Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Facebook Begins 'Fact-Checking' Photos, Videos (reuters.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the it's-about-time dept.

Facebook said today that it had begun "fact-checking" photos and videos to reduce the hoaxes and false news stories that have plagued the world's largest social media network. Reuters reports: The fact-checking began on Wednesday in France with assistance from the news organization AFP and will soon expand to more countries and partners, Tessa Lyons, a product manager at Facebook, said in a briefing with reporters. Lyons did not say what criteria Facebook or AFP would use to evaluate photos and videos, or how much a photo could be edited or doctored before it is ruled fake. The project is part of "efforts to fight false news around elections," she said. Facebook has tried other ways to stem the spread of fake news. It has used third-party fact-checkers to identify them, and then given such stories less prominence in the Facebook News Feed when people share links to them.

82 of 123 comments (clear)

  1. Fact checking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So, that means Conservative news will be eliminated & Liberal lies will be emphasized. Got it!

    1. Re:Fact checking by AHuxley · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Post a funny cartoon about results of mass illegal immigration into the EU and France will have the cartoon banned.
      The EU artist will be found and interviewed by police about the cartoon.
      A checksum of the funny cartoon will ensure it is removed when anyone attempts to upload it again.
      Attempts to upload the image again will result in more police interviews.
      Image matching software will move any altered version of the same art.
      Attempts to create another version of the same cartoon will result in more police interviews.
      No making fun of the results of EU politics in France.

      French politics is now safe from all types of online cartoons questioning EU and French politics.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    2. Re:Fact checking by gnick · · Score: 1

      Betcha I could edit 100% of the pixels and you couldn't tell the difference by eye. That's a silly metric.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    3. Re:Fact checking by gnick · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I like that better. There are conservative and liberal opinions, and even conservative/liberal news stories, but facts is facts. I'd like to see evidence of Facebook playing favorites with the facts before I'm going to start hurling accusations. If somebody has that kind of evidence, I'm all ears; I genuinely haven't seen any questionable fact corrections from FB.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    4. Re:Fact checking by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 3, Funny

      Relevant

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    5. Re:Fact checking by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Nope, that means that Facebook in it's marketing foolishness will now be subject to a whole slew of slander suits and not the easy ones of the US, the really mean ones in other countries where you must prove your claim in a court of law or be subject to damages, including in some countries psychological damages.

      Instead of the more sensible response, "news, what news, we are not a news network, we are a social media fun and entertainment network, we don't do news, our users do news" ie hands off news. Got a court order about false content and Facebook will more than happily delete it beyond that Facebook is not the government, not the communication regulator and simply accepts there is far more fantasy and make believe on Facebook than reality.

      Become a global media definer and of what is true and what is false and you immediately become liable for it both civilly and criminally. It's like their marketing department went full blown stupid and wants to destroy themselves. What the fuck are Facebook lawyers thinking, dumb as fuck. Put yourself up as the censor and controller and you become liable, criminally and civilly, you vetted it, not some of it, 'ALL OF IT', by claiming to do it, mind boggling stupid.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    6. Re: Fact checking by jordanjay29 · · Score: 1

      But who does the regulating?

    7. Re:Fact checking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In this case a US Dem senator who believes in 57 genders?

    8. Re:Fact checking by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      So, that means Conservative news will be eliminated

      Nope - Conservative news with a strong basis in fact will remain prominent, Anonymous Coward.

      Let me know when you find some, by the way.

      Yes so you can wipe it, like with a cloth.

      Who decides what are officially "facts" and what are not?

      One man's facts are another man's fake news.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    9. Re:Fact checking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Have a list!

      https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/

    10. Re:Fact checking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Just got to say how weird it is watching US politics from over the pond.

      On the one hand, you have a party clearly pandering to their base, playing lip-service to populist issues but willing and eager to sell the country out to their financial backers for a few short years in power. Maybe they think that the harm they know they are doing to people is worth it to further their poorly thought out ideology, but that's no excuse.

      On the other hand, you have exactly the same thing.

