Facebook Takes Out Full-page Newspaper Ads To Help UK Citizens Detect Fake New (venturebeat.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Facebook has today taken out full-page ads in U.K. newspapers ahead of the general election that's scheduled to take place next month. These ads are designed to educate the public about how to spot fake news online. Appearing in nationwide publications, including the Guardian and the Telegraph, Facebook's "Tips for spotting false news" ad is similar to the one it published in France last month and covers such areas as being skeptical of misleading headlines, spotting manipulated images, and checking the URL of the story. The advice offered may not always help, however -- under "Consider the photos," for example, the text reads: "You can search for the photo or image to verify where it came from." But anyone requiring advice on how to spot fake news through a newspaper ad likely isn't tech savvy enough to know how to do that or to even understand what it means. Alongside these ads, Facebook also revealed that is has deleted "tens of thousands" of accounts that it believes were deliberately spreading fake news and that it is also updating its algorithms to demote articles it suspects of carrying dubious messaging.

Comments

Thank $diety

[karnal]

Thank $diety they're not detecting fake old!

Re:Thank $diety

[LostOne]

$diety? That sounds like someone or something that's always going on diets or something like that.

Re:Thank $diety

[DontBeAMoran]

He's always going on diets and then off after a while. He's variable that way.

Re:Thank $diety

[chuckugly]

But he's not fake new!

Re:Thank $diety

[AthanasiusKircher]

Yeah, I'm always careful not to put too much value in him. Then he'd be overflowing in attention. Of course, don't put zero stock in him, either -- otherwise he can really cause problems in division that he creates.

Re:Thank $diety

[RobotRunAmok]

How embarrassing must it be to use some tired, worn, trite internet computer forum $cliche and then spell it wrong on top of everything else?

Re:Thank $diety

[Anonymous Coward]

$diety = Athena

Re:Thank $diety

[networkBoy]

I've found that often he's undef

Re:Thank $diety

[Roger W Moore]

I've found it depends on the environment he's in.

Re: Thank $diety

[easyTree]

0.137 times as embarrassing as realising you're as bitter and twisted as your comment implies?

If I did indeed win, please send donations on my behalf to a charity of your choice :D

Re:Thank $diety

[marcgvky]

You mean like most everything on CNN, Politico, and MSLSD? (aka MSNBC)

Re:Thank $diety

[Anonymous Coward]

It is glorious in it's irony: one of the hallmarks of fake news (as with fake 419-like scams) is poor spelling. Slashdot then has poor spelling in a headline article about Facebook trying to stamp out fake new!!! They have to be trolling us.

Re:Thank $diety

[Maritz]

Diety McDietface

In other words

[sl3xd]

In other words... to spot fake news, users have to expend actual effort and thought.

Sounds like a non-starter for most of Facebook.

Re:In other words

[Joce640k]

It's a good thing the fakers don't know the techniques people will use to identify their stories.

Re:In other words

[AthanasiusKircher]

Yes, exactly. We have many documented cases where lots of people have shared satirical fake news articles without reading them. We had a number of high-level politicians and advisers in the last election sometimes tweeting these as well without reading them.

How do we know they didn't read them? Because many of the articles turned into obvious nonsense or ridiculous crap that often made fun of the audience they were targeting in the 4th paragraph or so. Facebook users (and even public figures who should know better) have been shown to just "Like" things and forward or tweet them without even reading beyond the headline or 1st paragraph. And Facebook expects people to start examining details of URLs, where photos came from, etc.??

LOL.

Re:In other words

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, and i have 1000s of facebook accounts that they actively encourage me to use more often. they aren't doing what they claim to be doing, or, if they are, they are terrible at it.

Re:In other words

[TWX]

TV stations have run images they pulled from the internet, like the now-infamous Krispy Kreme image with, "so good, you'll suck dick!" under the company logo.

Or they've released the "names" of the Chinese flight crew that were involved in an airliner tail-strike crash, names like, "Mi Too Lo," and, "Ho Lee Fuk," reading them out on the air without questioning the veracity of their information.

Unfortunately I do not know of an inexpensive way of fighting against the collective derp other than fundamentally changing democracy, and as we've seen in the past, filtering on who gets to vote doesn't work when those who control the filters have their own interests in mind to the detriment of those they prevent from voting.

Re:In other words

[Anonymous Coward]

To spot blatantly biased mainstream news you also need to expend actual effort and thought.

Which means making it easier to spot the fake news, makes it more likely that you'll just swallow the biased mainstream news without asking questions.

