Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Facebook Chooses To Demote Fake News Instead of Remove It (bbc.co.uk)

Posted by BeauHD on from the no-easy-answers dept.

Facebook says it will not remove fake news from its platform because it does not violate its community standards. According to the BBC, Facebook said publishers often had "very different points of view" and removing fabricated posts would be "contrary to the basic principles of free speech." Instead, it is choosing to demote posts in the news feed that it deems to be fake news. From the report: Facebook has been scrutinized for its role in spreading fake news after evidence emerged that Russia tried to influence U.S. voters using the social network. On Wednesday, the company held an event in New York where it sought to convince journalists it was tackling the problem. The company said it would not remove fake news that did not break its rules but would down-rank content that had been marked as false. "We allow people to post it as a form of expression, but we're not going to show it at the top of News Feed," a spokeswoman told CNN.

49 of 154 comments (clear)

  1. When did Fake news become free speech? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    When did someone saying something they know to be a lie become protected free speech?

    I can see if someone is wrong, but thinks they are right...but to knowingly lie should not be protected!

    1. Re:When did Fake news become free speech? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      but to knowingly lie should not be protected!

      Protecting the right of others to speak when you disagree with them, or even lie to you, is the true test of whether you believe in free speech, or just speech you happen to like or agree with.

    2. Re:When did Fake news become free speech? by DaHat · · Score: 1

      False. While there are laws against libel and slander, as well as the ever fun 'falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater'... many forms of lying are protected, example: http://latimesblogs.latimes.co...

      --
      Help Brendan pay off his student loans
    3. Re:When did Fake news become free speech? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You are missing the point but I appreciate your opinion. What we are missing is a fact-check by some third party before it goes all twitter/facebook/et. al. but the angry mongrels that like the tilt from the post go after it and latch onto it like an attack dog. They re-blast the point without any verification and wait for their swarm-identity to bring more that won't research before re-post.

      You've identified a problem.. but sadly sided with me for the same issues I've been trying to counter. Congratulations for teaching us the relative and uninformed stupidity that got Nicholas Copernicus and his helio-centric theory ignored.

      Then... another astronomer/scientist that furthered his work (aka Galileo) theorized and expanded on Copernicus's work.. but would up being put under house arrest and then subsequently put under house arrest for the rest of his life.

      Science backed up both Copernicus and Galileo... but random screaming and yelling and avoidance of facts led to them both being denied the ability to spread the truth.

      The same truth that you deny is what i'm trying to present. For every factual opinion there are thousands of skewed viewpoints.

      Therefore I re-present my argument. There are too many people blabbering un-substantiated facts calling them truth and presenting no argument to substantiate said facts. They scream from the highest highs and from far and wide on social media without presenting one tiny bit of proof. It's almost like they are interviewing with CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC thinking their blasphemous rhetoric will gain them fame and fortune.. and maybe a job from news (haha) agencies that self-identify with them.

      Peace out.

    4. Re:When did Fake news become free speech? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      When did someone saying something they know to be a lie become protected free speech?

      That's not what "fake news" is, though, at least in the eyes of corporations like Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc.

      "Fake news" is whatever the left would prefer people don't report, regardless of accuracy. On the other hand anything mainstream sources like CNN write is automatically not "fake news" regardless of whether it's the most transparent opinion piece or outright proven incorrect.

    5. Re:When did Fake news become free speech? by admin7087 · · Score: 1

      How do you know when something is factual?

      Well, there are two possibilities. First, you're indeed kind of lost and don't know at all how to find out when something is factual. Consequently, you should have no beliefs about anything, certainly not about what's going on in the world, since you cannot figure out how to find out when something is factual. Or, second, you are one of those "post-fact" bullshitters who think that facts don't exist and are social constructions.

      Both possibilities would rather bad, so I'll be charitable and assume you weren't being serious.

    6. Re:When did Fake news become free speech? by admin7087 · · Score: 1

      Fake news is alleged news that has intentionally been fabricated in order to spread disinformation. That's how it's defined and that's exactly what it means to companies like Facebooj, Google, and Twitter, despite some ardent attempts of a small minority of people who like to spread fake news to change the narrative and give the term some useless meaning.

      You're obviously one of the latter, since otherwise you would at least acknowledge that the useless definition you mention was actually invented by Trump and a few "alt right" idiots in order to discredit people who actually fight against the spreading of disinformation. They've got to try a bit harder, people have much better bullshit detectors than you might think and those cheap "reverse rhetoric" tricks don't work on most of us.

