Facebook Fights Fake News With Links To Other Angles (techcrunch.com)

Facebook is rolling out "Related Articles" that appear below news links to stories lots of people are posting about on Facebook, or that are suspected to be false news and have been externally fact checked by Facebook's partners. "Appearing before someone reads, Related Articles will surface links to additional reporting on the same topic to provide different view points, and to truthiness reports from the fact checkers," reports TechCrunch. From the report: If users see drastically different angles when they compare a story to its Related Articles, they might deem it suspicious and skip it, be less likely to believe or share it, or could click through the Related Articles and make up their own mind. That could reduce the spread and impact of false news without Facebook itself having to be the honesty police. Related Articles could also balance out some of the radical invective that can subtly polarize the populace. Pre-click Related Articles are rolling out in the U.S., Germany, France, and Nederlands today. These countries were chosen to get the roll out first because Facebook has established fact checking partnerships there. "We don't want to be and are not the arbiters of the truth. The fact checkers can give the signal of whether a story is true or false" says Facebook News Feed integrity product manager Tessa Lyons. Meanwhile, Facebook's machine learning algorithm has improved its accuracy and speed, so the social network will now have it send more potential hoaxes to fact checkers.

Comments

And so Facebook can push its own agenda

[Anonymous Coward]

yep, nothing to be abused here!

Re:And so Facebook can push its own agenda

[pete6677]

Exactly right. Liberal Facebook's definition of "fake news" is anything that differs from the official liberal media position on some issue.

Re: And so Facebook can push its own agenda

[Anonymous Coward]

I would also argue that, for example, overly positive articles about Trump are going to get more "alternate view
recommendations" than overly positive articles about Clinton et al. This is going to bite Facebook back and hard because all it requires is one misjudgement by their "fact checking partners".

Re: And so Facebook can push its own agenda

[Anonymous Coward]

I would also argue that, for example, overly positive articles about Trump are going to get more "alternate view recommendations" than overly positive articles about Clinton et al.

This is likely since Trump is prone to self-serving deception, as his claims about a landslide, inaugural crowds, industrial job hires, trade deals, praise from boy scout leaders, healthcare plans, and military prowess. The level of boasting is simply nauseating.

That, and the sheer volume of attention he will command having been elected.

This is going to bite Facebook back and hard because all it requires is one misjudgement by their "fact checking partners".

Why would it matter? You put up with "alternative facts" already, and people have been denouncing the alleged "official liberal media agenda" for over a decade now.

The stage is set, you will leap on even the slightest mistake, but never regret even the most grievous of errors you commit.

Why would we pretend your role in the theater is anything but an act?

Re: And so Facebook can push its own agenda

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would it matter? You put up with "alternative facts" already, and people have been denouncing the alleged "official liberal media agenda" for over a decade now.

Media used to have a liberal bias. How, just just went bat-shit crazy with their anti-Trump, anti-white hatred and conspiracy theories. Loonies running the asylum, no less.

he stage is set, you will leap on even the slightest mistake, but never regret even the most grievous of errors you commit.

Who is you? There is a giant media collusion to completely black-out any alternative viewpoints.

When is the last time you saw Dinesh D'Souza on CNN? That's just one of many guys that can wipe his metaphoric ass with obamanoids. He's banned, yet the blackout doesn't apply to the "conservative" nuts CNN shows as scarecrows.

Where did you hear about Awan brothers? In any context e.g. on TV you only hear about them as "Russia pushes another conspiracy story." Yet the whole thing stinks to High Heaven! Way more going on there than in the Russian bullshit stories.

Re: And so Facebook can push its own agenda

[I'm New Around Here]

Are you drunk?

Re:And so Facebook can push its own agenda

[Vinegar Joe]

Looks like Zuckerberg has learned a lot from the Chinese and their 50 Cent Army.

Re: And so Facebook can push its own agenda

[unixisc]

Beau, Facebook - and Zuck - do have a record that one can look at to predict where this will go. Y'know, kinda like their own analytics...

Re:And so Facebook can push its own agenda

[computational super]

Well, it's easy to tell if something is "fake news". Is it conservative? It must be fake! Does it fit the liberal agenda? Definitely true!

Re: And so Facebook can push its own agenda

[rickb928]

If you think the mainstream US media doesn't have an obvious left/liberal/Democrat bias, you have not been paying attention since the late 70s. Before that, from the mid 60s on, you can be excused for not seeing the anti-Vietnam War movement as merely a *part* of the leftist agenda.

Watergate was an incredibly useful scandal, for it gave the Left cover to dominate media and turn public opinion in their direction. The Republicans and Conservatives basically ran and hid until Reagan stepped up and energized them.

Media bias is often hard to discern, since it now relies on near-total control of media, and dissent is so hard to see it is assumed to be nonexistent. If everyone is saying it, must be true, eh?

The Second Enlightenment is coming, driven by mass access to media. The First Enlightenment was driven by the printing press and the ability to both pass on substantial knowledge and to distribute it widely. Now we see massive participation in the realm of ideas, rather than dominance by a self-appointed elite. Sort of like the First, though that focused on individual rights and government as a service. We have to fight that fight AGAIN. Starting here. Starting now.

Re: And so Facebook can push its own agenda

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, LIFE has a liberal lean.

Anything else is the fucking dark ages and should have been left behind ages ago.

Re:And so Facebook can push its own agenda

[Anonymous Coward]

You're falling for the false dichotomy.

It's not about liberals etc - it's about truth vs lies, and the people lying and trying to hide the truth are neither liberal or other - it's usually the elite in business, banking and their agents (including governments, intelligence services etc) that are trying to weave a false narrative where the truth is 'fake news' - by muddying social media and other influential sites like slashdot with garbage.

Re:And so Facebook can push its own agenda

[AutodidactLabrat]

Fake news is anything masquerading as fact without supporting documentation or a trail to same
That this describes everything alt-right is not Facebook's problem
It is OUR problem as a nation, for a nation of liars does not prosper

Re: And so Facebook can push its own agenda

[AutodidactLabrat]

No.
It only requires that the alt-right be sanctioned with expulsion for their repeatedly false claims, something Facebook has every right to do.

Re: And so Facebook can push its own agenda

[AutodidactLabrat]

Loonies running the asylum?
" The evidence is very questionable. I want to see that birth certificate original"
now THAT was an asylum full of crazy, and you are running it.

