modded version of the Facebook app, which tries to get rid of as much of this garbage as possible. This is obviously a self-signed APK, but all the patching was done in place. You are welcome to decompile it, diff it against stock, and see that all the code modifications are basically single-instruction patches (with virtually no room to include malware).
XDA link: https://forum.xda-developers.c...
"total and complete shutdown of muslims entering the united states".
Trump supporters ate that shit up and loved it. You can say it's not a muslim ban all you want, watch them flail around to make technical changes to try and make it legal, but that genie is not going back into the bottle.
"Fake News" just means it doesn't fit "my narrative" whether it is true or not.
Now bias journalism gets checker by bias fact checkers. We'll need fact checkers to fact check the fact checkers and fact checkers to fact check those fact checkers and round and round it goes.
Shouldn't people vote with their wallets against corporations acting against their personal interests? Consumer relations is important.
Alex Jones is the real deal. Do not believe the fake news coming out of his own testimony.
Perception is reality.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-g...
You are welcome on my lawn.
So you are unable to actually understand that a temporary immigration halt that impacts under 10% of Muslims in the world (only a tiny, tiny fraction of which would be looking to immigrate anyway) is ... something that it's not? Please explain how the current Muslim ban works. Details, please.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Threatening advertisers isn't 'voting with your wallet'.
I'll do my OWN fact checking thank you very much.
I don't need some partisan jackass deigning to shovel their "right-think" at me.
Donald Trump winning the election surprised me, not on election day, I knew the polls were close enough, but I expected him to implode fairly early on.
I note that because I don't get surprised a lot when it comes to politics.
I wasn't surprised when the ACA didn't destroy the healthcare system and result in some sort of NAZI or Socialist dystopia. Nor was I surprised when the proposed GOP alternative failed spectacularly because they'd been making contradictory promised for years.
I wasn't surprised when Obama's birth certificate was legit, or the ground zero mosque didn't turn into some terrorist plot, or the US military didn't invade Texas, 9/11 wasn't shown to be an inside job, or dozens of right wing personalities weren't murdered or imprisoned, or half a dozen other bone-headed "controversies" that didn't pan out.
That doesn't mean I know what's going to happen, it just means that I can differentiate between the real areas of uncertainty and groundless conspiracy theories.
That what I get with the "fact checker" world view, it's not 100% accuracy, it's the ability to avoid big surprises, and if you're reading sources that contradict these fact checkers I think you'd spend a lot of your life being shocked how none of their stories ever seem to pan out.
I stole this Sig
I'm not the original AC, but there is no need to demonstrate that the "Muslim ban" is effective. If can be called "Muslim ban", since Trump campaign promised they will ban Muslims from entering USA. Since that was illegal, they tried to coat it by banning entrance form specific countries, which just happened to be predominantly Muslim. Personally, I believe that using term “Obamacare” to mean ACA is more inappropriate, since the Obama administration didn't call it that way, but Trump and co. did talk about banning Muslims, so why not call it that way?
> you mean...he is spreading fake news.....
Its virulent ignorance and scentcone is a typhoid mary.
The "fact checkers" are just narrative checkers that rubberstamp their own articles while questioning anything not fitting their narrative.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Just leave the platform and find your own news sources, no matter how bad they look graphically. Trust me the good ones get talked about.
Because, because...
Eeeek! look over there a liberal!
"Trump beats the crap out of old man in streets of China!"
*crickets*
"Trump pets dog" /r/marchagainsttrump
FACTCHECK: Trump is allergic to dogs according to
FACTCHECK: Things Trump has in common with Hitler
ALTERNATE: Trump declares war on cats, and by extension, the internet
collections of websites constructed for the purpose of attracting links with inflammatory headlines, regardless of the veracity of the headline or story content
I didn't know The Guardian, The Washington Post and the Huffington Post were run out of SE Europe. You learn something new every day ...
Obama himself said he was fine with calling it Obamacare and said he was proud of it, and happy to have people using that name for it. That was of course before it became quite as obvious to the willfully ignorant that he had and Pelosi and Reid had been deliberately and continually lying about the nature and consequences of the law.
That's what all you Serbians say.