      One side wants to ban guns, one side wants to ban abortions. One side wants to pretend that uncontrolled illegal immigration isn't a problem, because it suits them politically. The other pretends that a great big wall will somehow solve the problem, and that people from other countries are all rapists and murderers coming to take your job.

      The weirdest thing, though, is people like you (on both sides) who think that your team is Right, and the other team is Wrong; that there's any such thing as Conservatives and Liberals in politics in the USA. Conservatives don't spend money they don't have; Liberals don't tell people what they can and can't think. They are all arseholes, and until you all start looking critically at what your representatives are actually doing on an issue-by-issue basis rather than just voting for red vs blue, you're going to continue to have your country sold out from under you whilst you scream at fictional strawmen from your respective peanut galleries.

    11. Re:Fact checking by ckatko · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm blown away that Slashdotters are fine giving Facebook, a multi-billion dollar corporation, the benefit-of-the-doubt regarding their ability to regulate and censor "effectively and fairly."

      But literally the SAME FRONT PAGE they're out for blood over Facebook (THE SAME COMPANY) over their data collection and selling practices.

      If we can't trust them to not sell our data to ENEMY COUNTRIES, then how can we trust them to regulate and censor "non-facts"?

    12. Re:Fact checking by Adolf+Hitler,+Jr. · · Score: 1

      In this case a US Dem senator who believes in 57 genders?

      As a matter of fact, Kraft Heinz Co. spent about a million dollars on lobbyists in 2017.

      One of Kraft Heinz Co.'s biggest products is Heinz 57 Sauce.

      Coincidence? Needn't I bring up the Alex Jones KC Masterpiece LGBTBBQ Sauce conspiracy theory which may have some merit, actually. (Add your thoughts below.)

    13. Re:Fact checking by swillden · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So, that means Conservative news will be eliminated & Liberal lies will be emphasized. Got it!

      This is an excellent example of why it's not going to work. Not in the present political climate of the US, anyway.

      Suppose for the sake of argument, that Facebook's fact checking were like nothing ever seen in history. Relentless pursuit of absolute, unbiased truth. We'd still see comments like the above... and worse, we'd see people who begin watching for the Facebook "not a fact" ruling in order to proudly believe and promote those articles more.

      The problem is that for too many people, the tribal conflict has overtaken truth in importance, because absurd beliefs are actually more useful as an in-group signalling mechanism than reasonable beliefs. If I tell you I believe that water is wet, you're left uncertain... you can't know whether I'm for the red tribe or the blue tribe. But if I tell you that I believe something that no one could seriously believe (but is a touchstone of one of the camps), then you know if I'm with you or against you.

      In the case of Facebook, those on the right (and especially the alt-right) will conclude that FB is a pack of socialist liberal commies and so anything they mark as false must be true. The AC above is clearly in this camp.

      Sigh.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    14. Re: Fact checking by Hetero · · Score: 3, Funny

      BLM

      I think getting the Bureau of Land Management involved in this is going a little overboard.

    15. Re: Fact checking by Reverend+Green · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "FB is a pack of socialist liberal commies and so anything they mark as false must be true."

      No - FB is a pack of capitalist stooges and running dogs. But yes, when FB declares a story to be fake, that's a strong indicator the story may be true.

    16. Re:Fact checking by coastwalker · · Score: 1

      There is nothing wrong with conservative news but I take exception to the idea that hate propaganda aimed at minorities is conservative news. It is not. It is psychological warfare that has been co-opted by some right wing politicians because it is easy to weaponize. History is littered with successful political movements that achieved power by stirring up hatred of minorities. This is usually followed by mass discrimination and killing. It is a weakness of the human character that we are easily persuaded that "exterminating the dirty Jews" will solve all our problems. Up until the advent of the Internet and its walled garden services there were political conventions that stopped the spread of this weaponized propaganda. Your case would have some merit if it were not for your president who breaking with all convention has jumped on the bandwagon to take advantage of hatred of the other. The conservative right should take some responsibility for the need to suppress this propaganda and maybe we would not be banning things.

