Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

William Shatner Criticizes Facebook Hoax Ad Announcing His Death (people.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the you're-not-dead,-Jim dept.

"William Shatner is alive and well -- in fact, he turned 87 on Thursday, so the actor was not pleased when he saw an ad on Facebook sharing a story about his alleged death," writes the Hollywood Reporter. An anonymous reader quotes People: "@WilliamShatner I thought you might want to know you're dead," a Twitter user wrote, along with a screenshot of the ad. Less than a half hour later, Shatner posted his own message calling out the social media company for spreading the phony news... "Thought you were doing something about this?" he wrote. Several hours after Shatner's tweet, Facebook's director of product management Rob Leathern messaged the actor to let him know that the ad had been removed. "Thank you," Shatner replied. "I'm not planning on dying so please continue to block those kinds of ads..." Fortunately, Shatner's in good company when it comes to celebrity death hoaxes... News of Sylvester Stallone's fake death originally began circulating on Facebook in 2016.
In late 2016 Mark Zuckerberg posted that "We take misinformation seriously..." while adding that "we know people want accurate information. We've been working on this problem for a long time and we take this responsibility seriously." Ironically, that announcement appeared next to a similar fake ad announcing that Hugh Hefner was dead, though at the time Hefner was very much alive.

"We've made significant progress," Zuckerberg's post continued, "but there is more work to be done."

76 comments

  1. It really shouldn't be that hard by DeplorableCodeMonkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    With Facebook's resources they should already have algorithms that can roughly pinpoint who started the hoax, ID them and publicly castigate them or ban them.

    Or even better, the originators just get a notice saying "Facebook Legal has determined that you are one of the first/most influential sharers of this hoax. All information about this defamatory post has been preserved in the event that the target wishes to pursue legal action."

    I think that would cause enough puckering sphincters to start changing attitudes.

    1. Re: It really shouldn't be that hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good point, this kind of posts should get the same treatment.

    2. Re:It really shouldn't be that hard by freeze128 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Maybe just provide information about who it was who paid for the ad. There has always been bad information on the internet, it's just that now it's easier to hide the source. On usenet, if a particular poster was suspected of spreading bullshit, you could just killfile him. Allow the same on facebook.

    3. Re:It really shouldn't be that hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >With Facebook's resources they should already have algorithms

      It's making me wonder for sure. Is it just too huge a problem to effectively solve with algorithms.

      They know this is devastating to their bottom line, so they must be trying at least a bit. Either they dgaf and are among the worst sociopaths out there (doubt it) or this problem is a lot harder than we all think.

    4. Re:It really shouldn't be that hard by mschwanke97402 · · Score: 1

      With Facebook's resources they should already have algorithms that can roughly pinpoint who started the hoax, ID them and publicly castigate them or ban them.

      Or even better, the originators just get a notice saying "Facebook Legal has determined that you are one of the first/most influential sharers of this hoax. All information about this defamatory post has been preserved in the event that the target wishes to pursue legal action."

      I think that would cause enough puckering sphincters to start changing attitudes.

      Forget algorithms. Computers are stupid. You can always game any automated system. Put people to work. Require verification of news posts, you know, like actual journalists always did before the inter-webs put them out of their jobs.

    5. Re:It really shouldn't be that hard by mschwanke97402 · · Score: 1

      >With Facebook's resources they should already have algorithms

      It's making me wonder for sure. Is it just too huge a problem to effectively solve with algorithms.

      They know this is devastating to their bottom line, so they must be trying at least a bit. Either they dgaf and are among the worst sociopaths out there (doubt it) or this problem is a lot harder than we all think.

      Rock and hard place. Hiring actual people to filter BS posts which will cost big $$$ versus loss of revenue due to bad optics of BS posts which also costs big $$$. All things being equal, if I were faced with losing a few billion dollars, I think I'd try to do some good while taking my lumps.

    6. Re:It really shouldn't be that hard by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 2

      The real message should have read:

      "You're dead, Jim." -- Bones

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    7. Re:It really shouldn't be that hard by Alumoi · · Score: 1

      Just block the fucking ads. Problem solved.
      Oh, wait, ads are what Failbook lives for.