Re: And so Facebook can push its own agenda

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, because the progressive left never makes shit up.

Re: And so Facebook can push its own agenda

[Anonymous Coward]

And now media is invariably pro-war, though that reflects the liberals / democrats.

Look at Obama :
- does a coup in Honduras
- gets Nobel peace prize
- attacks Libya, Syria and Yemen

Well done ; that's the work of a deranged bloodthirsty maniac, but he's soft spoken though and played the international goodwill posture well. So media managed to pretend he's on the "left" or was "presidential" rather than belonging to a labor camp or mental ward ; vociferous opposition to pretend he's "soft on terrorism" and doesn't make enough war.

I don't try to make sense of it anymore. You have choice between pro-abortion, pro-gay, pro-war right-wing and anti-abortion, anti-gay, pro-war right-wing.

Fighting the facts with FB's narrative.

[sethstorm]

Given that the fact-checkers are not exactly neutral themselves, I'd take an entire geologic basin's worth of NaCl before believing their "arbiters".

Re:Fighting the facts with FB's narrative.

[Anonymous Coward]

Me too. Basically, I have a viewpoint and I only read, like, and share artricles that help me rationalize that. I'm really not interested in any lies other people may put up. I don't appreciate FB trying to limit my choices or censor the information based on their agenda.

Re: Fighting the facts with FB's narrative.

[Anonymous Coward]

I have yet to see any rational discussion of anything remotely political ( which if you are a follower of the Frankfurt school mean Everything) on Sitonmy Facebook. The extremes dominate conversations with textbook logical fallacies, yet believe they are being honest and logical.

Re:Fighting the facts with FB's narrative.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is preparation for when Zuck runs for President.

Re:Fighting the facts with FB's narrative.

[alvinrod]

It doesn't even matter if they are neutral. Facebook is stuck on the defensive, because there's always a new story and a new source. Further, it doesn't matter if they get it right 99 times out of 100, because people are always going to remember the one time they get it wrong and try to suppress something that turns out to be legitimate news.

Re:Fighting the facts with FB's narrative.

[Anonymous Coward]

Zuck is anti-Trump, like all other thinking people, so I'm sure he'll be biased the right way.

Re:Fighting the facts with FB's narrative.

[Anonymous Coward]

Given that the fact-checkers are not exactly neutral themselves...

Said everyone who ever tried to rationalize not vaccinating kids.

Yes. It is possible to level criticisms against almost anything. That's both the foundation of legitimate academic debate and a part of how almost every misinformation campaign in the world works.

It's still better to try to provide some moderating influence on blatantly untrue stories than it is to avoid any responsibility for people who use your platform to spread lies, hoaxes, and untruths. Because those things actually cause harm. In the case of anti-vax beliefs, that harm can extend to death.

Re: Fighting the facts with FB's narrative.

[Anonymous Coward]

Fake news isn't that much of an issue, it's all the people posting links to fake news. There's still no option to report a post for containing bullshit news or abusive clickbait ad sites.

Re:Fighting the facts with FB's narrative.

[interkin3tic]

Who is exactly neutral?

Give me a neutral source.

On anything.

Seriously, set a baseline for "neutral" and show us what you mean. Someone completely free of any bias.

If you can't find any, then maybe we should admit that it's not inherently bad when news has bias. We should stop looking for that unicorn and instead admit that it's a degree of bias, not the existence of bias, that matters. CNN's bias and Fox news' bias are not equally bad just because they both exist.

Re: Fighting the facts with FB's narrative.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's smug assholes like you that got him elected. But please continue Mr. Tolerant Liberal.

Re:Fighting the facts with FB's narrative.

[Wycliffe]

Who is exactly neutral?
  Give me a neutral source.
  On anything.
  Seriously, set a baseline for "neutral" and show us what you mean. Someone completely free of any bias.

If you can't find any, then maybe we should admit that it's not inherently bad when news has bias. We should stop looking for that unicorn and instead admit that it's a degree of bias, not the existence of bias, that matters. CNN's bias and Fox news' bias are not equally bad just because they both exist.

I think the only way for a baseline neutral is opposing views. I don't think CNN's or Fox's bias are bad. I think they are both equally biased in opposite directions. By regularly paying attention to both of them, you can get a fairly neutral view. The founding fathers originally tried a more neutral system with the person with the most votes becoming president and the person with the second most votes becoming vice president. It's too bad that this didn't last. The problem then which is even worse today is the opposing views are unwilling to compromise so we end up with gridlock.

Re:Fighting the facts with FB's narrative.

[Anonymous Coward]

A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes. -Various

Re:Fighting the facts with FB's narrative.

[rtb61]

The Facebook version of getting it right, the advertisers don't sue to keep their lies alive and they pay more for more lies 'er' marketing to be spread, like manure on the public conciousness. Fake news as far as corporations are concerned, news that does not generate a profit but does expose them to major losses even custodial sentences. In our modern society fake news, it does not matter whether it is true or lies, all that matters is the impact on the bottom line and that bottom line does not include pain, suffering and death, those problems just get buried under the line, 6 feet under, by a horde of psychopathic lawyers, lobbyists and corrupt politicians.

Imagine letting a fad social hub govern your news, where else will you go for important information, the local pub, over a half dozen beers. Want to be safer, get your news from the broader internet, in coffee house with a joint and some coffee. Even with that joint you will pick up more truth than you ever will on Facebook.

Re:Fighting the facts with FB's narrative.

[werepants]

Actually, third parties have reviewed the fact checkers, and overall found that their bias is minimal. What's more, decent fact-checking organizations document supporting evidence directly in their reports - so you can see things for yourselves.

This kind of insistent denial of honest journalism is exactly why fake news is the problem it is. You should set a reasonable and equivalent standard for all information sources - are you as skeptical of conservative publications as your are of these supposedly biased fact-checkers? Don't just give a free pass to people that agree with you - lies that confirm your preconceived notions are the easiest ones to believe.

Re:Fighting the facts with FB's narrative.

[werepants]

Basically, I have a viewpoint and I only read, like, and share artricles that help me rationalize that.

What's sad is that I can't tell if this is biting satire or someone's actual approach to life.

Re:Fighting the facts with FB's narrative.

[sethstorm]

Actually, third parties have reviewed the fact checkers, and overall found that their bias is minimal

If you're talking about the Poynter Institute or the International Fact-Checking Network, no such luck. They're effectively self-audited (by a friendly organization), and receive funding from an organization invested in opposing Trump.

