Facebook Tests Related Articles Fact-Checking Update in Ongoing Quest to Combat Fake News

[trainwrecka]

Seems like we'd be so much better off educating people about how news works. Lesson 1: just because your buddy on Facebook shared an article doesn't mean it's good information.

Most people know this, but the mainstream media/democrats think they lost the election, because of what they say is "fake news". (No - I didn't vote for Trump.) I prefer to let folks think for themselves, rather than letting social networks and search engines go Fahrenheit 451 on us.

 

[Mac32]

I'll have to give those guys a look. Thank you for posting them.

Do you watch Phillip DeFranco? He covers mostly internet news and the occasional big story from the world (probably not the same kind of news covered by the guys that you mentioned). But he's brilliant in front of the camera, no less. And no politically correct crap. Matter of fact, he's actually had ad revenue pulled from some of his videos as a result.

I haven't heard about him before, I'll check it out. Thanks for the tip!

 

[MrX8503]

People should stop getting their news from Facebook, but that's not going to happen when the majority of people spend a lot of time there.

I think all news should have related news accompany the main one so the reader can be informed of the entire picture. That seems to be what Facebook is trying to do.

News that are blatantly false, like pizzagate, should be censored entirely.

 

[Mac32]

All hard right-wingers dealing in opinion screeds, not facts, and certainly not journalism. Molyneux, in particular, is a borderline cultist. Not a remotely unbiased person in this group. So what you have illustrated is not your independence or interest in obtaining facts, but the lengths some will go to avoid them.

Several of the ones I mentioned are more leftwing (Dave Rubin, Sargon of Akkad), but don't let facts get in your way. From your comments I doubt you've actually spent time watching these channels, because your description of them is patently false. It's all about balancing your news consumption, and getting out of the liberal mainstream media information bubble. Drudgereport.com is also a must IMO.

 

[IJ Reilly]

News that are blatantly false, like pizzagate, should be censored entirely.

Google is trying to combat hoaxes from becoming highly-rated search results:

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-tn-google-autocomplete-20170425-story.html
[doublepost=1493153745][/doublepost]

Several of the ones I mentioned are more leftwing (Dave Rubin, Sargon of Akkad), but don't let facts get in your way. From your comments I doubt you've actually spent time watching these channels, because your description of them is patently false. It's all about balancing your news consumption, and getting out of the liberal mainstream media echo chamber. Drudgereport.com is also a must IMO.

No, they aren't. Not even slightly. Besides, I am not interested in getting my "information" from anyone with a wing orientation because that is not what you are getting. What you are getting is indoctrination and bias confirmation (which granted is what people tend to like). This is not balance, it's self-deception, and people of all political stripes are prone to it.

 

[Mac32]

Google is trying to combat hoaxes from becoming highly-rated search results:

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-tn-google-autocomplete-20170425-story.html
[doublepost=1493153745][/doublepost]

No, they aren't. Not even slightly. Besides, I am not interested in getting my "information" from anyone with a wing orientation because that is not what you are getting. What you are getting is indoctrination and bias confirmation (which granted is what people tend to like). This is not balance, it's self-deception, and people of all political stripes are prone to it.

Wrong. Also, one should watch both leftwing and rightwing media, and then make up your mind. If you want confirmation bias, watch CNN, NBC, MSNBC etc. who constantly give half-truths and ignores news stories that undermine their narrative. At least conservative media typically admit their bias, which the liberal left-leaning media won't. The ones on YouTube I mentioned specifies facts, empirical research, statistics and other real information glossed over by mainstream media, which usually offers whitewashed and dumbed-down news coverage.

It's ludicrous to call the YT-channels I mentioned "indoctrination", it's rather the other way around. Take a look at the problems in Europe right now. Most of these issues should never have existed in the first place, but are here in large part because of the mainstream media's open borders propaganda. In a few decades ethnic Europeans will become a minority in USA and several European countries (see demographic prognoses). People are finally waking up, but instead of mainstream media giving an honest coverage of these challenges, we are instead seeing an intensifying propaganda war (ie. the fake news-narrative).

 

[8281]

The immigrant riots in Paris in February was ignored by the state sponsored media here in Scandinavia (as with many other similar stories), but every time a bomb goes off in the Middle East, it's prime time news - and we see close up pictures of women and small children. But where is the footage and pictures of victims of the terror attacks here in Europe? Those are conspicuously absent. I wonder why...

More importantly, the mainstream media during the immigration crisis hounded and demonized any individual who uttered any skepticism or warning against opening up the borders, and basically ran a huge disinformation campaign where the risks and negative consequences were brushed under the carpet. Now it's too late, and the damage has already been done.

This riot that Snopes reported was not about Muslims, but rather about a black teen that was allegedly sodomized by Police? http://www.snopes.com/paris-muslim-siege-false/

And Britain literally left the EU partially over immigration concerns. There's more information available now that at any time in human history. It's not hard to find people who disagree with open borders.
[doublepost=1493155457][/doublepost]

Not sure why you'd take this personally or resort to the standard tactic of bringing up Trump. I'm just stating what the stats show.

