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

[SirRoderick]

6 minutes ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

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.

That's not a problem for Facebook, they can't control what people put up. They should make an effort to label all this content very clearly regardless of the source. As should other social sites. 

[PlayStation 2]

Just now, SirRoderick said:

That's not a problem for Facebook, they can't control what people put up. They should make an effort to label all this content very clearly regardless of the source. As should other social sites. 

But Facebook is hiring said sources to control what news gets put onto the site. I doubt Facebook will put any effort into it, in all reality.

[pyrojoe34]

3 hours 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 agreed with your examples until you got to BBC. After NPR (arguably the most trustworthy news source we have in the US), BBC (global) is one of the more reputable sources of news out there. It's not perfect sure, none are, but it's generally less misinformed/biased, and more factual than most other major news networks.

[Misanthrope]

Well this is surely akward for them:

 

[Misanthrope]

16 minutes ago, pyrojoe34 said:

I agreed with your examples until you got to BBC. After NPR (arguably the most trustworthy news source we have in the US), BBC (global) is one of the more reputable sources of news out there. It's not perfect sure, none are, but it's generally less misinformed/biased, and more factual than most other major news networks.

As a news outlet they might still have credibility behind their stories, but they're not immune to ideologues seeing how they are firing presenters for entirely racist reasons (Literally cause they're white males)

 

[TidaLWaveZ]

23 minutes ago, SirRoderick said:

That's not a problem for Facebook, they can't control what people put up. They should make an effort to label all this content very clearly regardless of the source. As should other social sites. 

What about letting the user decide what to believe instead of telling them what they should believe?

[SirRoderick]

Just now, TidaLWaveZ said:

What about letting the user decide what to believe instead of telling them what they should believe?

They are totally free to beleive what they want. But VERIFIABLY false news should be labelled as such.

[Misanthrope]

4 minutes ago, TidaLWaveZ said:

What about letting the user decide what to believe instead of telling them what they should believe?

People are generally not neutral and they'll hold positions to ridiculous extremes just because they can't see beyond their partisanship (Remember your "OMG RUSSIA!" thread yesterday?)

 

A consensus is usually needed but more than that, one has to accept that all news are biased i.e. Nothing should be taken as face value and criticism should be looked at: Even Alex Jones can ocassionally stumble upon something valid when he is not concerned in Amphibian Sexuality Control issues of course.

[TidaLWaveZ]

4 minutes ago, SirRoderick said:

They are totally free to beleive what they want. But VERIFIABLY false news should be labelled as such.

Damn, that quickly went full circle right back to who should be in charge of verifying.

 

I still think there should just be no interference, I see it causing more problems than people believing in articles without proof.

[pyrojoe34]

1 minute ago, TidaLWaveZ said:

What about letting the user decide what to believe instead of telling them what they should believe?

How can people make decisions with any confidence when they aren't given the facts though? Unfortunately, the psychology of most people is to take headlines as fact and never read a single sentence of an article, we are attracted to sensationalist media regardless of validity. There's nothing wrong with a little footnote stating the information in a headline does not accurately represent reality. People can choose to ignore the footnote if they want but do you really want what is essentially false propaganda to dictate people's decisions? History has shown that a society riddled with misinformation quickly goes down very dangerous roads.

 

The sad reality of our modern society is that most people get their "news" from social media. What is wrong with giving people the information they need to be properly informed?

[TidaLWaveZ]

8 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

People are generally not neutral and they'll hold positions to ridiculous extremes just because they can't see beyond their partisanship (Remember your "OMG RUSSIA!" thread yesterday?)

 

A consensus is usually needed but more than that, one has to accept that all news are biased i.e. Nothing should be taken as face value and criticism should be looked at: Even Alex Jones can ocassionally stumble upon something valid when he is not concerned in Amphibian Sexuality Control issues of course.

 

I feel like the thread from yesterday is evidence why there should be no interference.  My whole point of posting was my distaste with the sources for not providing evidence and that's exactly the kind of article that facebook will verify as truth as it's coming from NBC and CBS.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

I love the work that factcheck.org and similar websites do. I think that having these kind of websites, and especially having several of them, is a necessity in our low-cost broadcasting present.

However, I think the optimal version is the one we already have: whatever you say, it can be checked up by these sites, and the result made available to everyone, building a good or bad reputation for you in the process. I mean, we are still left with the problem of people nto caring about being blatantly lied to, but what can you do. So it is as good as it gets. Going a step forward and policing content before making available brings such organizations to places they shouldn't be at. If I was running a fact-checking website, I'd prefer to stay as an ex-post referee, I wouldn't be very comfortable as an ex-ante judge.

[TidaLWaveZ]

1 hour ago, pyrojoe34 said:

How can people make decisions with any confidence when they aren't given the facts though? Unfortunately, the psychology of most people is to take headlines as fact and never read a single sentence of an article, we are attracted to sensationalist media regardless of validity. There's nothing wrong with a little footnote stating the information in a headline does not accurately represent reality. People can choose to ignore the footnote if they want but do you really want what is essentially false propaganda to dictate people's decisions? History has shown that a society riddled with misinformation quickly goes down very dangerous roads.

 

The sad reality of our modern society is that most people get their "news" from social media. What is wrong with giving people the information they need to be properly informed?

There's definitely nothing wrong with a little footnote that represents reality or keeping people properly informed, but there is something wrong with a little footnote that represents someones opinion or agenda disguised as reality.

[Tech_Dreamer]

Cool, i wonder if they'd censor fake news that women get paid 75% of what men get paid & false rape allegations news *grabs extra salty popcorn*

[Michael McAllister]

On 12/16/2016 at 4:27 AM, Jorgen297 said:

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

Time Warner owns CNN.  At best, they are center-left.  You will never hear them talk about income inequality, net neutrality, or criticize free-trade agreements like TPP, which also pose a threat to a free and open Internet.

[RocketFarmer]

I despise almost anything after the word "should".  Especially true when "must" or "shall" tends to be the end result or the unintended consequence. 

 

Leave my fake news alone, and how dare you label the story on bigfoot hunting unicorns in his UFO in the first place. 

 

Also raises the question on labeling items of faith as fake news.  Starts getting into freedom of religious expression.  

 

Are you going to label everything, and could it be considered libel to label?

[HughMungusCynicalAnarch]

of course leftist bullshit wont be fact checked and anything that isnt anti white cultural marxist bullshit will be marked as right wing nazi conspiracy theories.