    7. Re:When did Fake news become free speech? by DaHat · · Score: 1

      Stolen valor being non-prosecuted does not make pretending to be a soldier free speech, in fact.

      You should perhaps read the rulings in question, as well as the lower court ones as well on the subject... as they actually disagree with your take.

      You can be prosecuted if you push it and attempt to use the color of authority where not due

      In depends on how you are pushing it, as a number of ways would enter the territory of fraud, things we have existing laws about. Primarily what stolen valor did was criminalize a particular form of cosplay, little different than criminalizing a woman wearing makeup during singles night, or a man lying about his job/income at the same event. Like I said, you should read some of the rulings.

      --
      Help Brendan pay off his student loans
  2. Controversy Makes Facebook go round! by Prien715 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The entire point of Facebook is engagement. A bunch of people discussing whether the earth is round or not or whether vaccines cause autism really helps keep users checking Facebook as often as possible. Each button is carefully calibrated to express a reptilian emotion whose purpose is impossible to determine. Are you angered by the person's inflammatory rhetoric in a post, or is someone posting about something that makes you outraged? Who knows! Who cares! You're engaged!
    Facebook is like a shitty version of family/friend therapy where your everyone hates each other more but the therapist is happy because she got to show you some Viagra ads.

    --
    -- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
    1. Re: Controversy Makes Facebook go round! by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      Right. Let the users mod the posts. Instead facebook is addicted to likes. At first it was a way to make everything seem worthy of your engagement since you would only see positive reviews...likes. Now that facebook is literally getting people killed (Myanmar) by spreading fake news they have to do something..as long as it does not negatively affect engagement. They are resisting their responsibility. Expected when the founder and CEO is someone who has never had to deal with anything of substance pertaining to real life. I dont think he has even had a job.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    2. Re:Controversy Makes Facebook go round! by Iwastheone · · Score: 1

      Thanks for this post, I posted asking why FB is such a phenomena. You explain it perfectly.

    3. Re: Controversy Makes Facebook go round! by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Let them Facebook, foolishly, publicly, claim authority on validity of news, what is true and what is false and claim this at a professional level, as a part of it's marketing strategy and to bring in customers of what ever description. Screw that up and you become subject to multiple class action suits across the globe for fraudulent misrepresentation of the truth as in accurate truthful news. Publicly claim yourself as the authority on the accuracy of the news and do so for profit and then you are fully liable for all your errors for pumping corporate propaganda as the truth.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    4. Re:Controversy Makes Facebook go round! by AHuxley · · Score: 2

      Who wants to read a movie review approved by the actor and studio?
      Comments on a religion approved by a cult, faith?
      News about a nation approved by their junta, monarchy, theocracy?
      News from nations state-run media?

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  3. As much as I want to say that is useless....... by Puls4r · · Score: 5, Informative

    That's really all they can do. Let's face facts - people who get their actual news from Facebook are idiots. People who can't be bothered to fact check or even do the slightest amount of verification are idiots. And the vast vast majority of internet users are.... idiots. They'll grab the first thing they see that they agree with and use it as their evidence to support to their argument. Whether it's from politifact, snopes, or stormfront.

    Facebook is an online chat. That's it. People who use it to gather factual data... there's not much we can do about it. *shrug*.

    1. Re:As much as I want to say that is useless....... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      It's more subtle than that. They might be skeptical, but the fake stories prime them to think about facts in a certain way. The language, the framing of current events.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  4. Face News! by charliemerritt03 · · Score: 2

    Facebook is *not* the New York Times. People that get their news from Facebook will go around saying "Everybody says that....." or "Nobody really thinks...." so when somebody says that just say "Face News"!

    1. Re:Face News! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Actually, there isn't much difference between them these days, other than style and syntax.

  5. Streisand effect by Noishkel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The absolute failure of the MSM and various governments to control the narrative of any one issue has already proven the futility of trying to censor dissenting opinions and narratives. The more you try to shape opinion by forcing the more people will chose to find other sources of information. And sadly if often drives people into falling into the trap of buying into narratives that may or may not be accurate at all. See just about any news story from Buzzfeed.

    And that's before we actually get into talking about when the media actively and provably lies to the public. I'm looking at you CNN. 'It's illegal to read Wikileaks' my ass...

