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.
To assume, because they have different editorials, that one of them should be correct is a mistake. They both lie in different instances, with different agendas.
I see they are hooked into fact checkers with a liberal bias. If facts are facts, surely adding a conservative source wouldn't hurt, and would generate identical results.
The problem with that is that what is called "conservative" too often means "in denial". As you say, facts are facts, but the facts tend to drown in the overload of disingenious "conservatism" - as the (only half joking) saying goes: Reality has a strong, liberal bias.
We have for several years now seen the same problem with creationists trying to introduce religious doctrine into the teaching of science in school, under the slogan "Teach the controversy". I think every teacher and scientist would be fine with that, if it was genuinely about teaching the controversy, because scientific theory as it stands today is the result of surviving centuries of fierce controversy. However, what the creationists really mean is, "Let's try to muddy the waters with things like 'Evolution is only a theory'". And it's true, but the point is - creationism isn't even that; a theory is testable, so it can be right or wrong, but creationism isn't testable - it is not even wrong. Same goes for what you call "conservatives": you don't have the courage to present the naked facts and expose them to the world - and accept when you are wrong. Us so-called liberals do.