Mission accomplished.

Re:In other words

[CaptainDork]

Wrong.

"Sounds like," should be, "It's."

I vet news that shows up in my feed and when I detect fake news, I post how I determined it was fake.

A lot of times it's right there at the bottom of the home page.

Underground News Report is a news and political satire web publication, which may or may not use real names, often in semi-real or mostly fictitious ways. All news articles contained within Undergroundnewsreport.com are fiction, and presumably fake news. Any resemblance to the truth is purely coincidental, except for all references to politicians and/or celebrities, in which case they are based on real people, but still based almost entirely in fiction. Undergroundnewsreport.com is not meant for individuals under the age of 18.

A lot of times, the responses to my posts produce *facepalm* as in, "Well, if it isn't true, it should be."

Re:In other words

[godel_56]

To spot blatantly biased mainstream news you also need to expend actual effort and thought.

Easy, anything from Fox/News Corp.

Re:In other words

[sl3xd]

I do not know of an inexpensive way of fighting against the collective derp other than fundamentally changing democracy,

"This, then, is the new illiteracy, the illiteracy of those who can read but don't. [...] ...] This new illiteracy is more pernicious than the old, because unlike the old illiteracy it does not debar its victims from power and influence, although like the old illiteracy it disqualifies them for it. Those long-dead men and women who learned to read so that they might read the Bible and John Bunyan would tell us that pride is the greatest of all sins, the father of sin. And the victims of the new illiteracy are proud of it. If you don't believe me, talk to them and see with what pride they trumpet their utter ignorance of any book you care to name." — Gene Wolfe

Re: In other words

[easyTree]

Democracy's primary value is the drowning-out of the voices of the informed.

Re:In other words

[Maritz]

They know they have to do basically nothing. Preconceived biases, unwillingness to listen to contradicting evidence (cognitive dissonance), the furthering of an existing narrative - these all do their work for them. They know probably around 1% might check veracity of news. The rest go "I knew it!".

Re:In other words

[Anonymous Coward]

I think not: If its in a UK Newspaper, and about politics, you can safely regard it as fake news, whether it is or not.

Re:In other words

[Anonymous Coward]

Edward Snowden, fake news I tell ya, all of it lies...

Re:In other words

[Anonymous Coward]

"unwillingness to listen to contradicting evidence" is NOT "cognitive dissonance". I see Cog Dis misused SO often it triggers me like some people with the misuse of the word "literally".

Remember, Cognitive Dissonance refers to the discomfort one experiences when confronted with the realization that they hold two contradictory beliefs to be true. If a person is unwilling to listen, then they haven't even acknowledged that they have contradicting beliefs in the first place, assuming that what you're telling them alludes to a contradiction in their thought process in the first place.

How to tell Hillary is corrupt

[Anonymous Coward]

She's not in jail.

It only takes a second of thought!

Re:How to tell Hillary is corrupt

[Nidi62]

Wouldn't that really mean the government that refuses to prosecute her is corrupt, not her? They're the ones that ultimately determine whether or not she is charged. And you know, for all the smoke he raised about it during the campaign, Trump doesn't seem to care too much. So, either she's not a criminal, Trump lied during his campaign and doesn't really give a shit, or he's corrupt for not pushing for charges and a trial. In either of the 3 options you've been had, but go ahead and keep on trying. It only makes you look more and more foolish.

Re:How to tell Hillary is corrupt

[Hognoxious]

An alternative explanation might be that judicial independence is an actual thing, but that's just crazy talk.

Re:How to tell Hillary is corrupt

[TWX]

The court may be independent, but the prosecutor works for the Executive Branch. The Legislative Branch writes the laws, the Executive enforces an interpretation of the laws, and the Courts rule on the law and its interpretation.

If she's not being charged with a crime when the Executive Branch and Legislative Branches are both controlled by those who strongly and passionately oppose her, then it's probably because they cannot prove that she has committed a crime.

Re:How to tell Hillary is corrupt

[Maritz]

God damn it you rumbled me. I'm not in jail either.

Useless, European main-stream media is painting

[aliquis]

.. one picture.
"Alternative" media is painting another.

Just because it's factually correct doesn't make it correct really.
Then again it's often complete lies too.

The lies is ~always about what have some political connection, close to always immigration here in Sweden but could also be budget and economy.

If one read both one would likely get close to the truth but the lying establishment want people to trust THEIR lies so the idea is that one shouldn't read the alternative opinion, numbers and opposition content at all.