This is pretty reminiscent of Microsoft's Windows UAC constantly prompting the user as a "security" measure. Facebook... learn a lesson from Microsoft... It doesn't work. All you are going to teach them is to click "Allow" without paying attention.
It seems pretty clear to me at this point that those with a right/conservative perspective generally consider "fact-checkers" like Politifact to be leftist partisans, while those with a left/liberal perspective overwhelmingly consider them objective and unbiased.
If only there were some way to tell who was right.
I just want Facebook to show me stuff, not tell me what they think is true.
I already fight the FB Android app:
- Most Recent is always, ALWAYS populated with hundreds of items, despite my reading every damned one of them 2 hours ago.
- I can Like item after item, and 15 minutes later scroll back through the list and MOST are actually NOT marked 'Like' by me. Huh?
- I can read Most Recent and refresh, and the order changes. Every damned time.
- I can delete all the app data, reinstall, and get the same crap. Hundreds of items unread, when I did in fact read them.
- Recommended For Me includes crap I've been rejecting for a few years now.
The Facebook Android app royally stinks. Facebook has been manipulating my feed for years. I should trust them to fact-check? No, on several counts. Never.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Which part? Referencing Wolf Blitzer referring to a non-existent "Muslim ban?" Or MSNBC spending a day lying about how Rachel Maddow was going to "release Trump's taxes?" Typical liberal, you, carefully avoiding the topic and going for lazy ad hominem instead. Because you sure wouldn't want to address the points being made - that would require you to acknowledge that they refer to actual things that make your preferred narrative less truthy-feeling. Can't have that. No! I love how in a discussion about fake news, you're asserting that the person relaying simple (and verifiable by you) facts is virulently ignorant. Thanks for proving my point. Good to have your help.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
This is simply another fail policy; fact checking of late has be shown to to be biased.
Goodbye free speech.
While I am mostly in favor of this (and something like it is really needed) I can see some major issues arising.
Consider Big Pharma pushing their agenda against non-pharmaceutical medicines that do work. These are few and far between (most alternative medicines are useless, but some are not, and at least one is massively life-saving). The one I refer to that saved my life happens to be under concerted, organized attack by big pharma: namely Rick Simpson cannabis Oil. As a stage IV colon-cancer survivor who was supposed to be dead this time last year (it had spread to my liver and riddled my lungs, and chemo, radiation, surgeries, etc. failed completely) and am now in complete remission thanks to RSO, I have an interest, and obligation, to get the word out about this. Several of my oncologist's patients have cured themselves with RSO when they were given no chance to survive (I won't be considered cured until I'm 5 years cancer free, but full remission will do for now). If big pharma can erect a wall around this information via this FB anti-fake-news feature, many people will die.
Their argument in a nutshell is to say "show us peer reviewed studies", of which there are very few (a small one from the 1970s that indicates a curative effect of cannabis in general, but pre-dates Rick Simpson Oil, and was suppressed for decades, a couple in Israel, none in the US since the FDA actively disallows any such studies for political and/or corporate reasons). Big Pharma isn't going to give up a multi-trillion dollar chemo industry in favor of a natural product the cannot patent, regardless of how many die to line their pockets, and their influence on the FDA is immense.
So it goes pretty much like this:
1) Doctors: "We have a mountain of anecdotal evidence indicating high-THC cannabis oil cures many forms of cancer, including hundreds if not thousands of people who have survived late stage cancer when using RSO, vs. those who do not. We'd like to conduct a double-blind study to verify and quantify this."
2) FDA: "It's a class I drug with no medical value. Permission denied."
3) Doctors: "We know cannabis has medicinal value. It's already been proven to help people with seizures, with side-effects from chemo, etc. Reschedule it to at least level II so we can conduct broader studies."
4) FDA: "No"
5) Doctors (to friends, off the record to patients since they're contractually bound to never mention anything other than chemo, radiation, surgery, or FDA approved studies to their patients, on pain of dismissal or worse): "You should check out cannabis oil. We are seeing some curative value in it, but aren't allowed to talk about it."
6) Patients (After 3-5 months for those of us who take the very scary step of trying something unproven, very psychoactive, over an extended period of time, with no guarantees of success and the grim reaper breathing down their neck): "The CT scan said what? You mean it worked? It really worked????"