Re:Fighting the facts with FB's narrative.

[Whibla]

Clearly it's both, funny because it's true.

Re:Fighting the facts with FB's narrative.

[Whibla]

I think the only way for a baseline neutral is opposing views. I don't think CNN's or Fox's bias are bad. I think they are both equally biased in opposite directions. By regularly paying attention to both of them, you can get a fairly neutral view.

Sounds fine in principle, but this is exactly how we ended up with "teach the controversy" the "global warming debate" and the "vaccination scare".

Opposing views do not always have the same weight or basis in fact. Presenting them as if they do does not make the presentation baseline neutral, it biases it towards the lunatic fringe.

Politicisation of science is just about the worst thing that could have happened both for politics and for science!

Re:Fighting the facts with FB's narrative.

[AmiMoJo]

The fake news paddlers have created an entire network of fake news sites that they can point to as "alternative sources" to provide "balance".

Re:Fighting the facts with FB's narrative.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry that you don't agree with the truth.

Re:Fighting the facts with FB's narrative.

[Cytotoxic]

This was exactly my reaction to this post.

And it isn't simply political hot-button science issues such as evolution or global warming.... the same is true for "balanced coverage" of things like alternative medicine. There is no way to be "balanced and neutral" when covering things like homeopathy or reiki. You can be neutral (just the facts, ma'm), or you can be balanced, but you can't be both. Because any "balance" will be false.

Unfortunately, this is often the status quo for these topics. The writers don't really understand the topic in-depth, and their editors expect quotes from "both sides", if they even ask for that. So what we normally get is credulous coverage of some pseudo-science of the day, which in practice becomes promotion of fraudulent businesses.

How does this work in the Facebook world? Well, one would hope that it would mean that a post about the latest super-food that is being widely shared would have a "balanced" offering from Science Based Medicine, explaining why the study in question doesn't actually mean what the press is saying it does, and that the study is really low quality and will probably be disproved when a higher quality study comes out.

But I doubt it. What will probably happen is that if the people at Facebook happen to agree with your point of view, you will think they are following this model. If you don't, you'll think they are just spamming viewpoints they disagree with.

Re:Fighting the facts with FB's narrative.

[serviscope_minor]

You are basically coming from the "my lies are as valid as your facts" camp, and your signature confirms that.

Re: Fighting the facts with FB's narrative.

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet you're the one calling people assholes.

Re:Fighting the facts with FB's narrative.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is how you got Trump.

Re:Fighting the facts with FB's narrative.

[Rob Y.]

You got it. Facebook could easily eliminate one of the worst sources of fake news - and one of the things that makes FB a miserable experience. 'Articles' with headlines like "you've got to hear what so-and-so said", and then link you to a 'news' site with 1 paragraph of useless stuff - or a screenshot of a twitter post, followed by a littany of the worst ads for fake cures, etc. I suppose FB makes a lot of money off of that crap, but they should at least label it as advertising and not treat it as if it's news. But better yet, get rid of it altogether. Hey, even Google is providing ways to get rid of the most annoying advertising...

People need to put the fear of God into Facebook and stop using it for a while in protest.

Re:Fighting the facts with FB's narrative.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"

I don't trust the fact-checkers OR the fact-checkers on the fact-checkers. When the NYT certifies Snopes.com as legitimate, all I see is an intellectual circle-jerk.

Re:Fighting the facts with FB's narrative.

[rickb928]

Very few people can truly be neutral about the truth. I find myself sitting and waiting to see if our President will be deposed by the outright coup in operation, of if he can wield the power of the Executive sufficiently to defeat those who wish to turn him out merely to enforce their policies.

If indeed they can muster enough charges to oust him, what can we expect for the future? More.

For all my Libertarian/Anarchist friends out there, you kept challenging me to imagine what a Libertarian Presidency would look like. Well, watch and learn. Would Gary Johnson have lasted this long? Or would he have been subverted, President in name only?

Build from the bottom.

Re:Fighting the facts with FB's narrative.

[rickb928]

"blatantly untrue"

And there you have it. This becomes opinion. We have lost sight of what is fact and what is merely opinion, so that we argue about opinions, and the facts are intentionally obscured to make opinion viable.

Re:Fighting the facts with FB's narrative.

[rickb928]

"I think the only way for a baseline neutral is opposing views."

The difference between the median, the mean, and the average.

Opposing views do not constitute 'neutral' anything. They are merely extremes.

Substitute 'true' for 'neutral' and see if it makes sense to you then.

Re:Fighting the facts with FB's narrative.

[Sindar By Choice]

I don't think CNN's or Fox's bias are bad. I think they are both equally biased in opposite directions.

Bullshit False Equivalency. CNN and Fox are not equally biased. Fox, along with right wing radio that started in the 90s, has been extremely biased and fake-newsy for a lonnnnnng time.

Your assertions are ridiculous.

Re:Fighting the facts with FB's narrative.

[Sindar By Choice]

and receive funding from an organization invested in opposing Trump.

Do you have a problem with an organization opposing Trump?
If so, please explain why you support him?
...especially in light of how he has done in his first seven months or so of "governing".

Re:Fighting the facts with FB's narrative.

[painandgreed]

I think the only way for a baseline neutral is opposing views. I don't think CNN's or Fox's bias are bad.

I do. I'm not familiar with CNN as I stopped going to them for new a long time ago and pretty much only go there when testing browsers because it's easy to type. FOX News, however, I am forced to watch when at my parent's house. They are horrible for lying through omission and seriously trying to generate false drama through their "two sides of the issue". They will bring up outrageous sounding issues and exclaim 'how can this go on?!?!' while giving crappy defenses of same issues. Usually the smell test doesn't match up and when I bother to spend five minutes looking things up, there is usually more details on more local news stations or public statement from said organizations that explains everything which were public knowledge weeks earlier and have nothing to do with either side of the Fox News arguments. (They almost all fall under "follow the money" or "not enough resources" rather than some political idealism.) If they were trying to do anything but create false dramatic news stories, and did any research, these things could easily be discussed but then would be non-issues. It's like any time some situation that seems too outrageous to exist is virally spread across the internet. Do a bit of research and it probably doesn't exist or isn't that outrageous once all the details are known.

Re:Fighting the facts with FB's narrative.