    8. Re:It really shouldn't be that hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bingo. Compounding the problem once you've got an army of meatrobots filtering content you really are the censor. There's no avoiding it and you and your decisions are then directly responsible for what information is spread freely and what isn't. That's real freakin dangerous. Regulation has to come from somewhere, these are decisions that have profound consequences on society and Zuck's not wrong to argue that it's time for society as a whole to chip in and help steer the direction of social media.

      For this to happen the entire industry will have to transform fundamentally. He gonna have to give up (back) some billions, though, and I'm not sure him and his buddies can handle that. It seems more likely that he goes down whining like a child as the landscape shifts under his feet.

    9. Re:It really shouldn't be that hard by mschwanke97402 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Fact checking does not equal censorship. All newspapers used to be pretty strict about it, Republican or Democrat or Agnostic. We're not talking about filtering opinions here. Either Shatner is dead or he isn't.

    10. Re:It really shouldn't be that hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that they spend far too much time worrying about whether or not people are using their real names than what information they're collecting and what the ads that are being run do.

      FB is one of the scummiest sites on the internet.

    11. Re:It really shouldn't be that hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and prove that capability? That would be like wasting a zero-day exploit to get a parking ticket repealed.

    12. Re:It really shouldn't be that hard by Bert64 · · Score: 2

      Assuming the hoax actually started on facebook, and not somewhere else... Perhaps someone saw the news somewhere else and decided to share it on facebook?

      What we need is not less information, but more, including education... People shouldn't believe everything they read regardless of where it comes from, they should always question what they hear and verify any claims.

      Censorship is a slippery slope, and censoring provably false information is only the first stage because its easy to argue for... It moves on to censorship of extreme opinions, and then censorship of any opinions which are contrary to those of the censors...

      For that matter most of us have no way to know for sure if william shatner or hugh heffner etc are dead or not, a statement online claiming william shatner to be alive *could* be written by shatner himself, but could just as easily come from a fake. All information should be treated with skepticism, you can do further research into the subject if its important to you or otherwise you can just not worry about it.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    13. Re:It really shouldn't be that hard by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Funny

      Is he in a box?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    14. Re: It really shouldn't be that hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      whenever he actually does die, no one will
      believe it.

    15. Re:It really shouldn't be that hard by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      Either Shatner is dead or he isn't.

      Only if you're looking at him

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    16. Re:It really shouldn't be that hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, Schrodinger is in the damn box! He was hiding in there all along waiting for someone to come looking for the cat he stole...

    17. Re:It really shouldn't be that hard by grep+-v+'.*'+* · · Score: 2

      Either Shatner is dead or he isn't.

      Maybe not -- perhaps his middle name is Schrodinger, and then it'd be and.

      Besides, even heard of hospital resuscitation? Maybe it's 100% completely accurate but just extremely FAST news.

      He's dead, Jim. ZAP. He's back. Oops, he's gone again. ZAP. He's ba, nope. ZAAP. Back again. Still back. Sti, nope. ZAAAAAAAAAAAP. Back, but medium well now.. Y'know, I didn't know that went up to 11 -- you learn learn something new every day.

      --
      If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
    18. Re:It really shouldn't be that hard by grep+-v+'.*'+* · · Score: 1

      Or: perhaps it's just a legal issue. 'I am listed dead, I can't do anything': Romanian court tells man he's not alive -- March 16, 2018

      --
      If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
    19. Re:It really shouldn't be that hard by scdeimos · · Score: 1

      There has always been bad information on the internet, it's just that now it's easier to hide the source.

      It's not just the internet. Let's not forget Richard Wilkins back in 2009 reported that Jeff Goldblum had died on set while filming in New Zealand. Jeff Goldblum is still alive and well. There have always been such gaffes and there always will be, internet or not.

    20. Re:It really shouldn't be that hard by mentil · · Score: 1

      Next you'll tell me Paul McCartney is still alive...

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    21. Re:It really shouldn't be that hard by scottrocket · · Score: 1

      Next you'll tell me Paul McCartney is still alive...

      Well thankfully Abe Vigoda is still alive.

    22. Re:It really shouldn't be that hard by scottrocket · · Score: 1

      Forget algorithms. Computers are stupid. You can always game any automated system. Put people to work. Require verification of news posts, you know, like actual journalists always did before the inter-webs put them out of their jobs.

      "Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter."