Maybe be better in other places in Europe than what it is here in Sweden but here main-stream media is lying their ass off to preserve status quo. I wouldn't consider Sweden a democracy longer considering how media and government control and freedom of speech work here.

I think you meant "news"

[s.petry]

And to that I say "ha ha!". Companies who have been found to be manipulating data and messages, censoring opinions that they dislike, and lying about the whole thing.. You have no place telling people what's Fake or True.

Reality displays that Politics and Political views are opinion, not a fact. You do not have True/False, you have probabilities. The way to make a political views is to study probables, which means you must have opposing viewpoints.

TO anyone claiming purity in knowledge, Fact You!

Re:I think you meant "news"

[CaptainDork]

Close.

But it's not "opinion." it's "faith."

Politics is religion.

Re:I think you meant "news"

[Maritz]

Post-modern "there is no objective truth" hogwash. Real journalism exists, and wankers making up fictitious stories exists. If you can't tell the difference, it's on you.

Fake news == what isn't your bias

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder what constitutes fake news. If FB had anything to do with it, anything pro-Trump likely would be marked as fake news, similar with anything against the Merkel Doctrine of unfettered immigration.

Re:Fake news == what isn't your bias

[Maritz]

Yes mate. Anything that contradicts your opinion is fake news. Carry on as you were, dumbass.

Re:Fake news == what isn't your bias

[Anonymous Coward]

Liberal got his panties in a bunch. Awww. Clinton lost, boohoo!

FB vs Bias

[Chas]

Basically, as long as it moves in lock-step with what major media and a bunch of heavily biased corporations tell you, for your own good of course, it's not fake news.

However, if it dissents in any way with the popular narrative, it's GOTTA be fake!

See! We even have Snopes and FactCheck.org looking into it for us! Because none of their fact-checkers would EVER exhibit ANY sort of bias!
And any stories to the contrary MUST be fake news right?

Now to get real here.

Any time you see "news" from ANY outlet whatsoever, assume that the outlet has some sort of sociopolitical axe to grind.
Apply skepticism in liberal amounts.
Do your OWN fact-checking.

Well, unless you like looking like an idiot later on if you're parroting something incorrect...

Re:FB vs Bias

[Anonymous Coward]

And you are so Slashdot it hurts. Every one of your posts has some "axe to grind" - and of course you don't take seriously anybody who goes against the Slashdot groupthink. No better worse or different than Rush Limbaugh fans, but with a group of older white males who like tech stuff.

Re:FB vs Bias

[Anonymous Coward]

Congratulations, after the ridiculous opening generalization, and following with the assertion of an assertion that nobody actually makes, and then baseless smearing of two web sites which have a long track record of being extremely accurate (and open about their own imperfections)... you surprisingly managed to reach the very same basic message that Facebook is promoting in their ad campaign. Amazing! Good work.

I may hate you both, but, in this case, I think you both basically end up with a good message here. Nice.

Re:FB vs Bias

[SumDog]

I hate all this "fake news" garbage. Back in my day, we had it too, but it went by a different name. We just called it "News."

It's all bullshit. Every network from the BBC to NPR to ABC all have tons of bullshit sprinkled throughout their feeds. Some of it is just blindly reciting government press releases, others are intentionally planted stories from government propaganda groups (both in the US and the UK. If you don't think this is happened you need to take a good hard look at the past several decades).

It's all fucking bullshit all the way. Turn off your TV. Go outside.

Re:FB vs Bias

[Chas]

How can the truth about FC.org and Snopes be either baseless or a smear?

Re:FB vs Bias

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's not forget that people claiming there was a housing bubble in 2007 were called "chicken littles" and those claiming that there was loan origination fraud were called "conspiracy theorists" on CNBC.

And then they were proved right...

Re:FB vs Bias

[CaptainDork]

I tried that and a goddam banner-plane came by with "Make America Great Again."

Re:FB vs Bias

[tlhIngan]

I hate all this "fake news" garbage. Back in my day, we had it too, but it went by a different name. We just called it "News."

No, there's a difference between the news, what's reported, and fake news. The first two can be subject to "alternate facts" which really are just different interpretations of events, often having errors by omission.

Fake news, though is fiction. Like how climate change is fake, and how Breitbart did it using Weather Network's reports and graphics to spin a tale of fantasy. This is complete fiction. Or like how a pizza place was really a secret gathering spot for pedophiles. Or even how Obama isn't American and his birth certificates didn't exist.