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems you feel the big issue with "fake news" is that it might portray Trump in a negative light. In case you didn't realize, that was not the general direction that the Facebook fake news campaign was going. Nor will Trump be relevant to whatever the next large-scale fake news operation is. Honestly, you sound totally whipped by the spin doctors. The cries of "fake news" every time Trump pulls another stunt are designed to wear you down and make you forget what fake news actually is. Hint: its not generally disseminated by CNN or Fox, barring rare exceptions, and assuming you can tell the difference between factual reporting and opinion pieces.
Besides, for an organization looking to oppose Trump, funding a fact-checking organization would make plenty of sense. The truth is not his friend. Trump's steady stream of lies blows all the other politicians right out of the water, which is quite a feat. An organization opposing Trump would also do well to fund scholarships so we have a more educated populace that doesn't fall for this crap. Oh wait, schools are also a tool of the authoritian left. Silly me. You know what, just don't read the news, don't go to school, don't talk to people who are different from you. That's surely the way to cultivate an informed, smart perspective.

Re:Fighting the facts with FB's narrative.

[CanHasDIY]

Who is exactly neutral?

Give me a neutral source.

On anything.

Regarding political standpoint?

The laws of physics.

Now, getting humans to report on the laws of physics without bias? There you might have a breakdown.

Re: Fighting the facts with FB's narrative.

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously - there should be a requirement to read the link you're posting. Just like slashdot so many times I ask my friends about a post and they tell me they didn't actually read it, but were so OUTRAGED by the headline.

Maybe a quiz when you link that asks you 5 questions about the link.

Re: Fighting the facts with FB's narrative.

[Anonymous Coward]

CNN is pretty fucking bad man. Maybe not fox bad but same ballpark.

I was chatting with someone recently that compared CNN more to just click bait and fox to an actual false narrative. That's probably true but they're both garbage.

Re: Fighting the facts with FB's narrative.

[Anonymous Coward]

and you're the one suggesting bias is acceptable as long as you agree with it.

Re:Fighting the facts with FB's narrative.

[Anonymous Coward]

Who defines what is 'blatantly untrue'?

Re:Fighting the facts with FB's narrative.

[Anonymous Coward]

and the left promotes things like "1/5 women", the 'wage gap', and twists words with phrases like "undocumented workers."

Re: Fighting the facts with FB's narrative.

[Anonymous Coward]

When did i do that? i called out someone for being a hypocrite. and i'll remind you that "suggesting bias is acceptable as long as you agree with it" is the entire reason fox news gives for its existence.

Re:Fighting the facts with FB's narrative.

[mjwx]

I think the only way for a baseline neutral is opposing views. I don't think CNN's or Fox's bias are bad. I think they are both equally biased in opposite directions. By regularly paying attention to both of them, you can get a fairly neutral view.

Sounds fine in principle, but this is exactly how we ended up with "teach the controversy" the "global warming debate" and the "vaccination scare".

Opposing views do not always have the same weight or basis in fact. Presenting them as if they do does not make the presentation baseline neutral, it biases it towards the lunatic fringe.

This, refusing to accept some uneducated idiots opinion as legitimate opposition to fact is not bias.

The saddest part of modern society is that people think that their ignorance is worth as much as scientific knowledge.

Re:Fighting the facts with FB's narrative.

[mjwx]

Actually, third parties have reviewed the fact checkers, and overall found that their bias is minimal. What's more, decent fact-checking organizations document supporting evidence directly in their reports - so you can see things for yourselves.

The problem the parent poster has is that the minimal bias of the fact checkers does not match his own bias.

He's worried his echo chamber is going to be violated by something he doesn't want to hear.

Facebook's problem is two fold.
1. They want to be taken seriously.
2. They've built their success on making echo chambers.

Facebook, whether we like it or not has become a source for news, much the same as any other aggregator of news. They don't produce it, but they distribute it. In order to be taken seriously, they need to reduce the amount of fake news. You will say this is simple enough, and it would be if it weren't for point #2. In order to gain legitimacy, they have to penetrate the echo chambers, for most of us this doesn't matter but we're not the problem. Its the small number of extremists who have spent their time specially cultivating their feeds from Brietbart, Natural News, Zero Hedge, so on and so forth, To these people, an opposing argument is something to be crushed with aggression and vitriol, not because the opposing view is right (or wrong, to extremists this is irrelevant) but because it makes them question their own views. Extremism does not survive for long when exposed to a rational society, so anything rational must be crushed, denied and driven out of the echo chamber.

Whilst Facebook could afford to lose these types, these types of extremists will fight tooth and nail to make it hard not simply because they believe in some insane shit... but because they believe it to a point where they think everyone has to listen and silently agree with them.

Re:Fighting the facts with FB's narrative.

[mjwx]

You are basically coming from the "my lies are as valid as your facts" camp, and your signature confirms that.

This,

I should also point out that his signature makes absolutely no logical sense. He needs a better thought terminating cliche.

Re:Fighting the facts with FB's narrative.

[Wycliffe]

I don't think CNN's or Fox's bias are bad. I think they are both equally biased in opposite directions.

Bullshit False Equivalency. CNN and Fox are not equally biased. Fox, along with right wing radio that started in the 90s, has been extremely biased and fake-newsy for a lonnnnnng time.
Your assertions are ridiculous.

I'm a libertarian leaning independent. I know dozens of people who voted for Bernie in the primaries and Trump in the general. I also have tons of friends on both the far right and the far left. The right thinks that CNN is just as bad as the left thinks Fox is and vice/versa. Most of the independents like myself tend to see them as equally biased in opposite directions. If your on the left, you have a hard time believing this but people on the right think that CNN is a joke and is also full of fake news. It goes back to the original problem with this thread. Who defines neutral? Definitely not the people on the right or the left. Maybe the people who switch sides regularly but that's also flawed.

Re:Fighting the facts with FB's narrative.

[werepants]

Honestly, I think their suggested approach is a pretty fair one, and actually useful to boot - I wouldn't mind seeing at a glance how different news organizations slant each headline. The only people who are going to object are those like the OP, who, as you point out, don't want to be confronted with alternative perspectives that might threaten their personal ideologies.

Re:Fighting the facts with FB's narrative.

[werepants]

Trust no one, truth doesn't exist then.