      --
      Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
    17. Re:Fact checking by Dirk+Becher · · Score: 1

      I'm confused. Isn't it a _bad_ thing that nature doesn't do what people want and the main purpose of science to stop this trend?

    18. Re: Fact checking by swillden · · Score: 1

      "FB is a pack of socialist liberal commies and so anything they mark as false must be true."

      No - FB is a pack of capitalist stooges and running dogs. But yes, when FB declares a story to be fake, that's a strong indicator the story may be true.

      Thank you for proving my point.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    19. Re:Fact checking by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1

      Who decides what are officially "facts" and what are not?

      Consensus. Experts. Multiple reliable sources for information.

      e.g.

      http://www.politifact.com/trut...

    20. Re:Fact checking by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      Consensus. Experts. Multiple reliable sources for information.

      Whose "consensus"? Who chooses which person's opinions are included as "consensus"?

      Which "experts"? Chosen by whom?

      Who decides which source is "reliable"?

      Who defines what is "reliable"?

      Too many easy paths to authoritarianism here.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    21. Re:Fact checking by gnick · · Score: 1

      Are you implying that you have evidence of them making questionable decisions fact-checking? I'm legitimately interested in seeing it. I'm a user and don't want to give them any more trust than they deserve. I know how far I can trust them with my data; I'd like to know if I'm being lied to. I do see a slanted selection of news, but that's because of the news sources I selected.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    22. Re:Fact checking by edtice1559 · · Score: 1

      Well the alternative is to have no set of facts and then you get "alternative facts." And what happen then? You do stupid things, that's what. Just because I don't believe in gravity doesn't mean it doesn't exist. This line of logic on the right makes no sense. There are some facts that hare hard to discern. But in the vast majority of cases, we know the answers.

    23. Re:Fact checking by edtice1559 · · Score: 1

      Apparently the /. crowd seems to think that facts and conservative are incompatible entities. Every post that makes the same point as yours (including my own) got modded down. Modern life is hard because facts tend to emerge quite aggressively and you have to work hard to suppress them. Republicans and businesses used to be aligned. But I don't see how this can continue. Business leaders thrive on accurate information. Otherwise their companies go out of business. Unfortunately countries don't go out of business. They just become shitty places to live.

    24. Re:Fact checking by edtice1559 · · Score: 1

      Well it depends on what you mean by not doing anything. There are *many* things that they can do and should have done up through and including campaigning for Democrats or at least third-party candidates. What they can't do is "do anything" without making principled choices at personal cost.

    25. Re:Fact checking by eaglesrule · · Score: 1

      hate propaganda aimed at minorities is conservative news

      I suspect that reporting the facts of capital crimes committed by multiple-time deported criminal aliens would fall under this category. As would crime statistics pertaining to particular demographics and geographical areas that are impacted.

      Factual reality is indifferent to your adherence to political correctness dogma. Failing to accurately report on issues directly related to matters of race or religion means that liberal news cannot be relied on to properly inform the public either.

      That the U.S. president is considered to be a racist monster to the level of those that actually committed racial genocide, also speaks volumes to the problem of weaponized propaganda that you abhorre.

    26. Re:Fact checking by geek · · Score: 1

      Trained monkeys.

    27. Re:Fact checking by eaglesrule · · Score: 1

      This is meme control, and controlling the pathways in which they can become viral.

      It must be very annoying for the powers that be when the politics they've scripted goes off the rails. Mass media is failing to do its job, so there is a demonstrated need to pull levers within social media as well.

    28. Re:Fact checking by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      How's the weather in Moscow Boris? Looks like your comrades have approved your post as well. Double ration of vodka for you tonight along with your rubles.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    29. Re:Fact checking by eaglesrule · · Score: 1

      The truth has a well-known liberal bias, you know.

      That bias exists up to the point where someone's feelings might get hurt. Then science denial is not just tolerated, but expected.

    30. Re: Fact checking by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

      Big brother loves us all.

