Google and Facebook Working to Fight the Spread of 'Fake News'

[LizKat]

This is basically people on a large scale. The group becomes a different organism altogether and is overall more impulsive than the individual and easily manipulated mostly unaware of its full potential.

Imagine every bird with a screen in front of them telling them what to think!

Yeah but a bird can get from the Catskills to the Caribbean without a map or a lunchbox. Meanwhile the couch potatoes around here were driven to the polls by their TV sets and voted for a guy who pitched lunch for the left-behinds but is taking all but the top tier to the cleaners.

I'm not saying evolution hasn't produced some convincing advancements from bird brains to human brains, as evidenced by many of our achievements, but there are some obvious glitches now and then LOL.

Fake news to a bird is the random snowstorm popping up in the Northeast in April, deployed by a careless Mother Nature. The robins get annoyed but they recognize it as essentially out of context, and rarely fly far south again in response. They seem to rely on flock (institutional) memory...

Fake news to a human is something that can be deployed against other humans to political advantage. The Trump administration uses it to keep people uncertain of what, exactly, is either their longer term motive or their next short term move. And they're rather good at using it to distract from the latter while it's actually happening. They campaigned against institutions and institutional memory, and are now about refining the plutocracy we've been building since the 80s, ditching safey nets and regulations. And we're sitting around watching it happen like a bunch of birds, acting like well it's a weird and rainy day but what can you do, the sun will be out tomorrow probably. We have forgotten a lot of lessons history offers us.

So something Trump is doing appeals to the bird brain in us, I guess. My problem is we don't seem to know when to snap out of it and remember we are not birds. We need maps, lunch boxes, and some regulations aside from those Mother Nature and the forces of unfettered capitalism tend to provide for their one great goal: survival of the fittest. Last time I looked, that rule was not amongst the declared ideals of our Constitution.

 

[maelstromr]

http://www.politifact.com/florida/s...cott-says-health-insurance-premiums-increase/

Serious question:

See my post above. If a news outlet or blog reported his statements as true (which they were) but PolitiFact labeled it as "mostly false" would it be flagged as Fake News under these new guidelines?

Just going back to your original question - there is a difference between 1) absolute FAKE news (Bowling Green Massacre), 2) news that is misleading because it omits the whole story (your Scott example) and 3) news that spins in one way that might be biased in the terms/presentation (a lot of the "liberal bias" we hear so much about).

#1 needs to be blocked and punished.
#2 Should be exposed and amplified for clarity as much as possible, which is why politifact exists.
#3 Should be minimized via ethics rules and challenged by other competent voices and readers when it crosses a line. This is why we have the WSJ AND the Economist, for example.

 

[6836838]

Otherwise known as censorship.

 

[maelstromr]

Otherwise known as censorship.

We don't allow every crack pot to put poison into our food or medicine supplies, even though we all have a right to sell what we can to others. We don't allow any fool who can find one to fly an airplane, even though we all have a right to travel around freely. We don't allow 60 year old men to run around naked at day cares, even though we all have a right to free expression.

"Censorship" as in the thing the First Amendment prohibits is a very specific thing. I don't have to allow you to use my private forum to lie, and neither does Facebook. On the other hand, the government CANNOT prevent you from posting what you want on your own website or somewhere that will allow it. It's an important distinction - the former is what is at issue here, you still get to post what you want elsewhere.

Not only CAN FB and Google block content they don't agree with, but they SHOULD block fake news because it is actively damaging to the public and political discourse, and it has no redeeming value other than to mislead and undermine the truth.

Finally, If you really don't like it, stop using their services. There aren't actually enough alt-righters to do it, but in theory they can get their drivel back in the mainstream if they force the companies to do it...through economics.

 

[trainwrecka]

Make no mistake - this move is more about advertising than it is about stopping fake news itself. Brand safety is paramount and both Facebook and Google have been hit hard (YouTube specifically) because brands have wound up having ads on sites or appearing within videos that aren't in alignment with their brand. It's also skewed numbers and reporting (Facebook).

Follow the money - plenty of articles on the hit both orgs have taken when it comes to trust from advertisers.

It's worse than that. Eric Feinberg patented something to prevent ads from displaying on offensive content, then sent screenshots of ads on offensive content to the WSJ, WSJ falsely accuses the PewDiePie guy, big media sees an opportunity and pulls ads, Google tries to course correct, but can't do so without violating Feinberg's patent. It's all about the money.

Free flow of ideas? Not anymore.

 

[star-affinity]

Someone asked if we could ignore people here, but I wonder if we might be able to follow someone? I like the sensible and nuanced posts from maelstromr.

 

[497902]

Google and Facebook are enemies to freedom of speech and press. It's incredibly sick.

 

[maelstromr]

Someone asked if we could ignore people here, but I wonder if we might be able to follow someone? I like the sensible and nuanced posts from maelstromr.

Aww shucks, now I'm blushing.

 

[AppleMad98004]

Maybe someone here can answer this.....