That's a bankrupt and totally unworkable worldview. We have to trust some information sources, as a matter of practicality - no individual person has the time or resources to verify every scientific experiment or news story or health recommendation. So what you should do is develop heuristics that will rapidly give you a good estimate for the credibility of a source. Does it agree with other sources? Does it agree with the fact-checkers? Is there a paper trail? Is it batshit insane?

Stop being a post-truth relativist. No information source is perfect, but some are good enough to be useful, and VASTLY better than the dreck you'll find in the conspiracy theorist corners of the web.

Re:Fighting the facts with FB's narrative.

[werepants]

How do you know that the Poynter Institute and International Fact-Checking Network are self-audited, bro? And funded by an organization invested in opposing Trump? Please tell me about the infallible news source that delivered this pristine information to your door. Who has fact-checked this doozie?

Your Trumpist echo chamber relies on a bankrupt and totally unworkable worldview. We have to trust some information sources, as a matter of practicality - no individual person has the time or resources to verify every scientific experiment or news story or health recommendation. So what you should do is develop heuristics that will rapidly give you a good estimate for the credibility of a source. Does it agree with other sources? Does it agree with the fact-checkers? Is there a paper trail? Is it batshit insane?

Stop being a post-truth relativist. No information source is perfect, but some are good enough to be useful, and VASTLY better than the dreck you'll find in the conspiracy theorist corners of the web. Stop being a gullible shill for everything pro-Trump, and start applying at least some tiny level of scrutiny to all the nonsense alt-right "news" you're ingesting.

Other pro-American angles or sources that agree

[Anonymous Coward]

that's what it means. You're still looking at the very same side of the coin, and you will be less likely to be shown the other side, remember that.

Re:Other pro-American angles or sources that agree

[RobotRunAmok]

Good.

Re:Other pro-American angles or sources that agree

[Anonymous Coward]

Counterpoint: bad, and you're an ignorant fuckhead

Acute

[jfdavis668]

or obtuse?

How about fact-checking Seth Rich's murder

[daftdada]

It's wasn't the Russians. It was Seth Rich who leaked DNC's info to Assange.

Re:How about fact-checking Seth Rich's murder

[Anonymous Coward]

You do know fox is being sued over that right? or are you being sarcastic
http://www.npr.org/2017/08/01/540783715/lawsuit-alleges-fox-news-and-trump-supporter-created-fake-news-story

We'll see how that lawsuit plays out..

Re:How about fact-checking Seth Rich's murder

[Anonymous Coward]

Done. http://www.snopes.com/seth-con...

Re:How about fact-checking Seth Rich's murder

[Stomper_Stoddard]

It's wasn't the Russians. It was Seth Rich who leaked DNC's info to Assange.

Actually it was Vincent Foster, who faked his own death and is now working against the Clinton Machine in secret.

Re:How about fact-checking Seth Rich's murder

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad all the people sheepishly being told what to think by NPR, MSNBC, CNN, Huffington Post, and Facebook will never acknowledge this inconvenient fact.

Re:How about fact-checking Seth Rich's murder

[Plus1Entropy]

Prior to publishing the trio of Clinton-related fabrications, the same site and blogger held that President Obama had ordered the military to nuke the city of Charleston (which didn’t happen)

I'm not sure if this is funny or a sad sign of the time we live in.

Re:How about fact-checking Seth Rich's murder

[Anonymous Coward]

Citing Snopes on anything remotely political is about as reliable as citing Breitbart. They are a thoroughly discredited source of information.

Re:How about fact-checking Seth Rich's murder

[Anonymous Coward]

It should be noted that the Snopes article's conclusion that Seth Rich was not assassinated is based solely on the argument that Seth Rich was conscious when found by police and didn't tell them he was the victim of a political assassination. Even if Rich knew his attacker, and knew the motives for the shooting, both of which are unlikely, Snope's conclusion is based on the assumption that the victim of a fatal gunshot wound would not be in shock and instead would be in a position to evaluate the chain of causality leading up to his attack and accurately communicate that. Plus, it must have been a robbery since it took place in a city where there were other robberies.

Snopes doesn't even try to investigate whether Rich was the source of the DNC email leak to WIkileaks, which is the basis of the theory that Rich was assassinated. Instead, they choose to pursue other wild conspiracy theories everyone knows to be false in an attempt to paint their "investigation" as complete.

Re: How about fact-checking Seth Rich's murder

[Anonymous Coward]

Bingo. Snopes used to be a great place to check up on rumors and urban legends, but once anything political ends up in the mix their entries turn to trash.

Re: How about fact-checking Seth Rich's murder

[Reverend Green]

Because the kangaroo court system has NEVER rendered blatantly unjust verdicts before...

Re: How about fact-checking Seth Rich's murder

[Anonymous Coward]

You've got your rationalization all ready to go I see. Yes deligimatize the court system and wreak more of our institutions. I'm sure that will work out really well.

Re:How about fact-checking Seth Rich's murder

[ABEND]

It's wasn't the Russians. It was Seth Rich who leaked DNC's info to Assange.

Why is this marked as "Troll?"

Assange stated that the DNC emails were not leaked to Wikileaks by "The Russians."

Assange did comment on Seth Rich's murder while coyly mentioning the dangers that "leakers" are under.

It's quite understandable that someone could easily interpret Assange's statements on the matter to imply that Seth Rich was murdered as punishment for leaking DNC emails to Wikileaks.

Re: How about fact-checking Seth Rich's murder

[unixisc]

Obama has done a fine job of that himself over the last 8 years

Re:How about fact-checking Seth Rich's murder

[lactose99]

He's a confirmed lizard person too, interestingly enough

Re: How about fact-checking Seth Rich's murder

[Anonymous Coward]

How?

Re: How about fact-checking Seth Rich's murder

[unixisc]

One example - using the IRS to go after the 501(c)(3) status of Conservative groups. Using the NSA to wiretap GOP candidates during the election, and feed the results to the Clinton campaign. Issuing executive orders on his way out designed to sabotage the incoming administration. Problem is enough Republican swamp creatures, like McCain, Graham, Sass, Flake et al have been w/ him in that effort. Undermining of institutions has been happening for 8 years, w/ enough Republican traitors happy to be in for the ride

Who fact checks the fact checkers?

[El Cubano]

The fact checkers can give the signal of whether a story is true or false"

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Re:Who fact checks the fact checkers?

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact checkers can give the signal of whether a story is true or false"

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Facebook does of course. Over time there will certainly be variation in the quality of the fact-checkers; you can expect Facebook to keep an eye on them and promote/demote appropriately.

