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!

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

[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

[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

[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

[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!".

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!

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

[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

[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?

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.

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.)

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.