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

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.

Comments

Fact checking

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Fact checking

[AHuxley]

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.

Re:Fact checking

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Relevant

Re:Fact checking

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Fact checking

[Anonymous Coward]

Have a list!

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/

Re:Fact checking

[ckatko]

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"?

Re:Fact checking

[swillden]

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.

Re: Fact checking

[Hetero]

BLM

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

Re: Fact checking

[Reverend Green]

"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.

Here's an idea...

[zieroh]

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

Fact check photos?

[BitterOak]

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.

Re: Fact check photos?

[c6gunner]

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

I have an idea

[Archon]

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.

Re:I have an idea

[jmyers]

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.

Past tense; it's already happening in Holland

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Not Shops

[mentil]

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.

Re:Conservatism, (n.)

[Applehu Akbar]

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.

Re:Conservatism, (n.)

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Conservatism, (n.)

[phantomfive]

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.