Re:Who fact checks the fact checkers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Like Twitter and their "Trust and Safety Council". I'm it will turn out great.

Re:Who fact checks the fact checkers?

[AHuxley]

SJW.
SJW who don't want authors, art, reviews and ideas to spread.
Any nations Communist party.
A religion that does not want any cartoons showing its teachings.
Movie makers and actors that don't like negative reviews.
NGO's and faith groups that have political policy to sell.
Big pharma and states pushing ag-gag. No video clips showing food production. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Clandestine services who don't want the public to read the next Pentagon Papers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Governments that don't want the results of illegal immigration to be talked about.

A lot of different groups and governments really want links, art and news to be hidden and removed.

Might Just Work

[Residentcur]

I've long advocated for something like this. It works in both directions: I tend to read non-fake, but clearly politically biased, news sites. If you're looking, it's easy to see where the bias is being applied to the prose, but it would be good to have a good way to reach serious treatments of the same topic from other points of view. Also should work to help counter radicalization attempts.

Re:Might Just Work

[bluefoxlucid]

The fair-and-balanced argument is broken, though. People give equal time and portray equal validity to the speaker claiming vaccines are safe and the speaker claiming vaccines cause autism.

WE WILL BUILD A WALL

[Anonymous Coward]

and Mexico will pay for it!

MAGA

Re:WE WILL BUILD A WALL

[Anonymous Coward]

MAGAbytes!

Re: WE WILL BUILD A WALL

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep spreading the good word, my friend. This wall is gonna be YUGE!

Re: WE WILL BUILD A WALL

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck Mexicans.
Literally.
Mate Another Gay Ass. MAGA!

Useless machine learning

[Anonymous Coward]

So what if they append the name "machine learning" to their algorithms? At the end of the day it's still going to just look at keywords and develop fake statistics based on frequency. In other words, it'll be an extension of the pre-processed maintstream media that serves as an echo chamber to the "official" message. If the algorithm is flooded by the echo chamber by so called sources like "CNN", "MSNBC", or "The Huffington Post", it will merely be "fact checked" by the well known Democrat run Southern Poverty Law Center or NPR. So basically if you're not part of the approved Progressive Liberal talking point, or if you are inconvenient to their cause, then you will be flagged as "fake news".

Facebook truly is the Internet Ghetto.

Re:Useless machine learning

[Anonymous Coward]

Facebook truly is the Internet Ghetto.

Beats the hell out of this dump!

Re:Useless machine learning

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's try that again! I have to do it manually I guess...

http://s.newsweek.com/sites/ww...

Other angles: Right, Acute

[fahrbot-bot]

'Cause Fake News is obtuse.

Re:Other angles: Right, Acute

[93 Escort Wagon]

If they are going to link to Other Angles, common sense and fairness would dictate that they also include links to at least a few Saxons.

memes?

[roc97007]

Others have already mentioned that Facebook could (and probably will to a certain extent) use this device to push their own agenda, but leave that for now. The interesting thing to me is that downright hoaxes are still ignored, which seems to argue in favor of the "push their own agenda" argument.

As just one example, a repeat offender is the "Don't use 911!!!" hoax that tells the (demonstrably false) story about how an innocent young lady was saved from a horrible fate by remembering how her parents told her to dial 112 instead of 911 from her car when someone was following her. All went well and the perp was arrested and the girl escaped unharmed all because she did what her parents told her and dialed 112.

This is in the US, where 112 may work in some metropolitan areas as a courtesy to visitors from Europe, but isn't an official emergency number. It may happen to get you to emergency services in New York or Miami, but won't get you anywhere in Perrysburg, Ohio. The article is a dangerous hoax, but it keeps getting propagated, because people want to believe that they are privy to some bit of important knowledge that nobody else knows.

The point being, if Facebook was so concerned about their site being used to propagate false news, where the hell are the "alternate articles" calling this a hoax? If you google "call 112 instead of 911" the first 20 or so hits are articles pleading with you to not fall for this.

I mean WTF, Facebook? Is debunking some story about Ivanka's charities more important than calling the wrong emergency services number in an emergency?

Re:memes?

[Anonymous Coward]

but it keeps getting propagated, because people want to believe that they are privy to some bit of important knowledge that nobody else knows.

Dude, I've been saying for years that this is the reason behind almost every stupid conspiracy theory ever.
It's good to see that others might feel the same way.

Re:memes?

[roc97007]

but it keeps getting propagated, because people want to believe that they are privy to some bit of important knowledge that nobody else knows.

Dude, I've been saying for years that this is the reason behind almost every stupid conspiracy theory ever.
It's good to see that others might feel the same way.

I agree. But it's more than just conspiracy theories. Every article of the type "My teeth were falling out until I found this amazing trick! Dentists don't want you to know this! Don't use toothpaste to brush your teeth! Make this recipe at home for healthy teeth! Watch your cavities disappear overnight!" Where the formula is one part Windex to two parts possum fat. Most of them are relatively harmless (although possum fat tastes terrible) but they all have one thing in common: (a) they are generally ineffective, and (b) the "hook" is the mark's secret inner conviction that he knows some key fact nobody else knows.

So my facebook friends are all soaking their bunions in a mixture of apple juice and kerosene, using a toenail embedded in axle grease to ward away yellowjackets, and I despair for humanity.

Maybe I need new friends.

Re:memes?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait. Wait. Before you blow this idea up, let's all get together and trick a bunch of Republicans into staying home and "prayer voting" in Nov 2018.

#BlueMidterm2018

Re:memes?

[_merlin]

Emergency numbers are actually recognised by the phone itself, and it initiates a different call establishment sequence for emergency calls. This allows the network to give emergency calls priority, and allow emergency calls without a SIM card, etc. All GSM-compliant phones (anything with WCDMA 3G or LTE) will recognise 112 as well as any additional emergency numbers programmed in the firmware or the SIM card. Phones sold in the US will recognise at least 112 and 911, phones sold in Australia recognise 112, 000 and usually 911 as well, phones sold in Hong Kong and UK recognise 112 and 999 and possibly other emergency numbers.

So while the story is wrong, you're wrong too. Unless you're using a Sprint-style CDMA phone, 112 will always work as an emergency number, and the other numbers that work depend on your phone and SIM card. If it's a US phone and/or SIM card, 911 will definitely work, but if you're using a phone and SIM card from overseas, that may not be the case. It has nothing to do with a courtesy to European visitors in cities.