    31. Re:Fact checking by Malizar · · Score: 1

      Suppose for the sake of argument, that Facebook's fact checking were like nothing ever seen in history. Relentless pursuit of absolute, unbiased truth. We'd still see comments like the above... and worse, we'd see people who begin watching for the Facebook "not a fact" ruling in order to proudly believe and promote those articles more.

      Facebook would then label anything posted by ANY media source as false then. CNN, Fox, ABC, NY Times, etc. They all put their own spin on news to get attention.

    32. Re:Fact checking by swillden · · Score: 1

      Nonsense. Oh, sure they might have to call out bits and pieces, perhaps one or two in every article even. But the media does a better job than you're giving it credit for.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    33. Re:Fact checking by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      Faux Noise = Conservative "news"
      Not much fact there!

    34. Re:Fact checking by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      And logic has a well known libertarian bias

      Logic that ignores the Capitalist tendency to monopoly maybe.

    35. Re:Fact checking by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      Since he won, you're right, a waste

    36. Re:Fact checking by eric_harris_76 · · Score: 1

      To try to become a monopoly, maybe.

      To succeed requires government assistance.

      --
      There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
    37. Re:Fact checking by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      WRong.
      The first monopoly, anywhere?
      Priesthood.
      Monopoly is the ABSENCE of government, not because of it
      That Monopolies corrupt government agents is merely proof that private Monopoly is the evil, not that government is.

    38. Re:Fact checking by eric_harris_76 · · Score: 1

      If you're going to pull a Humpty Dumpty and redefine words, there's no point discussing anything with you.

      Have a nice squrgl, and I hope your fleen is everything you'd wilted for.

      --
      There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
    39. Re:Fact checking by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      Nice try. Government does not create monopoly.
      it is guilty of nothing more than enforcing contracts which CAPITALISTS used to create monopolies.

    40. Re:Fact checking by eric_harris_76 · · Score: 1

      Nice try. Government does not create monopoly.

      You sure about that? The Internet seems to disagree.

      https://duckduckgo.com?q=united.states.postal.service+monopoly

      https://duckduckgo.com?q=local.cable.television+monopoly

      https://duckduckgo.com?q=telephone+monopoly

      https://duckduckgo.com?q=taxi.medallion

      --
      There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
    41. Re:Fact checking by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      Oh, the "internet" where Hillary dropped Vince Foster out of a helicopter?
      Do try again. 100% of monopolies are created by BUSINESS who then BUY government to enforce restrictive contracts.
      NOT the other way around.
      You did notice the Constitution created the Mail monopoly, right? ALL states agreed, right?
      AT&T, created their monopoly and then BOUGHT control.
      Read "A people's history" for examples.
      Try books once in awhile!

    42. Re:Fact checking by eric_harris_76 · · Score: 1

      I'll ignore the worst of the non-sequiturs.

      The meanings of words, as used by normal people, can be found in dictionaries, too, not just the Internet.

      You've got it backwards. Except for public utilities (and only of them) they get the government to grant special status, then they become monopolies.

      The Constitution authorizes the national government to create post offices and post roads. It does not grant the power to make the post office a monopoly. You could look it up.

      Reading a book written by a liberal or socialist for economic history is like reading a book written by a creationist for biology.

      I'll not take your advice (phrased as an order) on reading books. I already do. I've usually got two or three books underway at a time: one to read at home, one to read over lunch at work, and one to listen to on my commute.

      This one doesn't have much to recommend it for inclusion any time soon.

      I will instead offer you some advice, phrased as advice: consider dialing back on the use of exclamation points. Alert readers notice that they often indicate a post is by a person with little to offer but enthusiasm.

      --
      There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
    43. Re:Fact checking by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      Wrong, wrong, wrong.
      It is the purpose of every trademark, trade secret, restricted customer list, restricted pricing list, bulk discount etc. to create a market monopoly, and governments have nothing to do with any of them, save when Capitalists buy a Senate.

    44. Re:Fact checking by eric_harris_76 · · Score: 1

      It is the purpose of every trademark, trade secret, restricted customer list, restricted pricing list, bulk discount etc. to create a market monopoly, and governments have nothing to do with any of them, save when Capitalists buy a Senate.