    23. Re:It really shouldn't be that hard by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      Bad news, buddy...

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abe_Vigoda

    24. Re:It really shouldn't be that hard by AndyG314 · · Score: 1

      "The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated" -Mark Twain, 1897

      --
      If it's dead, you killed it.
    25. Re:It really shouldn't be that hard by jtgd · · Score: 1

      ... an army of meatrobots filtering content ...

      Wait a sec, is this something that AI can't do? Seems like an easy one to have the text scanned and if it determines that it is claiming someone is dead, then run through the list of all famous people, then verify if they really are dead, then flag it for the meatrobot to verify. I'd say we could give that brain-dead job to the siliconrobots.

      --
      J
  2. Pray tell, teh zuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is this "significant progress" you are speaking of?

  3. not planning on dying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yeah well, you probably also didnt planning on sucking as an actor...

    oh... the... horror... watchting... him...

    1. Re:not planning on dying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah well, you probably also didnt planning on sucking as an actor...

      oh... the... horror... watchting... him...

      I'm pretty sure he doesn't care what anyone thinks about his acting, and has the bank account to prove it.

  4. "We take misinformation seriously..." by Blinkin1200 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "We take misinformation seriously..." unless it leads to ad revenue.

    Any and all currencies accepted. Thank you.

  5. They probably meant... by magusxxx · · Score: 1

    ...his career.

    --
    Care killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.
    1. Re:They probably meant... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      It was just ... that one of his pauses ... got so long ... ... that they ... ... ... thought ... ... ... he'd stopped.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    2. Re:They probably meant... by AmazingRuss · · Score: 1

      Does any 87 year old have a career?

    3. Re:They probably meant... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably should ask Betty White

    4. Re:They probably meant... by mentil · · Score: 1

      SCOTUS justices

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
  6. The reports of my death have been greatly... by mykepredko · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Erroneously reporting the death of a famous person in various forms of media has been going on a lot longer than Facebook has been around.

    Bill Shatner should be pleased that people actually care whether or not he's alive - there are a lot of octogenarian TV & movie stars that when somebody hears their name reply with "I thought they were dead."

    --
    Mimetics Inc. Twitter
    1. Re:The reports of my death have been greatly... by Deadstick · · Score: 1

      Not even a Star Trek first...James Doohan was reported dead online years before he really was.

    2. Re:The reports of my death have been greatly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Especially one that's so unpopular that he doesn't get invited to his friend's wedding!

    3. Re:The reports of my death have been greatly... by Kjella · · Score: 2

      Bill Shatner should be pleased that people actually care whether or not he's alive - there are a lot of octogenarian TV & movie stars that when somebody hears their name reply with "I thought they were dead."

      I think that's just as much to do with the way the person chooses to retire. Some of them are like "I'm done", they've lived in the spotlight most their lives and when it's no longer part of the "job" they clam up completely, no interviews, no memoirs, no events, no celebrity dinners, nothing. It's like they dropped off the earth because they wanted to just be that old man in the park playing with his grandkids and great-grandkids.

      Other people seem to be enjoying it (or milking it?) to the last, even if you're kinda a has-been everyone who's been an A-list celebrity gets invited to enough VIP events that they can keep their name and face in the news if they want. Like for example Shatner can show up at any Trek-related event as a VIP guest any time he wants or he could decided that as far as he's concerned James T. Kirk is dead and buried. It's really up to them.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    4. Re:The reports of my death have been greatly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      George Takei probably took out the ad.

    5. Re:The reports of my death have been greatly... by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      DeForest Kelly’s death was a meme in some Usenet groups pre-WWW.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
  7. Automation doesn't work by DogDude · · Score: 2

    Automation doesn't work. These dumb social media companies, along with online traditional media companies all thought they hit the goldmine because they could automate their advertising platforms, and fire all of their salespeople and advertising copy editors and ad designers. Well, they don't work, and they need to be held responsible for the crap their pushing. I'm so very sorry that they might have to go back to paying humans to do the job of selling advertising, but I doubt there's another good alternative.

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
    1. Re:Automation doesn't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They seem to be doing something right, since it makes them money, it does work for them.

  8. Ummm..... by Dutchmaan · · Score: 1

    ....maybe they were just talking about his career.

  9. RIP Mark Zuckerberg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    His company needs to die with him.

  10. Need one of these for everyone by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

    http://www.abevigoda.com/

  11. What kind of ad? by magarity · · Score: 1

    So, what is someone selling with (faux) dead actors for sponsors? Longevity vitamins?

