Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Pages Spreading Fake News Won't Be Able To Buy Ads (techcrunch.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechCrunch: Facebook says it's taking another step against Pages that share fabricated news stories. The company has already been working with outside fact-checkers like Snopes and the AP to flag inaccurate news stories. (These aren't supposed to be stories that are disputed for reasons of opinion or partisanship, but rather outright hoaxes and lies.) It also says that when a story is marked as disputed, the link can can no longer be promoted through Facebook ads. The next step, which the company is announcing today, involves stopping Pages that regularly share these stories from buying any Facebook ads at all, regardless of whether or not the ad includes a disputed link. In this case, Leathern said blocking ad-buying is meant to change the economic incentives. Facebook is concerned that "there are Pages posting this information that are using Facebook Ads to build audiences" to spread false news. By changing the ad policy, Facebook makes it harder for companies to attract that audience.
Now there is something I would have never expected. Facebook a real world news source.
Going to get really interesting in a year or 2. Can Facebook be a real news source and the Epicenter of the Zuck for President Universe.
It's not about fact, but about pushing the PC narrative.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
And any valid potlical opinion 'people' might disagree with will be labeled 'extremist', 'alt-right', 'racist', 'inciting hatred', or simply 'nazi', and disappeared, no matter if it is actually true or not. And whoever controls the censors gets to decide what is true and what is not.
It's easy to see where this is heading. Next will be the deletion of Facebook pages that spread so-called fake news. Or anything Facebook finds objectionable.
In the recent past, the simple work-around would be buy a domain name and link to such content hosted somewhere. However, GoDaddy, Dreamhost, Network Solutions, and others have now taken it upon themselves to, in effect, censor content by deleting the domain name associated with any site they find objectionable.
Interesting how many internet neutrality proponents are all for it except when it concerns content and expression they don't like. Seems to me that domain name registrars, DNS providers, co-location facilities, ISPs, communication providers, and network access points should all be considered common carrier utilities and not permitted to arbitrarily block usage nor content unless dictated so by law.
If you Trump-supporting idiots (yes, idiots) DIDN'T SO CONSTANTLY GET CAUGHT LYING, like the idiot himself? Then you would have nothing to fear from fact checking!
If he's American, then yes, to Americans, most people are leftists. After all, your leftists are our right-wingers.
Ezekiel 23:20
Not just biased, but down right dishonest.
Whaaah! We don't have access to our servers, we are being held hostage by the people my wife sold her shares in the company to... but we'll just leave out that fact when we beg for money.
The US government is run by right wing extremists. Only now even nuttier farther right extremists want their share.
The most right-wing party in Denmark (in government, not Nazis and that far-right BS) almost verges the American Democrats party. A guy like Bernie Sanders would be center/slightly right-wing in Denmark.
Facts don't have a political slant, but collections of facts do. By choosing which facts to present, you can shape the narrative to support a particular position or weaken support for that position. For example, you might:
And so on. The problem is, all the sources of news are so skewed in one way or another that people don't know who to trust anymore. Clearly, some sources are particularly bad, and filtering out that noise is a laudable effort, but without a quality source of news to replace it, I fear that the void will just be filled by more noise.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
It's correct, the stuff Americans call "left wing" seems like the right wing politics in Europe. Worse, anything centrist gets called Marxism, which is hilarious.
Since the people vetting the ads are almost all leftists, it'd be easy for them to decree something as non-fact.
They're vetting themselves.
Citation?
You see that is generally how fact checking works, it isn't purely an opinion, it is an opinion based on cited sources.
... fake news is easy to identify. It's not a matter of bias, it's a matter of fact.
Either something happened or it didn't.
It's not hard.
However, why in tarnation is anybody getting their real goddam news on fucking Facebook?
That's the question.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Bill Clinton feared the open internet in 1995
http://www.breitbart.com/big-j...
> Three years before Matt Drudge changed the world and how news
> would be consumed, President Bill Clinton's White House feared
> that the Internet was allowing average citizens, especially conservatives,
> to bypass legacy gatekeepers and access information that had
> previously been denied to them by the mainstream press.
Hillary Clinton whining about an internet "Without any kind of editing function or gatekeeping function"
http://www.freerepublic.com/fo...
Apparently CNN (Clinton News Network) wasn't winning the battle for hearts and minds, so the Democrats wanted to destroy Breitbart website... Hillary Campaign Vows To Destroy Opposition Website
http://dailycaller.com/2016/08...
I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
Well looking at these facts I see a bunch of claims by Trump that could or could not be tree. Then I see a bunch of claims by the Washington post that say these claim's by Trump are not true. What I don't see is evidence from the Washington Post that can be used to check their facts. So, what we have here is a bunch of unverified claims by the Great Orange being counter claimed by a bunch of unverifiable claims by a failing media rag.
This put the counter claims by the Washington Post exactly in the same frame as those they are saying are false. In other words not worth the web page they are printed on.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
Can we please just change model away from the "political spectrum". Otherwise it just becomes a game of everyone calling all right-wings Hitler and all left-wings Stalin. Let's make it a political forest where we have a bunch of political trees such as conservatives, liberals, libertarians, progressive conservatives, etc. That are all able to have their own political stance without this game of strawman shovong eachother into political stances that nether side actually believes. Oh, on a side note this site is called slashdot. It's a site about technology.
