Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Facebook Will Start Fact-Checking Pictures, Videos (cnbc.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the review-efforts dept.

Facebook said Thursday that it will start fact-checking images and videos. "People share millions of photos and videos on Facebook every day. We know that this kind of sharing is particularly compelling because it's visual. That said, it also creates an easy opportunity for manipulation by bad actors," Facebook said in a blog post. CNBC reports: Edited photos and strong visuals were common among the posts by Russian agents attempting to interfere with the 2016 U.S. presidential election and other global elections, according to examples released by members of Congress. Facebook has been ramping up fact-checking efforts and third-party human reviewers in recent months in an effort to protect future elections from foreign interference. The company has already detected what it called "coordinated inauthentic behavior" ahead of the midterm elections in November.

"Many of our third-party fact-checking partners have expertise evaluating photos and videos and are trained in visual verification techniques, such as reverse image searching and analyzing image metadata, like when and where the photo or video was taken," Facebook said. "Fact-checkers are able to assess the truth or falsity of a photo or video by combining these skills with other journalistic practices, like using research from experts, academics or government agencies."

11 of 116 comments (clear)

  1. Satire by RickyShade · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Will satire survive?

    1. Re:Satire by Pseudonym · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The current era, sadly, cannot be parodied.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    2. Re:Satire by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Only if it pokes no fun at people for religious reasons. Or gender. Or racial. Or physical appearance. Or talent. Or nationality. Or dress. Or economic status. Or sports preference. Or dental hygiene. Or car they drive. Or phone preference. Or body piercings. Or tattoos. Or educational background. Or language spoken. Or relationship status.

      But political preference is still acceptable. As long as it does not make fun of those on the political left. Or center. Or center left. All others are fine, though!

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    3. Re:Satire by JoeDuncan · · Score: 2

      Bah! We can still make fun of fat white conservative dudes! Do we REALLY need anyone else to mock?!? :P

  2. Facts Considered Harmful by Kunedog · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Any unauthorized facts will be checked, and if found harmful to Democrats (and especially their midterm campaigns) will be promptly memory-holed.

    1. Re:Facts Considered Harmful by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2

      Most photos uploaded will have the geo location in the meta data.
      Wow that was easy again ...

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  3. Oh $hit... by Bodhammer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Fact-checkers are able to assess the truth or falsity of a photo or video by combining these skills with other journalistic practices, like using research from experts, academics or government agencies."

    We are so fucked...

    --
    "I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
    1. Re:Oh $hit... by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 2

      We are so fucked...

      If by "We" you mean QAnon followers and their Infowars buddies, then yes, you are fucked.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    2. Re:Oh $hit... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Here's the list of fact checking organisations:

      Associated Press
      Factcheck.org (Please use 'appeal' in subject line)
      PolitiFact
      Snopes.com
      The Weekly Standard

      Four neutral, and the Weekly Standard on the right. If one of them decides the content is fake there is no appeal. The Standard has already started abusing its power to censor left leaning publications.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:Oh $hit... by Mashiki · · Score: 2

      I'm also going to point out to you, that Media Matters, the organization in question has a very long history of quote mining, and making fabrications in order to attempt "gotcha moments." Here's an example from the other day. Rush Limbaugh(like or hate him), says "And in this article, people are claiming that sharks were being dropped on land by hurricane Florence." Media Matters then reports this tongue-in-cheek moment where he's laughing his ass off, as "Rush Limbaugh reports, that sharks were falling from the sky. This is another blahblahblahblah." They've been doing this for decades. Oh yes, they've got a very long history of being among the worst abusers.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
  4. Re:Hold up ... by oldgraybeard · · Score: 2

    Probably so Facebook can assume copyright of the content so generously donated to them.