I'm not taking it personally. I just feel a need to shoot down platitudes like the one you wrote in your earlier comment.

 

[Mac32]

This riot that Snopes reported was not about Muslims, but rather about a black teen that was allegedly sodomized by Police? http://www.snopes.com/paris-muslim-siege-false/

And Britain literally left the EU partially over immigration concerns. There's more information available now that at any time in human history. It's not hard to find people who disagree with open borders.
[doublepost=1493155457][/doublepost]

I'm not taking it personally. I just feel a need to shoot down platitudes like the one you wrote in your earlier comment.

So what's racist by protecting your national identity, culture and society? This whole leftist argument is ludicrous. Try going to any other non-white part of the world, like Africa, the Middle East, Asia or Latin-America, and try that BS there. At best you'll be laughed at or ignored, or get thrown in jail...or worse. Countries in Africa and Latin America can build walls and throw out illegal immigrants, but actual stable and productive countries in the Western world can't protect their own culture.

Try going to China, Japan, Somalia, Mexico, The Philippines, Afghanistan, Saudi-Arabia, Qatar etc., and demand that they suppress their own cultural identity, and import millions of incompatible immigrants of which the majority will live on welfare benefits. Give me a break.

According to a recent Pew Research study, 42% of young Muslims in France (aged 18-29) supports suicide bombings against civilians to defend Islam. Good luck with that. http://www.pewresearch.org/files/old-assets/pdf/muslim-americans.pdf

 

[TonyC28]

[doublepost=1493155457][/doublepost]

I'm not taking it personally. I just feel a need to shoot down platitudes like the one you wrote in your earlier comment.

Oh. My bad. Was it the encyclopedia comment that caught your eye?

 

[pika2000]

Meh. Facebook don't even care about hate and extremist groups on their platform.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Wrong. Also, one should watch both leftwing and rightwing media, and then make up your mind. If you want confirmation bias, watch CNN, NBC, MSNBC etc. who constantly give half-truths and ignores news stories that undermine their narrative. At least conservative media typically admit their bias, which the liberal left-leaning media won't. The ones on YouTube I mentioned specifies facts, empirical research, statistics and other real information glossed over by mainstream media, which usually offers whitewashed and dumbed-down news coverage.

It's ludicrous to call the YT-channels I mentioned "indoctrination", it's rather the other way around. Take a look at the problems in Europe right now. Most of these issues should never have existed in the first place, but are here in large part because of the mainstream media's open borders propaganda. In a few decades ethnic Europeans will become a minority in USA and several European countries (see demographic prognoses). People are finally waking up, but instead of mainstream media giving an honest coverage of these challenges, we are instead seeing an intensifying propaganda war (ie. the fake news-narrative).

Nope, nope, and... nope.

 

[Redneck1089]

But that really doesn't work, does it? As everyone should know by now, "checking sources" means locating confirmation on the internet opinion echo-chamber. So that is merely a definition of the problem, and by no means, the solution. Not sure how government can be inferred in any of this (seems you just fabricated that concept for emotional impact purposes). In fact, it is "big corporations" responsibility inasmuch as journalists tend to work for them. If your argument is that you should trust nothing that you don't sniff out with your own nose, then in reality, you are going to be living in a comfortable dark corner of your own creation.

Wrong. Government has had influence on the 'fake news' pandemonium that's going on. Did you not follow the US presidential election? Both Hilary and Trump were going on about fake news and how something had to be done. Trump still posts about the fake news/media on Twitter.

And yes, it does work -- people need to take responsibility for themselves. If you can't accept that, that's your issue. Perhaps you were mothered too much as a child and haven't moved on? Stop trying to put the onus on everyone and everything else. Big corporations absolutely don't have an obligation to police the news. It's the media that people should be coming down hard on for not doing a better job, not Facebook for simply sharing news stories. The only corporations that you can lump in with having a responsibility are, in fact, the media corporations themselves.

'Opinion echo chapter'? There's dozens of new and independent media outlets out there which fact check news stories all the time. If you and others are relying on the same sources from the same places over and over again, I hate to tell you this, but you're doing it wrong. Like I said in my original post, if people don't look around it's because they are lazy and sheep. Don't just look for opinions that agree with yours, and don't keep going back to the same places. Take responsibility to examine as much as you can. If you don't do that, then that's your issue, like I have said already.

If your reality is that you think you can depend upon government and big companies to honestly tell you what's real and what's fake news on a regular basis, then you're simply living with your head buried in the sand.
[doublepost=1493161321][/doublepost]

Nope, nope, and... nope.

Actually: yep, yep, and yep.

 

[jayducharme]

The NY Times just ran a lengthy and interesting interview with Zuckerberg and others at Facebook:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/25/magazine/can-facebook-fix-its-own-worst-bug.html

 

[PBRsg]

This sounds like a great way for big brother and big corporations to control what you hear and see.

I would rather take my chances with fake news than have Facebook tell me what is and isn't fake news.
[doublepost=1493165015][/doublepost]

Uh-oh, now where will conservatives read about birth certificates and pizza shops?

And where will leftists go to get their daily dose of Russian conspiracy theories? Oh, I forgot, the "respectable" mainstream media.