Or if you call anyone that doesn't agree with you a nazi, fascist, racist, biggot, sexist, etc in order to justify silencing, assaulting, hating, belittling, etc. That's the point the Left is right now. There's kids going out saying they want to punch nazis and that seems to be anyone that doesn't hold a Progressive point of view. The media is complicit in this in that they're getting ratings reporting on the skirmishes. That same media that also admitted to colluding with Hillary against Bernie.
The problem is, all the sources of news are so skewed in one way or another that people don't know who to trust anymore.
That's not true. For example, the BBC goes to great lengths to present both sides of an argument. In fact the BBC has been criticised for it, because some people feel that they give fringe views only held by a small number of people too much weight in comparison to more mainstream ones.
No news outlet is going to track down every random conspiracy theory just to get "all sides", but there are some who so present a mostly unbiased description of events and the opinions of those involved.
I don't want to go too far in defending them because I have on occasion sent them corrections myself (and they acted on them), but this idea that there are no reliable sources any more is just dangerous post-truth hand-wringing.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
We are not comparing Trump to Hitler, we are pointing out that there are literal, actual Nazis involved in his administration and in his electoral campaign. And many others who are not literal Nazis, but have supported Nazis or nationalists, or are nationalists, or are just generally awful people.
You mean, the same Trump whose first foreign visit was to Israel, and whose daughter is Jewish, is a Nazi sympathiser? While your side keeps shouting praise of a vile theo-political ideology who literally (in the real sense of this word) tend to have "death to Jews" on their flags?
You're like Putin whose propaganda went all out towards equating Ukraine with Pravyi Sektor when it had 1 parliament member. Of the two sides of American politics, it's the left whose mainstream politicians give support to a violent "kill those who have a different skin color than us" terrorist hate group: Sanders gave BLM a wholehearted support while Clinton was at least somewhat in favour of it. I don't see Trump praising the alt-right.
Thus, of the two violent red-white-and-black flag raising, raised-hand gesture, racist groups, the left are worse (in the US).
Things are different for example in Poland or Turkey, but Facebook has nowhere as much influence here.
And globally, Hitler killed "only" 21 millions, while communists clock around 180M (totalling Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc). Weighting religious wars upon how much they were religious and how much secular, I'd give Christianity 100M and Islam around 75M (vast majority of it in India). So yeah, even literal Nazis (not to be confused with alt-right who are racist but mostly not nationalist and almost never socialist) were nowhere as bad as your heroes. (Preempting your likely answer, no, killing 21M folks doesn't make you good.)
So sorry but I refuse to discriminate between "hate those with a different skin color, shape of genitals we dislike, etc" groups -- they all are a plague that humanity suffers from.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
A silently released "woopsy so sad too bad" blurb well after the damage has been done isn't a meaningful retraction or correction, it's a joke at best. Just look at how many people STILL vehemently insist on prosecuting the UVA rape that never was. Or even better look at the AP's institutionalized bias against Israel in all its reporting, as revealed by its own former reporters such as Matti Friedman.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
There is another winning move. It's not an easy one to make and occasionally goes wrong, but it's not impossible.
Filter the unquestionably, demonstrably fake news. Forget all the questionable or biased stuff, just focus on the total bullshit that has no basis in reality. Pizzagate, Brietbart articles about churches on fire that photographic evidence incontrovertibly proves to be false, blog posts claiming that the Clintons murdered dozens of people, Euro myths that have been widely debunked since the 1990s.
Set the bar high. Require multiple reputable sources debunking the stories. Fake news is a hot topic, these days you won't have trouble finding them. And then don't ban the speech, just de-monetize it and put a note saying that reputable sources dispute it with links to their debunkings.
Even then, it will occasionally fail, but you can be sure that many reputable news sources will notice and make damn sure that the truth does get out.
If you plan to disagree with this, please include examples where this has been tried and it failed systematically.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
If you're making claims, you should point to the sources of the claims, and those sources should be verifiable.
"Unnamed sources withing the Trump Administration" is not a valid attribution. Such as proven with the Comey Testimony before congress, where the "unnamed source" was flat out wrong. But since we don't know who that was, we can't discount that source as being bad source.
I realize that the News Media wants people on the inside, and don't want to reveal their sources, but that kind of crap is not reliable source material.
On the other hand, you have Wikileaks, which has a 100% proven record, saying it wasn't the Russians or any state actor who got them the DNC documentation. Yet that is not a "valid source" because it wasn't the WAPO, NYT, CNN or MSNBC, who all relied on "Unnamed sources" inside the intelligence community.
So, by "Fake News" which fake news are you going to go with? The Russians Hacking the Election was "fake news" for well over a year, and there is even a special prosecutor tied to it. Meanwhile, the DNC actually hacked an election, got caught colluding with foreign governments and yet that was never really reported.
There is plenty of fake news, both by Trump and the Democrats/media complex. If we ignore the fake news being spread by our side, we're nothing but a hypocrites. Fake news works, because it is easier to spread a lie than it is to counter with actual verified information.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.