Problem is, President Trump's favorite news source makes up its news (he gets Breitbart printed out for his morning read, and Breitbart gets a favorable spot during White House press conferences. The fact that they lob him trivially easy questions reinforces their position.

Of course, the fact that Trump calls anyone who prints anything bad about him "fake news" contributes to the misinformation. How in the world did you guys vote for such a thin-skinned President?

Re:FB vs Bias

[Maritz]

Basically, as long as it moves in lock-step with what major media and a bunch of heavily biased corporations tell you, for your own good of course, it's not fake news.

However, if it dissents in any way with the popular narrative, it's GOTTA be fake!

See! We even have Snopes and FactCheck.org looking into it for us! Because none of their fact-checkers would EVER exhibit ANY sort of bias! And any stories to the contrary MUST be fake news right?

Now to get real here.

Any time you see "news" from ANY outlet whatsoever, assume that the outlet has some sort of sociopolitical axe to grind. Apply skepticism in liberal amounts. Do your OWN fact-checking.

Well, unless you like looking like an idiot later on if you're parroting something incorrect...

Warms my cockles to see this kid having so much fun with his strawman.

Re:FB vs Bias

[Maritz]

Chas, the Bringer of Truth. Fuck you Snopes, Chas is here.

Re:FB vs Bias

[Chas]

Chas, the Bringer of Truth. Fuck you Snopes, Chas is here.

You apparently missed my "Fuck that. Do your own research." message.

Not surprising....

Re:FB vs Bias

[mjwx]

Well, unless you like looking like an idiot later on if you're parroting something incorrect...

Whilst this statement is completely true, it's also utterly irrelevant.

We now live in a society that celebrates ignorance and stupidity. Its no longer an insult to be an idiot and become popular to be ignorant. Blindly re-posting an obvious lie is 100% acceptable as along as the lie is popular. Opposing it with fact gets you labelled as "fake" and any number of other disparaging remarks made about your character.

It's become popular to "fat-shame". I have to ask why it's unpopular to "stupid-shame".

Re:FB vs Bias

[Chas]

It's not unpopular to stupid shame.

The main problem is, stupid shaming doesn't work.

You have to have some modicum of intelligence to experience shame.

This is why stupid people are effectively shameless.

That's rich coming from Facebook:

[DatbeDank]

The same entity that curated their "trending" algorithms. These elites will stoop to any level to maintain there control.

Re:That's rich coming from Facebook:

[Anonymous Coward]

At least they could auto-correct errors like "there control".

The Ministry of Truth

[Quakeulf]

It seems Mark Zuckerberg took 1984 to his heart and decided to make it real.

Re:The Ministry of Truth

[kamapuaa]

Yeah, the shit they do with rats in cages is what really stops me from using Facebook too much.

A for effort?

[Anonymous Coward]

At least they're trying? *shrug*

Doesnt go far enough

[gurps_npc]

They only covered one type of fake news. The second type is far more common. Stuff that is accurate, but not NEWS. Half the articles are now opinion, not news. Or old crap recycled. Or totally true, but totally misleading (like talking about the dangers of sharks without mentioning how rare shark attacks are.)

All the news sources are now talking about Obama's instructions to Congress to "have courage." He is a former President, all the people that like him already are going to vote the way he wants them to, the rest are going to ignore him. This is NOT NEWS, it is gossip.

The true 'key' to fake news is that it almost always has a bias and it's not hard to detect. Basically ignore everything from the extreme sources say. Huffington Post and Brietbart are both obvious loads of crap. One I generally like their bias, one I hate, but I recognize that NEITHER produces real news.

If it's not on line with the current agenda

[Anonymous Coward]

then it's fake news. This is West Korea in the making.

Re: If it's not on line with the current agenda

[easyTree]

Compare with Chomsky's definition of the term 'Peace Process":
  * https://youtu.be/vmoXze-Higc

License system

[OrangeTide]

We should probably start requiring a formal certification and licensing system to operate a computer or smart phone without supervision.

The lack of critical thinking is as damaging to democracy as a lack speed limits and stop signs near schools would be to grammar school students.

(won't someone please think of the children?! Because they'll be managing our pensions and healthcare one day, and they may be very cross with us.)

Echo Chamber

[Anonymous Coward]

Instead of deleting the accounts, they could have tracked them for a while. It would not take long for them to map out the social network of such accounts and then to modify the frequency of said fake news getting into legitimate user streams. In this way, they could amplify the echo chamber of fake news within the fake news channels while hiding it from actual people.

