Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Doesn't Care About Fixing Fake News Problem On Its Platform (theguardian.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Journalists working as factcheckers for Facebook have pushed to end a controversial media partnership with the social network, saying the company has ignored their concerns and failed to use their expertise to combat misinformation. Current and former Facebook factcheckers told the Guardian that the tech platform's collaboration with outside reporters has produced minimal results and that they've lost trust in Facebook, which has repeatedly refused to release meaningful data about the impacts of their work. Some said Facebook's hiring of a PR firm that used an antisemitic narrative to discredit critics -- fueling the same kind of propaganda factcheckers regularly debunk -- should be a deal-breaker.
Facebook now has more than 40 media partners across the globe, including the Associated Press, PolitiFact and the Weekly Standard, and has said false news on the platform is "trending downward." While some newsroom leaders said the relationship was positive, other partners said the results were unclear and that they had grown increasingly resentful of Facebook. Facebook has said that third-party factchecking is one part of its strategy to fight misinformation, and has claimed that a "false" rating leads an article to be ranked lower in news feed, reducing future views by 80% on average. The company has refused, however, to publicly release any data to support these claims. Facebook said in a statement that it had "heard feedback from our partners that they'd like more data on the impact of their efforts," adding that it has started sending "quarterly reports" with "customized statistics" to partners and would be"looking for more statistics to share externally in early 2019." Facebook declined to share the reports with the Guardian.
Facebook now has more than 40 media partners across the globe, including the Associated Press, PolitiFact and the Weekly Standard, and has said false news on the platform is "trending downward." While some newsroom leaders said the relationship was positive, other partners said the results were unclear and that they had grown increasingly resentful of Facebook. Facebook has said that third-party factchecking is one part of its strategy to fight misinformation, and has claimed that a "false" rating leads an article to be ranked lower in news feed, reducing future views by 80% on average. The company has refused, however, to publicly release any data to support these claims. Facebook said in a statement that it had "heard feedback from our partners that they'd like more data on the impact of their efforts," adding that it has started sending "quarterly reports" with "customized statistics" to partners and would be"looking for more statistics to share externally in early 2019." Facebook declined to share the reports with the Guardian.
...trust me, we care as much as anyone else in the media and Internet.
I don't take anything I read on Facebook as fact. If I care about it, I double check on some more reputable site. Facebook is like the phone service. They provide the means of communications, but aren't the ones making calls. Don't just believe all the random things your friends or pages you follow post.
Basically if you're partnering with institutions like Politifact, Vox and Snopes then you'll get a very one sided narrative and everything else will be labeled fake news. Perhaps censoring content isn't that great of an idea and these reporters are just mad Facebook isn't listening to their ideas on what should be censored.
News and information should be free, even if it's fake, people can do the fact checking for themselves. The problem here is that these journalists are basically saying "everyone else is dumb, we need to filter the information they get". It's a dangerous proposition.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
As if they both weren't wrong, public lies to get votes, and never really followed anyway. Telling the truth about that - I've watched this crap since Eisenhower - would be news. What we see today, not so much.
.
Since when are rules that make sense in a dense city right for farms? And vice versa...I'm sure the land use, pest control, trash burning, and fertilizer requirements are different - or should be. You can't swing your arms in the city without breaking a nose. Does that mean farmers shouldn't be able to swing their arms?
.
From what I observe, the whole central statist model has some real serious issues. One size does NOT fit all.
Why guess when you can know? Measure!
There are some "New sources" that seem like fully legitimate news sources however if you reads their terms of use " Company furnishes the Company Sites and the Company Services for your personal enjoyment and entertainment." Or in general stating what they say may not be true, as it could be parody. Then there is a wide range of editorial comprehension of the news, where peoples personal feelings of the news gets expressed, often by stating a sentience in a different way, such as "Government Shutdown" vs "Government Slowdown" vs "Placing a hold on paying most bills until a budget is signed"
We also have incomplete and often inaccurate "Breaking News" which is stating what it known at the time, and normal mistakes do happen in the news as well.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Facebook doesn't care.
It's not news and there's no reason to bother expanding the point into anything more than those three words. Next article, please.
Of course facebook doesn't care. Sensationalist crap brings in more participation on their site. Both from the camp spreading the fake news and those coming on to argue that it is in fact fake.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
As a conservative, let me just state for the record that your number 2 is full of number 2.
I have a redneck cousin who's an extreme conservative and posts multiple times a day, stuff that makes me cringe. FB does nada to block that shit.
Just another day in Paradise
But GUILTY until proven innocent!
Ask them who was charged, and what they were charged with, and when the trial starts and you'll start to get a picture that they don't know, don't care. The indicted Russians will never see trial, because the are all in Russia. The indicted Russians have 0 ties to Trump or his campaign. None of the indicted Russians have ties to the actual crimes committed by the FBI and Justice Department either, but that's because they don't really care about fraudulent Russian FSB sponsored "Dossier". They don't care about Russians interfering with our elections, they care that their anointed queen (HRC) lost to the worst possible person in the world. They are making sure it doesn't happen again.
Only under the correct narrative does it all make sense.
“Show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime.” - Lavrentiy Beria (Stalin's Chief of Secret Police)
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
None of these indictments, and none of the evidence is in any way linked to Trump, nor does any of it suggest collusion.
But you already know that. You're just dishonest and retarded.
Are you really this fucking stupid?
Opposition research is not a crime. NDAs are not a crime. Hearing dirt on Hillary is not a crime (especially when no dirt is given).
Know what is a crime? Feeding fabricated information to FISA courts. Using the NSA and FBI to spy on political opponents. Storing top secret documents on a secret computer in your home.
However bad Trump is, Obama and Hillary are exponentially worse. Trump hurt your feelings, but the Democrats irreparably hurt the country.