In order to be covered by the protections as a common carrier doesn't Facebook and Google (Twitter too) have to NOT edit or filter content or they lose the protection against lawsuits. All of a sudden they aren't just passing on or indexing content but actually filtering and shaping it. Would they be liable for falsehoods now?

 

[maelstromr]

Maybe someone here can answer this.....

In order to be covered by the protections as a common carrier doesn't Facebook and Google (Twitter too) have to NOT edit or filter content or they lose the protection against lawsuits. All of a sudden they aren't just passing on or indexing content but actually filtering and shaping it. Would they be liable for falsehoods now?

I don't know the exact details on this, and there was a recent case softening the definition of "common carrier" in terms of the obligations internet SERVICE providers have, but I am not aware of anything making Google and Facebook "common carriers." They certainly DO NOT want that label, it comes with a lot more obligations than defenses.

Boiled down simply, IMO, the issue here is no different than blocking pornography, incitements to violence or outright defamation, there is no obligation to pass on a lie, especially when you have reason to know it is a lie. A contrary legal standard would be grossly against the public interest and would never fly in reality, except in a nutso right wing law school professor's class.

 

[modemthug]

This just means Google and Facebook will endorse leftist propaganda more officially

Funny how they do this right after an anti-establishment candidate is elected

 

[calisurfboy]

Need to block Occupy Democrats and Buzzfeed.

 

[AZ63]

Clearly I'm not in favor of anyone telling people what is and what isn't real news. That said facebook and google can't censor whatever they like, just as people can choose to no longer use their services.

Did you mean to say Facebook and Google can censor whatever they like?

 

[DrewDaHilp1]

Did you mean to say Facebook and Google can censor whatever they like?

Yes. My bad typo.

 

[AZ63]

When was this? What?

The post used the phrase "somewhat recent debate" but the debate was the Romney/Obama debate when the moderator took it upon herself to correct and then argue the point with Romney. It turned out that she was not correcting Romney as his point was accurate.
The moderator inserted herself into the debate which is not the job of a moderator. Right or wrong those issues should be dealt with by reporters after the debate. If the other candidate wants to argue the point, that of course, is why there are debates. To argue points is not the reason the moderator is present.

 

[npmacuser5]

Clearly I'm not in favor of anyone telling people what is and what isn't real news. That said facebook and google can censor whatever they like, just as people can choose to no longer use their services.

They are Not censoring anything, all results will be delivered. Information icon stating this maybe fake news. Up to each reader too determine for themselves. Helping educate and increase awareness about fake news. I welcome their efforts.

 

[maelstromr]

The post used the phrase "somewhat recent debate" but the debate was the Romney/Obama debate when the moderator took it upon herself to correct and then argue the point with Romney. It turned out that she was not correcting Romney as his point was accurate.
The moderator inserted herself into the debate which is not the job of a moderator. Right or wrong those issues should be dealt with by reporters after the debate. If the other candidate wants to argue the point, that of course, is why there are debates. To argue points is not the reason the moderator is present.

In 2012 (ancient history in political terms), I may have agreed with you. In 2016, watching the @#$%show of an election and debates where we were SO. MANY. TIMES. just taken out of the realm of reality, I'm just not so sure the principle stands. I fully admit to being firmly anti Trump, and no doubt my willingness to condemn comes from his particular penchant for not truth telling, BUT

Looking back at 2016 when moderators/reporters DID step in, they were generally right factually, and I think the pressure on candidates to watch it or be made to look like fools is not a bad thing. That said, it should be used very carefully and sparingly, and when misused, should be the last moderator gig that person gets. But a factually accurate challenge - "Ms. Conway, there is no such thing as a Bowling Green Massacre" - that's not just appropriate, it's a service to the nation.

 

[macduke]

Hopefully this is an improvement over asking Google which presidents have been members of the KKK and it provides a full list, despite there being no presidents who are known members.

 

[M.PaulCezanne]

Slippery slope. Don't care about Facebook but google as a search engine should be impartial

Probably should care about Facebook. The fake Pope endorsement story during the election was shared nearly 1 million times. It wouldn't be unreasonable to assume that and other fake news stories Facebook helped spread during the election had some kind of impact on voting. Before the election, Facebook looked the other way because they benefited enormously from all the traffic in fake news and clickbait/likebait. Now users are demanding at least some kind of help to distinguish what's what.

I agree this is a tricky and potentially slippery slope. I also agree that impartiality is fundamental, and I totally agree that if you believe this kind of garbage without checking facts on your own you might deserve what you get. However, I absolutely think social media sites and search engines with the power, market caps and user bases the size of Facebook and Google should explore and implement tools that make it just as easy to check facts as it is to click on clickbait/likebait.

Figuring out what sources to use will be a nightmare (e.g., could lead to potential bias complaints in they're own right), but the geniuses at these companies get paid truckloads of cash to solve difficult problems, do they not?