The story probably got started early in US GSM rollout before the carriers thought to program 911 as an alternate emergency number in phones and SIM cards. If the phone/SIM card don't recognise 911 as an emergency number, it will be established as a normal call, and routed by the network. It will still go to the same destination US but it won't get priority the way an emergency call establishment sequence will. The same was true in Australia before 2000 - most phones/SIM cards didn't recognise 000 as an emergency number.

Re:memes?

[Anonymous Coward]

They are only starting to roll this out. Why are you complaining about not seeing this feature in the past?

Re:memes?

[Megane]

But do they recognize 0118 999 881 999 119 725... 3?

Re:memes?

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless you're using a Sprint-style CDMA phone,

So, 14% of the US?

Re:memes?

[bluefoxlucid]

Is this verified at the tower, or is the phone essentially an arbiter such that a custom SIM can let you make free calls?

Re:memes?

[_merlin]

The emergency call establishment doesn't have a number in in. You dial 112, 911 or whatever and the phone just says "get me emergency". It can't specify any more than that. The network decides how to route the emergency call. So yes, you can make a custom SIM that allows you to dial an arbitrary number for free, as long as you're happy for that number to just connect to emergency services rather than being routed as it usually would be.

Re:memes?

[cascadingstylesheet]

The point being, if Facebook was so concerned about their site being used to propagate false news, where the hell are the "alternate articles" calling this a hoax? If you google "call 112 instead of 911" the first 20 or so hits are articles pleading with you to not fall for this.

I mean WTF, Facebook? Is debunking some story about Ivanka's charities more important than calling the wrong emergency services number in an emergency?

Yes, it is more important to Facebook ... which is why I don't trust them on this.

Re:memes?

[bluefoxlucid]

Good.

Re:memes?

[apoc.famine]

Yes, you need new friends. Also, I think my IQ went up significantly when I ditched facebook years ago. It's a firehose of stupid, even if you have decent friends. Unless you somehow have the same sense of humor and interests as your friends and family, you get a lot of stupid crap to wade through that they think is hilarious or fascinating. I'm much happier spending that time and brainpower curating my RSS feeds. While I don't get anywhere near the variety of content, any site that queues up stupid for me gets ditched, which means the quality is vastly higher. And now that I have an RSS reader with facebook support, I can even follow a handful of people/businesses that I'm interested in, without facebook curating a "newsfeed" for me consisting of stupid shit.

Re:memes?

[roc97007]

I think "a firehose of stupid" is my new favorite phrase. I'd like to borrow that.

True story: A friend of mine had been trash talking Facebook practically since it came out, with (admittedly legitimate) criticisms "how much thought does it take to click like? Or forward a meme?" and "people haven't even met most of their 'friends', and everyone is pretending to be something they're not" and other things. My counter is that if you're doing all that, you're using Facebook wrong. I use my account as a blog, and write (in my own words, not "copy and paste this so others can enjoy it") about observations I've made through life, like the loud, painfully metrosexual prick in the line ahead of me at Starbucks with the outrageously complicated drink order, (happened twice to me and once to my daughter -- not sure if it was the same guy or if this was a fad) or more personal things like my daughter's ferret, who loves to dance on my keyboard, leading me to discover Lightroom shortcuts I had no idea existed. I also tend to preview photos on facebook before offering them for sale.

So anyway, in general, if most of your Facebook actions are just clicking on stuff, then yeah, you're part of the problem.

The punch line is that the friend mentioned above recently confessed that he actually did have a facebook account, but didn't want to admit it. He friended me, and... his account was absolutely everything he had been complaining about. Memes. Pictures of his food. Close to zero original content. Lots of photos, but zero photos that he had taken himself, zero photos of any part of his life. Fake name. Fake stats. Network packets cried out in vain as they were forced to transport content of no import whatsoever.

I'm reminded of the old Walt Kelly quote.

Re:memes?

[apoc.famine]

I get what you're saying, but like your friend, most people can't resist the lure of the clicky firehose. I definitely had some decent family members who posted insightful, interesting things. A friend who is an astronomer posting amazing pictures and research findings. But the sheer amount of effort to curate the good stuff and aim the firehose elsewhere was exhausting. Combined with facebook's love of changing the interface and underlying functionality regularly and randomly, I just found that the effort wasn't worth it.
 
No offense, but unless you're a stunning writer with great comedic ability, what you describe blogging about are exactly the things that I'd consider part of the firehose of stupid. (Higher quality, I'd assume, based on how you write here, but still part of it.) We all have our irritations in life, our pets, family, and hobbies. In general, I'm really not interested in hearing about others'. I'm well aware that I'm in a minority here, someone who finds little interest in the mundane things in life, and not being interested in spending time exploring them. I'm not a pop culture person, I don't get the appeal of most sitcoms or memes, and that makes most of social media pretty worthless to me. I still appreciate /., however, as there are still a fair number of decent, thoughtful people, (thank you, personally) and it doesn't attempt to hook people on pavlovian responses to rapid and repeated stimuli. (Aka the firehose of stupid.)

Re:memes?

[Shotgun]

Nah! I'd rather put my vagina hat back on and go around whining that I only get paid 70% of what men do.

Re:memes?

[roc97007]

Nah! I'd rather put my vagina hat back on and go around whining that I only get paid 70% of what men do.

I tried that, but people kept asking about the beard.

Just stop....

[drew_92123]

Stop with the related articles bullshit, ban the cunts posting the fake shit, and move on already...

Fake News

[Anonymous Coward]

Pointing people back to fake news sources like CNN and Washington Post is not going to convince them of anything other than Facebook's determination to aid and abet the distribution of fake news.

Re: Fake News

[Anonymous Coward]

If CNN is fake and fox is fake and breitbart is fake and MSNBC is fake. Where do I go for real news?

Re: Fake News

[Anonymous Coward]

Excellent question.

Facebook does real news

[oldgraybeard]

Facebook is great for family and grandkid news on private. Does anyone actually go to Facebook for any real news!

Just my 2 cents ;)

Yes I have my flame suit on lol ;)

Re:Facebook does real news

[apoc.famine]

A vast portion of people aged 30-60, unfortunately. That's why this is a problem.