    1. Re:Streisand effect by unimacs · · Score: 1

      ...

      And that's before we actually get into talking about when the media actively and provably lies to the public. I'm looking at you CNN. 'It's illegal to read Wikileaks' my ass...

      Are you referring to what Chris Cuomo said about the Clinton emails? Because that's not what he said. What he said was "It's illegal to possess these uh, stolen documents".

      Now, you can argue about whether or not he was deliberately trying to discourage people from reading them on their own because CNN wanted to protect Clinton. And I'm sure depending on your political persuasion, you might be inclined to believe that. But your quote is not a quote at all and a distortion of what he actually said.

      Was this deliberate on your part or were you just repeating what you've read on your more favored sources of "news" without verifying that it was true? Unfortunately both have become far too common.

    2. Re:Streisand effect by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      The absolute failure of the MSM and various governments to control the narrative of any one issue has already proven the futility of trying to censor dissenting opinions and narratives. The more you try to shape opinion by forcing the more people will chose to find other sources of information

      This is a very good thing.

      And sadly if often drives people into falling into the trap of buying into narratives that may or may not be accurate at all. See just about any news story from Buzzfeed.

      This is a bad thing.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re:Streisand effect by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      The absolute failure of the MSM and various governments to control the narrative of any one issue has already proven the futility of trying to censor dissenting opinions and narratives.

      That's because the mainstream media don't even have a coherent "narrative". The most mainstream of mainstream media, i.e. Fox news (it's the #1 TV news channel) is completely at odds with the second most mainstream of mainstream media, CNN.

      See just about any news story from Buzzfeed.

      Oddly enough, buzzfeed appears to be using dubious clickbait to fund real hard hitting investigative journalism. I was quite surprised first time I saw one of those on the BBC, "in association with buzzfeed".

      I was all like "5 REASONS YOU'LL NEVER BELIEVE BUZZFEED DOES INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM".

      On the other hand the other news sources aren't much different. Good journalism doesn't pay, clickbait (and the older print equivalents) does.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    4. Re:Streisand effect by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      That's because the mainstream media don't even have a coherent "narrative". The most mainstream of mainstream media, i.e. Fox news (it's the #1 TV news channel) is completely at odds with the second most mainstream of mainstream media, CNN.

      This is a good thing, isn't it?

      If they start agreeing on anything on anything other than the weather it's time to get seriously worried.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    5. Re:Streisand effect by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      They always agree in more war.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    6. Re:Streisand effect by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      This is a good thing, isn't it?

      Sure, but it still means most of the claims about the "MSM" are utter bullshit because I'd say about 99% of people saying such things are ignoring the huge chunk of the mainstream media they happen to agree with.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    7. Re:Streisand effect by strikethree · · Score: 1

      The absolute failure of the MSM and various governments to control the narrative of any one issue has already proven the futility of trying to censor dissenting opinions and narratives.

      Call me crazy or whatever, since I am... but... How about this: MSM gives us facts and each individual controls their own narrative?

      Control is an illusion. Influence is as close to control as you can get. If the MSM is trying to influence me, I immediately reject the attempt, which is why I have not watched television since the early 1980s. Every time I have gone back to that cesspool, I grow disgusted at how stupid they are and how stupid they think we must be. You can't get any useful information from the MSM. It is all twisted and contorted to try and make narrative for you to follow and they are not very good at it.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
  6. Very Fake News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    CNN is last in the ratings so they have demoted themselves.

  7. FB: What's the point? by Iwastheone · · Score: 1

    Besides promoting your business and the details of your rather shallow life, what is the point of having it? Coming from a 57 year old guy who knew life before having an online presence was the way to be 'social' (we met with real life people back then), I don't get it. Real life keeps me busy enough. I've seen people get home and go straight to their FB, stare seemingly mindlessly for the next hour at their screens as if it were so damn important. I had FB for a year over 10 years ago and completely deleted my account, since I do enjoy my privacy. Admittedly I am grateful to be clueless as to the appeal of it.

  8. Not a news feed. by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 2

    If you aren't removing things that aren't news from the "news feed" then it's not actually a news feed, it's just stories with a chance of truth.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:Not a news feed. by jrumney · · Score: 1

      More importantly for Facebook, it's stories with a chance of profit.

