Facebook has now partnered with fact-checkers to stop the fake news pandemic

[Guest]

Fake news has become one of the largest topics of 2016 with hyper-partisan and outright stupid articles spreading among the masses. Many believe that these articles influenced the recent elections around the world and even started creating movements that rely on such material 

 

Research from Pew has also shown that many Americans are getting more and more confused, and many of them are can no longer tell whether an article is truthful or not

 

One of the platforms used to spread such news is Facebook who has recently started a push towards stopping fake news from spreading. Facebook has now decided to partner with organizations that already specialize in debunking fake news which makes taking them down easier and more reliably 

 

Quote

To start with, Facebook is working with Snopes, Politifact, ABC News, and FactCheck.org. (It plans to add more over time, it said.) All are members of the Poynter International Fact Checking Network, who have agreed to abide by a common set of principles. Together, Facebook and the news organizations will attempt to identify fast-spreading hoaxes and discourage users from sharing them.

 

Facebook has also decided to look into more articles that are usually deleted by people who share them or ones wherein comments say it's fake; this makes it easier for them to identify misleading information 

 

Quote

If at least two fact-checking organizations mark a story as disputed, users will begin seeing a banner under the article if it appears in their News Feed. The banner reads: “Disputed by 3rd Party Fact Checkers.” Links to articles debunking the posted item will appear below it. Facebook will also penalize the disputed article so it shows up lower in the News Feed, Facebook says.

 

However, people who still wish to share the content even after being warned of the material being fake are allowed to share it. The company has also announced that spoof websites will be prevented from getting ads that often flood users' feed

 

I am personally for taking down misleading articles because they do often contain material that may cause controversy which often leads to major repercussions especially when it is spread among large groups of people who often fall prey to the material. Politifact recently called it the "Lie of the Year" because of how much it has changed how we see politics and the politicians themselves. What I am worried about though is how far this power can reach, because there is a line that is often stepped on that borders free speech and censorship which re topics often heavily debated upon.

 

Sources: Pew, Facebook, The Verge, Politifact

 

 

[tlink]

6 minutes ago, Jorgen297 said:

I doubt leftist media like CNN will be checked despite having heaps of fake news also.

thats a problem you're going to get either way. can't have the cake and eat it.

[ThomasD]

Nothing epitomizes fake news quite like the 'pandemic' over fake news.

 

Is there false information out there?  Yes.  Always has been, always will be.

 

More importantly, do the major media players enjoy the luxury of picking and choosing which events they totally ignore?  Because worse than the insane BS flowing from vague, or obviously biased sources is the actual facts and events that you do not hear about because someone decided they didn't want you to hear about it.

 

Beware of anyone who thinks it is their business to decide what you can and cannot hear.  A free society must have free flow of information, and freedom of thought must include the freedom to be wrong.  Anything else and someone is trying to be your master.

[TidaLWaveZ]

I'd still like a real explanation of what fake news is, but we won't get one because this whole thing is just an excuse for organizations like Facebook and twitter  to censor or discredit smaller outlets and individuals.

 

 

[RocketFarmer]

I don't use Facebook and I deleted my Twitter account because of rumors of this sort of crap.  No need to consume these products/services at all.  I suspect many more to follow.  I don't want a filter or label on information, period. 

 

This opens up the opportunity for free thinking spaces to open up.  Although I suspect governments won't be satisfied with voluntary private censorship and will pass laws that essentially outlaw free speech on the entire internet (as if they can even do that).  Just means there could eventually be a black market of free speech and mass migration to the dark web.  It's quite sad at the demise of liberty at the hands of those who claim to want "progress". 

[Guest Kloaked]

tl;dr fake news = anything remotely criticizing the left

[JoseGuya]

This is just getting tiresome already... 

[Guest Kloaked]

22 minutes ago, huilun02 said:

How is fake stuff in the US news? Its the land of freedom, where laws are progressive and effective. Run by people smart enough to elect good leaders and peaceful place where people are nice and won't sue or deceive you over the smallest of matters.

[iRileyx]

1 hour ago, TidaLWaveZ said:

I'd still like a real explanation of what fake news is, but we won't get one because this whole thing is just an excuse for organizations like Facebook and twitter  to censor or discredit smaller outlets and individuals.

 

 

I always thought it was those fake celebrity death posts, but I guess there's more to it than that lol.

[TidaLWaveZ]

3 minutes ago, RKRiley said:

I always thought it was those fake celebrity death posts, but I guess there's more to it than that lol.

[laminutederire]

1 hour ago, huilun02 said:

How is fake stuff in the US news? Its the land of freedom, where laws are progressive and effective. Run by people smart enough to elect good leaders and peaceful place where people are nice and won't sue or deceive you over the smallest of matters.

You forgot the sarcasm sign maybe?

 

On the topic of everything else:

Why do people feel they need freedom, when they are not free and never will be in the sense that they mean?

Freedom isn't a trivial topic you can throw around easily. Censoring fake news is not a deprivation of freedom when people fall for it in masses, why? Because freedom of speech suppose people are smart enough to understand what's happening. If not, it becomes disruptive, and can even harm society on its own by allowing things which will deprive others of certain possibilities. The purity of freedom of speech exists only if the obligation of thinking is present. Otherwise, it is understandable that someone runs the puppet show. However, saying censoring fake news is giving the power to CNN or whatever will be true as long as the news receivers won't be smart enough to try to fact check what they're being fed. But not censoring it won't make them more free, since they'll be contrôle by fake news.