      Nope.

      The purpose of trademarks is to provide some assurance to the purchaser that the product they buy is actually from the manufacturer they think it is from. Fraud reduction.

      Still think it's to create a "market monopoly"? Please feel free to support your contention with evidence and reasoning.

      A trade secret is like the monopoly granted by a patent, except it isn't granted by a government, and if the secret is successfully maintained, it can last forever. The company has exclusive control over what it created, but it doesn't control the market. Competitors not using the secret can chase after those customers, by selling equivalent products, or products that offer the same benefits in a different way. So?

      Restricted customer list. They don't want to reveal who their customers are. So? That hardly guarantees the firm a monopoly.

      Bulk discount. Huh? You'll have to explain that one.

      The monopoly boogieman is very popular in many places, but reality is not one of them.

      Here's some debunking info I found quite easily, while looking for something else. https://www.investopedia.com/a...

      --
      There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
  2. Here's an idea... by zieroh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Here's an idea: shut down fucking FaceBook. That should put a big dent in the spread of fake news.

    --
    People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
    1. Re: Here's an idea... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I guarantee that if you shut down Facebook, the thing that replaces it will be much, much worse.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  3. What? by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

    Internet companies actually reviewing some of the drivel they shovel out? I find that hard to believe.

  4. 'fact checking' pictures by oneiros27 · · Score: 1

    There was something I saw years ago, where people were able to identify photoshopped images by looking at shadows -- if you put an object into a picture, the lighting on it might not match.

    If you could automate it, that might be one test to see how 'authentic' it is ... but you'd have to have it not trigger on things like text or logos added in.

    --
    Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
    1. Re:'fact checking' pictures by jordanjay29 · · Score: 1

      But can they identify face-swapped videos?

  5. WTF 4chan meme are too realistic! by poity · · Score: 1

    I hate photoshopped memes now... we need to put an end to this. This stopped being funny after we shopped all those memes to make fun of Obama's opponents.

    --
    your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
  6. Oh boy by buss_error · · Score: 1

    Facebook said today that it had begun "fact-checking" photos and videos

    Oh boy, this ought to be good. The extremists on both sides will howl in the ultrasonic range about Free Speach!" and "You're doing too much/not enough!"

    I'm going to buy popcorn futures.

    --
    Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
    1. Re:Oh boy by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Nobody expects The French investigating judge.

      Does the political art contain a style of cartoon related to tailless amphibians?
      Does the ISP log show the artist looked at subversive Russian related news sites?
      Was the artist under the influence of Russians?
      Does the art show France in a traditionalist style?
      Is the art supporting Gaullism? Would viewing the art result in questions about the role of France in the EU and NATO?
      Has the art mentioned the politics of France and Quebec independence?

      Ban the art online. Ban any altered version of the art for getting created.
      Investigate the artist.
      Investigate any artist altering the art and uploading new version of the illegal art.

      US social media will be ready to support France in all such bans on art.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    2. Re:Oh boy by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Has the art raised questions about the religious identity of those people who are slaughtering Jews ll over Paris?

    3. Re:Oh boy by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Thats would be blasphemy. France fully protects the teaching of the faith of war.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    4. Re:Oh boy by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      EDIT: ...all over Paris.

  7. Fact check photos? by BitterOak · · Score: 2

    So if I post vacation photos of my trip to Hawaii, Facebook will contact the various airlines to confirm that I indeed flew there at that time and they'll call the hotel to verify that I was indeed staying there, etc. Sounds like a lot of work.

    --
    If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    1. Re: Fact check photos? by c6gunner · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Don't kid yourself; they had all of that information before your plane left the ground.

  8. I have an idea by Archon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I know I know, it may sound really out there: don't form your voting decisions based on what you see on Facebook? It's an ad platform, not journalism.

    1. Re:I have an idea by jmyers · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I am pretty sure not a single person voted based on something they saw on Facebook on any other social media. It is just a dead horse being beaten over and over by people that still cant believe they were wrong about the election. They have to somehow "fix" the problem. But in reality they still don't get it or cant bring themselves to accept it which means they cant fix it and Trump will win reelection.