  9. I guess we can make up stories abut Zuck... by Assmasher · · Score: 1

    ...and post them all over FaceBook now that they're "free speech"

    --
    Loading...
  10. No, neither situation has any evidence. by Noishkel · · Score: 1

    No, that would definitely be 'fake news' as it is now. While there is seriously suspicious shit going on with Seth Rich's murder and that Pizza place is freakin' weird there's nothing we can point at that passes scrutiny.

  11. wait a sec... by Orgasmatron · · Score: 2

    Wasn't there a report recently that said that the fake news was less fake than the nominally real news?

    --
    See that "Preview" button?
    1. Re:wait a sec... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Wasn't there a report recently that said that the fake news was less fake than the nominally real news?

      True. Alex Jones will verify this.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    2. Re:wait a sec... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Then he'll sell you on the efficacy his nutritional bone marrow protein shake.

      It hasn't stopped him from playing with his poop yet.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  12. bizarre by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

    The notion hat a sort of glorified blog platform gets to decide what is real news or not is ... just weird. That's all.

  13. Cop out by SpaceDave · · Score: 1

    If fake news is not against the rules, then the rules are flawed. There's no way the deliberate spreading of misinformation should be a permitted activity.

    1. Re:Cop out by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Have you ever actually read the Bill of Rights?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    2. Re:Cop out by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Facebook and my front porch aren't the government, genius.

      Right. Which is why they can do what they want with their platform, and you can do what you want on your front porch. Thanks for confirming that you're one of those who doesn't understand the Bill of Rights and what it does and doesn't cover. "There's no way ... should be a permitted activity" in the context of the GP to whom I responded is pure nonsense. You seem to not understand that. Please don't do anything dangerous to other people, like voting.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    3. Re:Cop out by jrumney · · Score: 1

      It's permitted because it makes money for Facebook. Would you expect any other criteria to play a part?

    4. Re:Cop out by pauljlucas · · Score: 1

      What does the addendum to the Constitution, the document that both enumerates and limits the powers of the federal government, have to do with Facebook, a non-government company?

      --
      If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
  14. Easy Explanation by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

    This is Facebook's equivalent of those T-Shirts that read "I'm not Gay, but 20 Bucks is 20 Bucks!"

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  15. They would lose revenue, that's all. by Tyr07 · · Score: 1

    It's really simple. They did the math, and it's counter productive to their business model to stop fake news, they get too much money from people trying to manipulate the truth.

  16. Re:You rotten bastards like & use my work... a by BeauHD+(Super+Mod) · · Score: 1

    APK, why do you not instead of going on tirades instead like maybe for once possibly and like JUST THINK ABOUT IT at the very least, go on a tirade against TRUMP.
    Let that resound.

    TRUMP

    Instead of talking abouit useless things instead you could be doing Humanity a Favor (TM) and ranting against old orange hands.

    -beau

  17. Re:Pfht. Classy. by Noishkel · · Score: 1

    Whoa! That's number 15! 15 homophobic slurs! Ah-ah-ah-ah!

  18. Nostalgia by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 1

    "The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back...." - Barack Obama sneering at Mitt Romney, October 22, 2012, Third Presidential Debate https://www.npr.org/2012/10/22...

    --
    "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
  19. At least certain politic campaign leaders will be by MxMatrix · · Score: 1

    ... super duper happy again, now they can lie trump into second term.

    --
    Bach says it all.
  20. Re:Pfht. Classy. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

    'EVERYONE THAT DOESN'T AGREE WITH ME IS RACIST!!!1' -The cry of those with out an argument.

    No, it's a quote invented by right wingers to attempt to discredit left wingers.

    peep! peep! hear the dog whistle?

    I tell you want, you want to see some 'actual victimization'? How about you go talk about woman in Britain ...

    You need to listen to less infowars.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  21. They Have To Retain It by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

    FB needs to not start deleting, because once they start it's like the proverbial kitten who starts swallowing a long string. When the deleting gets started, now ALL the fake news has to be deleted. That means a big chunk of MSNBC, CNN, The Huffington Post, etc. gets whisked off to nowhere. Would any references to Rachel Maddog even remain after the broom started sweeping?

    No, Facebook just needs to step back and let the cesspit reek, and the left and right monkeys sling their 'facts' at one another.

  22. So "curating" the news won't cause any problems by eric_harris_76 · · Score: 1

    Sure, FB removed part of the Declaration of Independence. But it put it back later.

    But they'd never do that with news, deliberately or accidentally or algorithmically. Right?

    --
    There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.