 

[glindon]

What is globalism, and why does it need to be fought?

I hope you are being sarcastic.
[doublepost=1493167620][/doublepost]

Most people know this, but the mainstream media/democrats think they lost the election, because of what they say is "fake news". (No - I didn't vote for Trump.) I prefer to let folks think for themselves, rather than letting social networks and search engines go Fahrenheit 451 on us.

A recent poll showed 67% of people think the democrats are out of touch with everyday people. Yet they still they keep doubling down on "fake news" and "Russia" instead of actually offering solutions that people want. What, seriously, do they stand for?

 

[IJ Reilly]

I hope you are being sarcastic.

Nope. Totally serious question. Try answering it. Good luck.

 

[A.Goldberg]

How about just generally not trusting FaceBook as a reliable news source with or without fact checking

 

[nick42983]

"fact checker" websites are themselves fake news. If journalism had any credibility it wouldn't need separate entities to verify their information (they are on the same leftist progressive team anyway). You also wouldn't need to virtue signal about "truth" in your advertising like the New York Daily Worker Times, the least credible source of information available.

 

[canadianreader]

As opposed to before when no fabrications and misinformation made it to the mass media?
[doublepost=1493137760][/doublepost]

Didn't that idiotic pizzagate shooter use the same excuse to "do his own investigation?"

I thought that pizzagate shooter was a possible false flag something made up by the government to make you think that the whole pizzagate thing is fake news.

Why do people tend to believe everything they hear without a bit of scepticism.

 

[sudo1996]

I just want Facebook to have nothing to do with news, thanks.

 

[brueck]

Yep, it's basically a culture war between globalism and nationalism, and the fake news-narrative is propaganda from the globalist/traditional power elites (who to a large extent control most of the mainstream media through various mechanisms). Yes, there are fake news stories out there, but strangely enough nobody cared that much about them until Donald Trump won and the conservative populist movement in USA and Europe started to gather momentum.

Nothing strange about that. It makes perfect sense that people would never want someone line trump to win again.

 

[macs4nw]

There is no chance anything can be done to combat fake news.

Any algorithm would be quickly gamed, any human checking is too slow and can't be scaled up efficiently.

As for the citizen's critical spirit... people mostly stop at the headline and take it for good.

Fake news is indeed a real, and big, problem. If the fakers inundate the web with a certain fake story, the casual browser might take the preponderance of these fake stories as an indication of their veracity, much like we all often judge the truth by considering the sheer volume of a certain opinion vs fewer people voicing a dissenting version of facts.

Additionally, curbing presumed fake news, unless 100% proven to be just that, is a very slippery slope, and a solution that could be worse than the actual problem, by rendering control of our sources to censorship.

In spite of all the digital wizardry at our disposal, which technically should make our lives easier and simpler, now more than ever, we need to be vigilant with the sources of our info, before making judgements and coming to conclusions, all of which could later turn out to be inaccurate.

 

[0098386]

Good! Feels a little too late though. Imagine if people read fact checking sites on Trump and Brexit. Ho hum.
[doublepost=1493212022][/doublepost]

Fake news is indeed a real, and big, problem. If the fakers inundate the web with a certain fake story, the casual browser might take the preponderance of these fake stories as an indication of their veracity, much like we all often judge the truth by considering the sheer volume of a certain opinion vs fewer people voicing a dissenting version of facts.

Additionally, curbing presumed fake news, unless 100% proven to be just that, is a very slippery slope, and a solution that could be worse than the actual problem, by rendering control of our sources to censorship.

In spite of all the digital wizardry at our disposal, which technically should make our lives easier and simpler, now more than ever, we need to be vigilant with the sources of our info, before making judgements and coming to conclusions, all of which could later turn out to be inaccurate.

Exactly. One happened quite recently regarding a politician. A discussion on a seedy forum began where people wondered how they could disgrace a politician. So they began seeping fake news onto social media, then awful news outlets pick up on it. It doesn't matter if it's true or not - once big, fake news outlets repeat a lie people who don't fact check believe it to be true. It's a shame.

 

[ibookg409]

Pah! Fake news. There is no such thing as Facebook! Check your facts Sheeple. Sad!

Buut herrrrr emailsssssss

Derp derp.
[doublepost=1493139669][/doublepost]

But Brexit clearly was a racist vote by the poor educated elderly and disenfranchised working class voters. No question of that.

How is it clearly racist. Please be specific.

 

[macduke]

Yep, because Obama, Hillary Clinton and co never lied. Right...

They did. A lot. Do you assume I support them? Moderate conservative here with independent tendencies. When it comes to presidential tickets I've voted nothing but republican until recently. Have no idea why my former party has lost it's damn mind. But go ahead and make up whatever narrative suits your agenda. Our president is an awful human being. We have a problem in this country with nominating the most horrible, least qualified people to be president on both sides. Even independents sucked this year. It doesn't take a genius to see all the fake crap posted on social media that helped propel our president to victory. It was everywhere! And the worst part is our president wouldn't outright deny any of it, which helped to legitimize it. And he's still doing it! Remember—alternative facts are his administration's words—not mine.