And my meth dealer told me coke was bad for me...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know which idea is more laughable, that Facebook is the altruistic corporation truly concerned about the greater good or that Facebook has any credibility as an authority on "news". Facebook (and Twitter for that matter) knowingly and willingly turned a blind eye to many of the anti-vaxxer, 9-11 truther, etc. groups in pursuit of the almighty subscriber count and the ad revenue. Fake news is now the cause celeb and they are shocked, shocked that there is gambling going on in here.

But why in the newspaper?

[Anonymous Coward]

If they are reading the newspaper, they probably aren't your target audience.
This should instead be a post on the news feed of their own site. That's where most fake news is spread.

Geez, it's like saying, "fake news is a traditional media problem!"

MUST CLICK link that explains the entire situation

[Anonymous Coward]

I highly recommend this MUST CLICK LINK that explains this entire situation exactly and precisely

Are they cleaning up their ads, too?

[drew_kime]

It's nice that they've killed tens of thousands of accounts, now how about the advertisers? Like the ones that claim to be ESPN but aren't that I see constantly.

Fix the title

[Anonymous Coward]

It says: "Facebook Takes Out Full-page Newspaper Ads To Help UK Citizens Detect Fake New"
Please add an S, so it reads: 'Facebook Takes Out Full-page Newspaper Ads To Help UK Citizens Detect Fake News"
Sheesh..

Re:And my meth dealer told me coke was bad for me.

[toonces33]

They have to at least pay lip service to the problem - otherwise people will grow to regard FB as the land of tinfoil-hat wearing kooks.

Which in a way it already is.

The first step ...

[daveywest]

First clue to spotting fake news: the source is a print newspaper. Nobody reads newspapers anymore. Real journalists work for websites like Breitbart, Infowars, and Perz Hilton.

"Fake news" is not a problem ...

[CaptainDork]

... because no one really reads that shit on Facebook, anyway.

Members just share out confirmation of their political faith.

The goddam shit is better than the right wing batshit crazy Evangelical Christian white trash memes popping up all over the feed.

The way to stop fake news is to block the asshats who share without thinking.

Why Bother with the News Paper?

[bobbied]

I just consider everything I see on Facebook to be fake, including the pictures of my sister-in-law's dinner before, during and after she eats...

Not to mention, why on earth would you bother with a newspaper ad? Most news papers I know are putting out fake news themselves... I know the local paper sure is... It's sort of like the pot calling the kettle black if you ask me.

Oh well, I guess it's to be expected given we live in a day where most folks get their hard news from the nightly comedy shows anyway..

Simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it posted on Fakebook?[sic] Then it is fake news

A globalist company defending the narrative.

[sethstorm]

If anyone's delivering and promoting fake news, it's Facebook with these ads and their self-approving news process.

Wow

[riskkeyesq]

It took a whole page to say, "Don't participate in Facebook"?

Simpsons' Nelson says: Ha-ha!

[easyTree]

You've brought it on yourselves.

After decades of feeding the public sanctioned fake-news, people are unable to distinguish it from un-sanctioned fake-news.

Now what?

Re:Simpsons' Nelson says: Ha-ha!

[Maritz]

Sanctioned by who? The illuminati? lol.

Re:Simpsons' Nelson says: Ha-ha!

[Anonymous Coward]

Sanctioned by the colluding executives of Disney, Viacom, AOL/TimeWarner, and News Corporation. But I'm just being unreasonably cynical. Rich and powerful groups of people have never conspired against the public. Nope. Never.

Re: And my meth dealer told me coke was bad for me

[easyTree]

I'm not seeing a problem. The marketeers will have a field day selling foil.

Speaking of which

[Wasteland_Frier]

Someone needs to remind Sarah Hanson Young that Sea Patrol isn't real

Bias is not falsity; Responsibility is a thing.

[SeattleLawGuy]

Every story in the world has bias; some of the stories have implicit falsity; and some stories have explicit falsity.

Bias is not a reason to limit the dissemination of a story. Implicit Falsity sometimes might be. Explicit falsity is. Highly likely falsity is at least a reason to flag it for the reader. For example, when "vaccines cause autism" claims appear on Facebook, someone should not see the claim without a flag that the story is almost certainly false.

I'm not claiming the line drawing is easy, but it would be irresponsible to take no action. Because epidemics start that way.

Wrong media?

[Anonymous Coward]

The readers of The Torygraph and The Guariand aren't the ones being taken in by fake news.

The most important point (they probably left out)

[mario6915]

Don't trust Facebook (or any social media for that matter) as a source of credible news.