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.
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.
I noticed something the other day when an actual Paper (the dead tree kind) was in front of me (McDonald's of all places) I actually read it cover to cover skipped the parts that were not interesting and it was not as stressful to read as an online version with its blaring video ads etc and crap the news and articles were fairly current and I wasn't presented with clickbait headlines which lead to pages full of ads and an article which is nothing like the headline. On the real paper I even read a few ads that were of interest instead of trying to close them quickly to uncover the article. to me it almost seemed as if the best articles were in the actual paper and the internet version was for some less discriminating and facebook from what I have seen is one big Advert.
Your'e all thinking it, I just said it for you
https://www.businessinsider.nl...
"Two former employees for the fact-checking site Snopes said Facebook threw fact-checkers under the bus when their work prompted a backlash."
Facebook Doesn't Care About Fixing Conservative Views Problem On Its Platform
If you had looked into the matter at all, you would know that the Russian Internet Research Agency was posting both conservative and liberal material in order to sow discord among the American public. They were wildly successful. So successful in fact, that they started actively supporting Trump because Putin hates Hillary Clinton. But you are more concerned with being butthurt over some perceived censorship than you are with a rival nation interfering with our democratic process. Get your priorities straight.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
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
Do you realize you just effectively agreed with me? My point was that anything not agreed with is now called fake, regardless of facts, and that media has a pretty lousy track record with facts going pretty far back into the past. The hyperpartisanship evident has reduced the value of actual facts due to many true things also being called fake because someone with a megaphone says so.
Which again, was my point. As long as we allow facts to be called fake, we can't get rid of the crap.
And that's where we sit - factually, right now.
Why guess when you can know? Measure!
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.