Religion

[Neo-Rio-101]

Fact checkers are going to have a ball when dealing with religious posts.

Re:Religion

[Anonymous Coward]

those are the easy ones... delete:delete:delete

Re:Religion

[Anonymous Coward]

Only requires two simple rules:

Pro-Christian or anti-Muslim? -> fake news

Anti-Christian or pro-Muslim? -> 100% true

Nederland

[manu0601]

Pre-click Related Articles are rolling out in the U.S., Germany, France, and Nederlands (sic) today.

The Nederland? Come on, don't you have a spell checker?

Truthiness reports???

[toonces33]

That word does not mean what they seem to think that it means.

Test ;-)

[Tablizer]

I typed in "What is the diameter of Earth?" and got this.

Infowars will hate this

[jader3rd]

I suspect that Infowars will hate this, and for some reason think that once Net Neutrality is repealed, this behavior will not be possible.

Re:Infowars will hate this

[Anonymous Coward]

Infowars actually has reporters on the ground, often where the other networks are just posting template pictures and repeating / rewording headlines from reuters/AP.

Controlled Opposition

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm really concerned that Facebook's opposing stories will merely be Controlled Opposition. In other words, it'll just be commentary from mainstream media who are still under the paycheck of MSM or simply too much part of the existing establishment. I seriously doubt Alex Jones, Breitbart, or DrudgeReport will ever be part of the opposing views. Perhaps occasionally they will be referenced but I suspect part of the non-controlled opposition will mostly be branded "hate speech". That seems to be M.O. of the liberal progressives (or shall I say regressives).

Re: Controlled Opposition

[Anonymous Coward]

When was the last time one of those sites ran a retraction? Or are they never wrong. Even when they flat out lie?

Re: Controlled Opposition

[Anonymous Coward]

Care to link some of their "flat out lie" news article links?

Oh good

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm looking forward to trolling the shit out of them. Facebook, when it uses the term "fake news", really means anything / anyone they disagree with. Their related links better have a comment section or I'll find a way to make Facebook feel my displeasure.

Facebook "Angles" are just FB approved sites

[Anonymous Coward]

In other words, it's a multi faction information cult that will always agree with each other, making news appear perfectly accurate and boost ad revenue for whomever probably owns all of them. I go to a Google search and see an ad and then click on a YouTube link and see an ad. They got me twice.

Facebook = China

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds an awful lot like what China is doing with its "innovative" censorship scheme - https://yro.slashdot.org/story/17/08/02/2233252/china-is-perfecting-a-new-method-for-suppressing-dissent-on-the-internet

Any list of this 'fake' news?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thought not. Just another pathetic attempt by the Bolshevik media to prevent the population from finding out the truth!
If there is 'fake news', there should be an official website telling us what it is...

Display the EARNED public reputation of the linker

[shanen]

Facebook should have a system to accumulate and display the public reputation of the person offering the link. This should be based on how other people react to their comments and prior links. The solution would allow you to pre-filter worthless sources so you don't have to waste time seeing the garbage.

Just look how well the moderation works on Slashdot! On second thought. Forget the whole thing.

Actually, I think that Slashdot and even Slashdot or Google+ could be fixed. Sort of the way Nomad thought it could repair the Enterprise.

China Is Perfecting a New Method For Suppressing..

[dslmodem]

https://yro.slashdot.org/story...

"Fact Checkers"

[theblkadder]

Trust us! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

Saw Architects and Engineers for 9/11 followed up.

[Anonymous Coward]

.. by a bunch of garbage hillbilly science last september on my facebook feed.

Facebook is increasingly turning into a misinformation machine, now that the younger generations are not reading newspapers or watching tv for their daily dose of brainwashing.

Re:Display the EARNED public reputation of the lin

[rickb928]

"This should be based on how other people react to their comments and prior links."

So make it a popularity contest.

This works for selecting the Prom Queen. Not for real life politics. Please.

Re:Display the EARNED public reputation of the lin

[CanHasDIY]

-1 Overrated

Get it? :D

Trustworthiness

[CanHasDIY]

This is the same corporation who was (and likely still is) running secret social experiments on the people using their network, correct?

I'm certain we can trust them to not use this as another experiment...

Political Bias

[Anonymous Coward]

This is just more liberal bullshit from Facebook.

Facebook knows along which side of the political aisle you walk. If you are right-leaning, FB knows it, and will make sure it posts a bunch of liberal nonsense alongside your posts.

I'm sure liberals posting liberal bullshit will be left alone and NOT have Drudge or Breitbart articles shown along with said bullshit.

I'm confused. Surely this is good?

[Cederic]

I don't understand why so many people seem to feel this is a bad thing.

"There are other opinions available - here they are" seems an exceedingly mature response, especially if it includes less subjective viewpoints.

Even the 'equal weight to anti-vaxxers' argument can be negated somewhat if the preponderance of evidence (as expressed through related articles) offers a counterpoint.

This approach actually lets Facebook avoid having to determine what is, or isn't, fake news. Thing posted has controversy around it? Here are articles offering an alternative view, and/or articulating the controversy.

This could be abused, sure. Because it's from Facebook it's likely to be abused too. But it's sure as fuck better than "We don't like what you posted, it's deleted. You're banned. The police will be around in 15 minutes"

Re:Display the EARNED public reputation of the lin

[shanen]

Not a polite request for details.^1

Re:Display the EARNED public reputation of the lin

[shanen]

Not a polite request for details.^2

Re: Display the EARNED public reputation of the li

[rickb928]

It was not a request for details, but was a comment.

Re: Display the EARNED public reputation of the li

[shanen]

If you have a better idea, great. If you have nothing to say, then say nothing.

Not a polite request for details.^3

Re: Display the EARNED public reputation of the l

[rickb928]

Ah. So slashdot has gone from a commentary site to an advisory site.

When did this happen? Oh, wait. It didn't.

Really.

Re: Display the EARNED public reputation of the l

[shanen]

Z^4

Re: Display the EARNED public reputation of the l

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah. So slashdot has gone from a commentary site to an advisory site.

Since you brought it up, I would advise you to ignore that idiot. Look through his comment history and you will understand why. For sure he is trolling. If his 'reputation' shtick was in place, he would be voted off the internet for good.

Re:Display the EARNED public reputation of the lin

[Anonymous Coward]

Now see what you did? You put chili powder on his pacifier! Or his butt plug? The guy is totally infantile.