      People have to accept the result and understand it to overcome and defeat it. It is sad to watch the meltdown and attempt to blame everything but the problem itself. The D's lost for at least 3 reasons. 1. the candidate was really so bad anyone could defeat 2. Trump routed around traditional media so they could not control his message 3. A conservative candidate always wins US presidential elections.

      Go back and look at debates even with Obama and Romney. Obama was against gay marriage, talked like a war hawk about Iraq, on and on. He was seen as conservative by the general public. Romney was portrayed by the press as weak. Liberals that supported Obama ignored all of those comments as just lip service and knew about his many other positions. The general public watching CBS news would never see Obama as anything other than an acceptable conservative. Once elected he had more freedom to be himself for the second election.

      As of now I predict a second Trump term. Mainly because his opponents are all still focusing on games they cannot win, controlling social media, impeaching the pres, etc. If you have any critical thinking brain cells left you should be able to see those things are not going to happen. The internet will route around censorship. Actually arresting or trying to take down the president will not happen. I would bet any amount of money on that fact. People that still think that might happen are dumber than dumb, I don't care what evidence they think exists, it is irrelevant.

      The only way for the Ds to win the next presidential election is a very conservative appearing person that is a fantastic public speaker that does not trash Trump but appears smarter and more pragmatic. I am willing to bet they will go the opposite direction and pick a liberal professor type that complains about everything trump. They will lose bad once again.

      Midterms are not an indicator of anything. The opposing party almost always comes into power during midterms because they are reeling from the loss and more motivated to go vote.

    2. Re:I have an idea by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I agree with you, but would suggest that most people vote based on the advertising they see. That's why you see political posters around town.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re:I have an idea by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      That's not how influence works. Constant exposure to these lies warps people's perceptions of the world.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:I have an idea by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      I know I know, it may sound really out there: don't form your voting decisions based on what you see on Facebook? It's an ad platform, not journalism.

      I know, right?

      And we'll have more on that, Mary, right after these messages! Stay tuned to WXYZ for real news!

    5. Re:I have an idea by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 1

      I am pretty sure not a single person voted based on something they saw on Facebook on any other social media.

      Really? Out of 120 million-plus voters in 2016, you think that not a single one made their decision based on social media posts?

      I mean, I agree that blaming election results on social media propaganda is mostly just an attempt to deflect attention from the real reasons that the Democrats managed to lose the election, but I'm also pretty sure that some people really do vote based on what they read on Facebook. Some people vote based on what the space aliens tell them to do, after all.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    6. Re:I have an idea by ranton · · Score: 1

      I am pretty sure not a single person voted based on something they saw on Facebook on any other social media.

      That is the funniest thing I have read in weeks. You think organizations pay billions of dollars in major elections because advertising doesn't work? I personally would be surprised if less than half of people made their decision based on something more meaningful than social media advertising.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
  9. (((Fact checking))) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    That is all.

  10. We've always been at war with Eurasia. by TimSSG · · Score: 1

    We've always been at war with Eurasia. Tim S.

  11. Just some facesaving censorship... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Facebook has been gobsmacked by negative news stories and threats of regulatory action.

    This move is a PR stunt designed mostly to fool the public and especially various legislators and regulators that "Facebook has really changed" and "this is a whole new ballgame". Whether those are true or not (and they're not), this is a way to stanch the blood loss in the media, their hardhit stock price, and wage their own campaign against any sort of regulation or new laws that may surface. And they can count on their deep pockets and lobbyists to keep most pols and regulators in line.

    By the time FaceBook Boy testifies to Congress, he'll be able to brightly chirp that "Things are now different at Facebook 'cause we've changed everything."