 

[MacNut]

Google and Facebook are enemies to freedom of speech and press. It's incredibly sick.

Care to explain this comment.

 

[ArcAngel66]

On the notion of deciding which sites are "reputable"...

How does this not meddle with Net Neutrality?

It's a safe assumption certain media publications will be given the mark of trust (NYT, WSJ, etc. ) far quicker, easier, and by default. No matter how factual a random Joe/Jane's blog is, they are now at a fundamental disadvantage, no?

 

[AZ63]

In 2012 (ancient history in political terms), I may have agreed with you. In 2016, watching the @#$%show of an election and debates where we were SO. MANY. TIMES. just taken out of the realm of reality, I'm just not so sure the principle stands. I fully admit to being firmly anti Trump, and no doubt my willingness to condemn comes from his particular penchant for not truth telling, BUT

Looking back at 2016 when moderators/reporters DID step in, they were generally right factually, and I think the pressure on candidates to watch it or be made to look like fools is not a bad thing. That said, it should be used very carefully and sparingly, and when misused, should be the last moderator gig that person gets. But a factually accurate challenge - "Ms. Conway, there is no such thing as a Bowling Green Massacre" - that's not just appropriate, it's a service to the nation.

First, it was not my post, I was just trying to answer another's question posed to the original post.
Also, I have to say I just watched a few minutes of the debates. Both candidates are/were deeply flawed and it was just too unbearable to watch. It says a lot about our current political situation.
I stand by my original statement. I believe the candidates should have the floor. There are plenty of political pundits that can react to what is said. To insert oneself, as the moderator, into the debate can lead to bias whether perceived or actual. The stakes are too high for that to occur.
Finally, I don't recall Ms. Conway being in a debate with a moderator. When did that happen?
[doublepost=1491614850][/doublepost]

These are less about consumer use. And you'd be surprised how many get their news from Facebook because of shares and promoted pieces.

Not to mention comedy opinion shows.
[doublepost=1491615256][/doublepost]

In my opinion everyone who uses facebook is an idiot.

That is a little harsh. Sharing pictures and updates with family that live far apart is a fine use. But I am sure that is not part of your overly general statement. Is it included?
Note, I do not have a Facebook account.

 

[maelstromr]

First, it was not my post, I was just trying to answer another's question posed to the original post.
Also, I have to say I just watched a few minutes of the debates. Both candidates are/were deeply flawed and it was just too unbearable to watch. It says a lot about our current political situation.
I stand by my original statement. I believe the candidates should have the floor. There are plenty of political pundits that can react to what is said. To insert oneself, as the moderator, into the debate can lead to bias whether perceived or actual. The stakes are too high for that to occur.
Finally, I don't recall Ms. Conway being in a debate with a moderator. When did that happen?
[doublepost=1491614850][/doublepost]
Not to mention comedy opinion shows.
[doublepost=1491615256][/doublepost]
That is a little harsh. Sharing pictures and updates with family that live far apart is a fine use. But I am sure that is not part of your overly general statement. Is it included?
Note, I do not have a Facebook account.

I'm not sure how this makes any sense - 'everyone in the debates (who I didn't actually watch) was too awful to watch, but I have a problem with moderators inserting themselves to make sense of it.' ANY reporting of any kind is subject to bias...your argument seems to make a better case for balanced moderator panels than no moderator participation.

I was using Bowling Green as an example issue, and I also mentioned moderators/reporters, because I'm not sure why this moderator point in isolation has anything to do with the Google/Facebook topic of the post.

 

[AZ63]

Well I hope this works b'cuz I certainly can't decide for myself!


We're cattle!

I thought we were sheep?
[doublepost=1491616625][/doublepost]

I'm not sure how this makes any sense - 'everyone in the debates (who I didn't actually watch) was too awful to watch, but I have a problem with moderators inserting themselves to make sense of it.' ANY reporting of any kind is subject to bias...your argument seems to make a better case for balanced moderator panels than no moderator participation.

I was using Bowling Green as an example issue, and I also mentioned moderators/reporters, because I'm not sure why this moderator point in isolation has anything to do with the Google/Facebook topic of the post.

All was started by you from your reaction to a question I answered.
[doublepost=1491616904][/doublepost]

I'm not sure how this makes any sense - 'everyone in the debates (who I didn't actually watch) was too awful to watch, but I have a problem with moderators inserting themselves to make sense of it.' ANY reporting of any kind is subject to bias...your argument seems to make a better case for balanced moderator panels than no moderator participation.

I was using Bowling Green as an example issue, and I also mentioned moderators/reporters, because I'm not sure why this moderator point in isolation has anything to do with the Google/Facebook topic of the post.

Where did I say I didn't watch the debates? I didn't watch all of all of the debates. Many because I said I watched a few minutes you changed that to not watching any of the debates. Hmmmm...… maybe we need a moderator to tell you you are incorrect.

 

[chr1s60]

99% of what comes out of any politician's mouth is fake news.