7) Doctor: "I can't say that, but you're in complete remission and can return to work."
8) Patient: "So it worked?"
9) Doctor: "Don't stop whatever you're doing. The results are very intriguing. You're in complete remission"
10) Patient (posting their experience online to share with others)
11) Big Pharma shills: "Show us peer reviewed studies"
12) Everyone: "The FDA will not allow any such studies"
13) Big Pharma shills: reference disingenous meta-studies ("We examined 40,000 studies and none indicated a curative value for marijuana on cancer")
14) Everyone else: Yes, because any such study is disallowed. For most of the last 4 decades, the only studies allowed were those designed to show marijuana was harmful. Now some studies are allowed, but nothing that might investigate a curative value for medical marijuana.
15) Big Pharma Shills: "So show me the peer reviewed studies" (ignoring all context, simply repeating the mantra like a stuck needle on vinyl)
Lather, Rinse, Repeat.
WhT did they lie about?
> Which part?
The part where you try to frame the baseline in overtly ideological assumptions. Or more simply - all you ever do is beg the question.
And when nobody is stupid enough to accept your conclusions as the premise you declare victory.
Except its no more a victory than an asylum inmate masturbating himself is sex.
That's exactly what it is.
It's well understood at this point to mean ...
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less."
Nope, no sig
I'll do my OWN fact checking thank you very much.
And you can continue to do so. All it does is display links to popular fact checking sites that you'll likely to go to anyway.
unless....
wait you don't do all your fact checking on infowars.com do you?
I just want Facebook to show me stuff, not tell me what they think is true.
They aren't telling you anything. They are showing you stuff. Stuff in this case is a link to others who you may or may not want to click through to in order to check if the original stuff is true.
Most Recent is always, ALWAYS populated with hundreds of items, despite my reading every damned one of them 2 hours ago.
And is it any less "most recent"? Maybe either have more friends, subscribe to more pages, like more content, etc. Lack of content is your own fault. Most recent is just that.
I can Like item after item, and 15 minutes later scroll back through the list and MOST are actually NOT marked 'Like' by me. Huh?
At some point it helps refreshing the feed.
- I can read Most Recent and refresh, and the order changes. Every damned time.
Most recent includes what your friends are doing. If someone likes something on your feed or posts to it then something on it happened more recently than some thing you just probably already read since you're refreshing.
Hundreds of items unread, when I did in fact read them.
.... Did you download the app from Facebook or from some Chinese sideload store?
Recommended For Me includes crap I've been rejecting for a few years now.
They are called ads. Facebook doesn't care what you've rejected if someone else has given them money to put it on your feed.
The Facebook Android app royally stinks. Facebook has been manipulating my feed for years. I should trust them to fact-check? No, on several counts. Never.
Fortunately they don't fact check. But then general feed manipulation in something they are tailoring algorithms to weigh up personal interest with sponsorship is something very different than an algorithm that simply redirects everything to snopes or a google search. Or maybe I'm over thinking it, it could be simpler like simply flagging everything my mother reposts as false would give a pretty good accuracy rating.
Hey, look! Still making my point for me! Thanks.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
I didn't realize your point was that everybody sane had lost all respect for you and decided your only value was in the mocking. .sig:
I guess you are more self-aware than I gave you credit for.
Allow me to suggest your new
Kick me!
So, when someone on CNN says there is a "Muslim ban," they know they're lying and that they're producing and spreading fake news.
Hey dumbass, your god emperror with no clothes literally just called it a ban himself:
First the Ninth Circuit rules against the ban & now it hits again on sanctuary cities-both ridiculous rulings. See you in the Supreme Court!
3:20 AM - 26 Apr 2017
Fake News!!!
God, you've chained yourself to a total fucking idiot, you guys were made for each other.
Tweedledee and sycophant.
'. Did you download the app from Facebook or from some Chinese sideload store?'
really. you think so?
i'm not anywhere that stupid.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
I'm just at a loss. Everything else in your post is explainable.
There's also the utter inability to read every Most Recent post - and the remarkable, uncanny consistency of the number of unread posts, which usually stays at the very same number. For days. No matter how many I read.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
retard