  12. Who the f.ck does things like that ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Who the f.ck does things like that ? And more importantly what do they have to gain from it ? This is not like starting some sort of fake news on a forum or twitter and letting it spread just for the lulz. This is a fake ad, somebody somewhere actually had to PAY for this ad, and probably not a trivial amount of money. Surely they expected some kind of payback, preferably significantly more than what the ad costs.

    I may be missing something, but I just don't get their business model.

    1. Re:Who the f.ck does things like that ? by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps shatner himself or a publicist working on his behalf paid for the ad in order to draw attention. It wouldn't be the first time a fading celebrity did something to try and become relevant again.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
  13. Abe Vigoda.. by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

    I saw that Abe Vigoda also posted "I'm still alive too..."

    1. Re:Abe Vigoda.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://isabevigodadead.com/

    2. Re: Abe Vigoda.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Until Abe actuallt did die, it became a running joke, and he laughed with it and capitalized on it.

  14. Not dead by hackertourist · · Score: 1

    He's just pining for the fjords...

  15. You won't believe who died!!! by pipingguy · · Score: 2

    [insert photo of popular celebrity here]

    I think that's how this clickscam works.

    "Oh, no, we weren't saying [celebrity] died, that's just an image from the story in which [celebrity] is mentioned. It's actually [celebrity]'s housemaid who died."

  16. Eighty Fucking Seven!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shit. I'm old.

  17. Oblig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're dead, Jim.

  18. What had been tolerated is now crtticized by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1

    Facebook used to get away with a lot of misinformation. No more.

  19. What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Did he forget and wear a red shirt by mistake one day?

  20. LoLz... I had closed my account 5 years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ever since when Adolfa Merkel of German Palpatinate proclaimed a law will be created to filter all social media providers with find-a-hate speech robots. That's when I decided, this is the RED LINE. Abandon FaceBook.com. Because as of now, You Still can't truly delete you data off FaceBook.com, there is supposedly some four week window, a month at best, before your data are deleted at your behest. I still don't believe this claim from Mr. Sugar Mountain, but I surely believe FaceBook.com keeps your data off-file for future advertisement providers' profit incomes.

  21. do not let them fool you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bill has been dead for years and feasting on the brains of trekkies he lures into his trailer.

    1. Re:do not let them fool you by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Into his trailer? Don't you mean, under his bridge?

  22. It's worse than that... by ToTheStars · · Score: 2

    ...you're dead, Jim!

    1. Re:It's worse than that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see what you did there. Nice "Star Trekkin" reference!

  23. Early 2000's by future+assassin · · Score: 1

    There was tons of dead celebrity hoaxes passed though email back in the day. I'd be exited if people care enough to put the effort to create those about me.

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
  24. Nonsense. William Shatner IS dead. by sinij · · Score: 2

    The last time he died was in Star Trek Generations.

  25. Free Swimming Lessons & Vicodin! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I love weekends @ Shat's.

  26. The truth cost money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and the investors would be unhappy-

  27. Fuck him if he can't take a joke! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    *Sheesh!*

    Everybody looking for a way to censor people. Y'all gotta fuck off!

    Paul McCartney has been dead since the 60s. And the real Elvis was accidentally killed in 1956.

  28. Meanwhile... by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

    Abe Vigoda is still dead. As is Generalissimo Francisco Franco.

  29. http://www.al-awa2el.com/%D8%AA%D9%86%D8%B8%D9%8A% by AhmedKamel · · Score: 0

    http://www.al-awa2el.com/%D8%A...

  30. Celebrity Deaths by meerling · · Score: 1

    Shatner isn't dead, though his career is in the critical care ward.
    As to Stallone, he didn't die in 2016, he actually died back in the 90s, and it's just his zombie corpse that's been keeping his career alive. Unfortunately it can't pronounce "brains" properly so a lot of people in Hollywood didn't even realize it.

  31. April 1st by ThurstonMoore · · Score: 1

    It's like everyday is April 1st on facebook.

  32. Stephen King too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just heard some sad news on talk radio - Horror/Sci Fi writer Stephen King was found dead in his Maine home this morning. There weren't any more details. I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will miss him - even if you didn't enjoy his work, there's no denying his contributions to popular culture. Truly an American icon.