[MrDynamicMan]

1 hour ago, TidaLWaveZ said:

I'd still like a real explanation of what fake news is, but we won't get one because this whole thing is just an excuse for organizations like Facebook and twitter  to censor or discredit smaller outlets and individuals.

 

 

Fake news: news reporting masquerading as objective that will often include partisan falsehoods or omissions to present their party in a better light:

 

See:

Breitbart, info wars, CNN, BBC. 

[AresKrieger]

If I actually trusted all of these fact checkers that would be one thing however I do not, and hence don't trust the program in general however I also don't use facebook so this fortunately will not directly affect me.

[TidaLWaveZ]

47 minutes ago, MrDynamicMan said:

Fake news: news reporting masquerading as objective that will often include partisan falsehoods or omissions to present their party in a better light:

 

See:

Breitbart, info wars, CNN, BBC. 

I know that we can define it and understand what it is, I just see the media's lack of a real definition leading to selective censorship.

 

For example take PizzaGate. The MSM wrote fake news all over it when it wasn't purported as news in the first place. It was purported as a farfetched theory.

[Tech_Dreamer]

News, It needs to be from the church for it to be absolute truth, rest is blasphemy.

 

..

[Sauron]

It's funny they would do that after starting to rely on bots to publish news. Or was that fake news too?

[PlayStation 2]

Politifact? ABC News? I'm fucking dead lmao

[TheReal1980]

This is the end of Facebook. I always knew they would do this in order to try controlling information but their leftist agenda will fail in the end. Who uses Facebook nowadays anyway except mothers and leftists? It is so outdated and it is spying on everything you do. Flush it down the toilet.

[TheReal1980]

4 minutes ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

Politifact? ABC News? I'm fucking dead lmao

Zückerberg is the son of God, did you not know?

[TheReal1980]

Btw, they can take Google as well, the search results are trash. Search for "american inventors", it is laughable. Google is dangerous and should be flushed.

[ChineseChef]

1 hour ago, AresKrieger said:

If I actually trusted all of these fact checkers that would be one thing however I do not, and hence don't trust the program in general however I also don't use facebook so this fortunately will not directly affect me.

See, the thing is though, it will affect you.  If you live in the US, it was recently determined that 40% of people get their news PRIMARILY from Facebook.  I can only assume other countries have a similar ratio of people who use Facebook and also use it for news.  So, it will affect you.  Since the masses around you will be basing their decisions and personal opinions about how policy that will affect you should be decided.

 

To use a heated topic, Gun Control.  If you like guns, and everyone on Facebook is getting false info that "guns are bad", people will be more apt to "ban guns".  If you don't like guns, and Facebook tells people that "guns cure cancer", people will be less likely to "ban guns".  (this is an extreme for the purpose of demonstration)

 

In either case, the "idiot masses" who can't be bothered to check their facts will be deciding what you are allowed to do.  Now even worse, imagine that only one side is represented?  Or only one side is shown in a negative light?  Public opinion is very easy to sway, and there is nearly unlimited motivation and desire to sway public opinion by the people who can.

[matrix07012]

3 hours ago, TidaLWaveZ said:

I'd still like a real explanation of what fake news is, but we won't get one because this whole thing is just an excuse for organizations like Facebook and twitter  to censor or discredit smaller outlets and individuals.

Anything you disagree with.

[SirRoderick]

All I can say is if you use the word "leftist" I immediately assume you're an unreasonably partisan conservative. Same goes the other way for "Neo-nazi" and the other side of the spectrum. Stop it, you look silly. Marx and Hitler are not going to pounce on you and strip you of your rights.

 

Fake news articles misinform deliberately and are found on all sides of politics, it affects conservatives, socialists and liberals all alike. Certain organisations tend to promote it like propaganda, and as far as I am concerned it should be weeded out of public forums. All they do is misinform and inflame tensions.

[AresKrieger]

1 hour ago, ChineseChef said:

snip

Directly affect me, indirectly is another matter however the solution is simple we must kill facebook (also those statistics don't make sense as I doubt ~70% of Americans who use facebook use it as their primary news source, technically I have a facebook account it isn't used so the statistics seem to be skewed a bit on that one.)

 

[PlayStation 2]

52 minutes ago, SirRoderick said:

All I can say is if you use the word "leftist" I immediately assume you're an unreasonably partisan conservative. Same goes the other way for "Neo-nazi" and the other side of the spectrum. Stop it, you look silly. Marx and Hitler are not going to pounce on you and strip you of your rights.

 

Fake news articles misinform deliberately and are found on all sides of politics, it affects conservatives, socialists and liberals all alike. Certain organisations tend to promote it like propaganda, and as far as I am concerned it should be weeded out of public forums. All they do is misinform and inflame tensions.

The problem here is that all of the sources Facebook is hiring sit on the liberal end of the political spectrum. Shit, ABC News is guilty of sucking DNC dick.