  12. Fact check this Mark by kaptink · · Score: 1

    Fact check this Mark -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?... :)

    --
    Those who can, do. Those who cannot, sue.
  13. Past tense; it's already happening in Holland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Getting arrested over satirical cartoon
    http://www.dw.com/en/dutch-cartoonist-arrested-released-for-anti-muslim-drawings/a-3340581

  14. Not Shops by mentil · · Score: 2

    I'm pretty sure they mean, fact-checking the text content of images, rather than detecting doctored photos. Images with text conveying some controversial message are ubiquitous on Facebook. Same with uploaded videos containing rants/conspiracy theories.

    --
    Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
  15. cuffs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    When do the televangelists take their perp walk?

  16. doesn't matter by dreamygeek · · Score: 1

    Whatever they say Facebook is in deep shit now. The only way they can gain their trust back is if they reveal to the public what info exactly they've been pulling out. And they need to provide better privacy option for users.

  17. Re:Conservatism, (n.) by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 4, Informative

    Liberalism, (n.)

    In present-day US politics, the marginalized academic cult whose members would hate Franklin Roosevelt and all his works were he to reappear among today's Democrats.

  18. News: P = NP by Dirk+Becher · · Score: 1

    What will you do, Facebook?

  19. Re:Conservatism, (n.) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Before I log in and +1 this, please confirm you are a person of color and/or woke. I don't want to inadvertently support white privilege.

  20. Re:Conservatism, (n.) by phantomfive · · Score: 2

    The other main cause of conservatism is cowardice, the understanding that the past was bad, the present sucks too, but that on balance, ANY CHANGE WHATSOEVER will more likely make things worse, rather than better.

    Of course not. Conservatives happily favor any change downward in tax rates. Provably so. Doesn't even matter if it's rational.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  21. "Fact checking" in this case is "editorializing" by IGnatius+T+Foobar · · Score: 1

    What our non-friends at Fecesbook are really saying here, is that they will editorialize even harder, putting banners on top of anything that doesn't agree with their own political preferences. Because we all know that "fake news" is really just a term for "anything I don't agree with."

    --
    Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
  22. You have no idea what you just told everyone, FB by adosch · · Score: 1

    All of us we-knew-better ranters and tinfoil-hat-wearing evangelists just got the smoking gun that was needed. There it is for everyone to see and read.

    We give all these Big Machine's a free pass every damn time we think they mistakenly screwed up and didn't know any better like a 3 year old child left momentarily unattended in a shallow bathtub with 10 shampoo bottles, bubble bath suds and a squirt gun. "Oh they made a huge mistake." In what? Cleverly and with a flawed, broken moral compass exploited.

    Our biggest flaw as a consumer of this bullshit is: Thinking that the think-tanks don't think. These developers, engineers, managers, CIO/CFO/CTO what-the-hell-ever are some of the smartest, clever, brilliant mathematical, analytical and big-problem-solver-and-idea talent of their immediate time figuring out and putting together what they've done for a fucking planet to consume. Did you think that anything was NOT calculated or thought through 50 steps ahead, backwards, forwards, side-wards and whatever-Willy-Wonka-way-wards with absolutely every conceivable outcome laid out before them? That's OUR flaw as a consumer. Assumption that everyone is done in our best interest any time money is on the table and to be made.

  23. Man ... by fish_in_the_c · · Score: 1

    No more funny pictures of my dog with Clinton's head on it ?
    Seriously , the only time you can 'fact check' a picture is if it is accompanied by the claim that it is real.
    I guess it's ok if all you do it put up a icon somewhere non intrusive that says ( picture likely edited). However, that would also show up on senior pictures with the zits air brushed from them.

    --
    âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
  24. Re:Conservatism, (n.) by trg83 · · Score: 1

    Getting worse is, by definition, change. Therefore, change is not necessarily needed, as change may make things worse. QED.

  25. The ministry of truth by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

    Apple's 1984 Super Bowl advertisement is coming to pass. Pull it up, Chick in red shorts! https://www.youtube.com/watch?... .

    The truth is only what the Democrats want it to be. Even if they have to revise it like they did on immigration. Just check out Bill Clinton's or more recently Obummer's and Shuemer's videos as recently as 2012 to today. It's just amazing people believe them.