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

[AZ63]

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

We should all be able to agree that politicians, spin/phrase statements to bolster their side. Everything for them is about winning an argument. Whether it is not including info. that is contrary to their agenda or only pointing out what is wrong on the other side, politicians all do it. If it fits a segment of the pop. then that segment loves it. But when it is contrary to a segment of the pop. that side then calls it fakes news or a lie.
Maybe I am jaded, but that is the way I see it.

 

[KoolAid-Drink]

Uh... I mean, I'm all for making sure people aren't duped, but shouldn't a search engine (which is what Google is) present search results neutrally? I'm not sure I feel comfortable with the possible direction this takes us in.

 

[0098386]

Uh... I mean, I'm all for making sure people aren't duped, but shouldn't a search engine (which is what Google is) present search results neutrally? I'm not sure I feel comfortable with the possible direction this takes us in.

Well, the worry is that people are gaming Google's algorithms. I forget the one now - but there's a phrase that if you search for on Google you get a racist websites explanation of the phrase, deliberately gamed so its the first thing people see.

I see this as a move by Google to correct part of that. Personally I'm all for the complete removal of fake news from search engines. What would be the benefit of them, to the mass public, if not to confuse, scare, manipulate.

 

[Kabeyun]

The term "fake news" was not popularized by Team Trump. It was hijacked and systematically distorted, just like the right wing did 20 years ago to the perfectly fine term "liberal" and what they're trying to do now to the term "Democrat" when used as an adjective instead of the correct "Democratic."

Whether or not you're a fan of Google or Facebook (I'm not particularly) or what this article says they're doing, please everyone: only call something fake news if it is a news story represented as true (and probably maliciously so) but provably untrue and not promptly corrected if identified as untrue, not just a story you don't like. Breitbart and the National Enquirer publish fake news. The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal do not. Let's support earnest investigative journalism that dispassionately follows facts where they lead, regardless of ideology. There are no "alternative facts," it's just propaganda.

 

[Solomani]

When was this? What?
[doublepost=1491576524][/doublepost]

WHY MOM WHY?!?!?!

I swear, if my dog isn't now living at a farm upstate running through lush green fields being happy playing with cows, I'm going to be super pissed.

The dog was sold to Mister Ling, the neighbor who owns the family-owned Chinese restaurant down the street.

 

[0098386]

The term "fake news" was not popularized by Team Trump. It was hijacked and systematically distorted, just like the right wing did 20 years ago to the perfectly fine term "liberal" and what they're trying to do now to the term "Democrat" when used as an adjective instead of the correct "Democratic."

Whether or not you're a fan of Google or Facebook (I'm not particularly) or what this article says they're doing, please everyone: only call something fake news if it is a news story represented as true (and probably maliciously so) but provably untrue and not promptly corrected if identified as untrue, not just a story you don't like. Breitbart and the National Enquirer publish fake news. The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal do not. Let's support earnest investigative journalism that dispassionately follows facts where they lead, regardless of ideology. There are no "alternative facts," it's just propaganda.

This post is correct. I find it funny that "fake news" was mentioned a lot in the last US President election to highlight the incorrect info published by those sites you mentioned, and then Trump starts using it, weirdly, at the wrong people. He even called the BBC "fake news". I understand why they want to hijack the term, though. It's just good that their hijacking isn't working.

 

[Kabeyun]

This post is correct. I find it funny that "fake news" was mentioned a lot in the last US President election to highlight the incorrect info published by those sites you mentioned, and then Trump starts using it, weirdly, at the wrong people. He even called the BBC "fake news". I understand why they want to hijack the term, though. It's just good that their hijacking isn't working.

I so hope you're right, but I think the jury's still out. Repeat a lie often enough and it sounds true, especially to the uninformed or biased. Elimination of a free press is a standard part of the autocrat's playbook.

 

[skinned66]

I avoid fake news on Facebook by avoiding Facebook.

 

[definitive]

Did somebody say "fake news"?

 

[Gasu E.]

PolitFact:

The Jim Webb statement has since been corrected by Politifact to "Half True". See the following link. Different people (Virginia, Texas) did the ratings of the two statements, resulting in different ratings. It's unfortunate that you fail to give Politifact credit for noting and changing this inconsistency-- was that intentional? BTW, given that you left out mention of the subsequent correction, your own post is "Half True"

http://www.politifact.com/virginia/...bb-says-us-didnt-have-income-taxes-until-191/
[doublepost=1491701942][/doublepost]

Im sure this will be bipartisan and totally neutral, just like these stories from respected news outlets were called out as being fake:



http://thefederalist.com/2017/02/06/16-fake-news-stories-reporters-have-run-since-trump-won/

I read this very quickly. It seemed about 90% of what they cited were respectable news people Tweeting unfounded rumors on their personal accounts (not in the news media itself). Of the rest, most were blogs or clear opinion pieces, and maybe 1% were misleading headlines on legit news stories. Did I miss any item that didn't fall into these categories-- it's certainly possible, and I would appreciate a correction if so. The bottom line: very little of what the Federalist lists was portrayed as "news" from an actual "news outlet"; and even those were mostly problems with the headlines, rather than the body of the story.

 

[countryside]

Maybe I'll stop seeing conservativedaily.com or christiannews.com (examples) in my feed? One could dream

So you don't want a "FAKE NEWS" filter, you want a "news I don't agree with" filter.

 

[Aloft085]

False news = news with purposefully false information
not sure how there's more than 1 definition

Whether LeftWing.com or RightWing.com put false information in their stories, the defintion of 'false news' doesn't change based on site

That's the theory, but the realty is quite different. The fact checking websites that already exist frequently show a very strong leftist bias in what they declare "mostly false" or "mostly true". If they don't agree with an interpretation or opinion, they'll often rule it "false" and sway a lot of voters who don't know any better. This idea that fact checkers will stick to pure facts isn't supported by recent history.

I find it very dangerous that we're giving a few very large multinational corporations the power to decide for us what is true and what is false.

 

[SoN1NjA]

So you don't want a "FAKE NEWS" filter, you want a "news I don't agree with" filter.

Those sites just put fake **** out all the time

Saw once apparently the Joint Chiefs of Staff looked at Obama with a smug face when he said the U.S. has the best military in the world, when in reality they just had a straight face on, which who doesn't for a serious event

 

[Kabeyun]

The fact checking websites that already exist frequently show a very strong leftist bias in what they declare "mostly false" or "mostly true".

Well, fact checkers having a "bias" is one explanation. Another explanation, and in my view the correct one, is that the right wing and their self-deputized operatives are lying more so you'll see them called out more.

In statistics, this is called a sampling bias. If the overall political climate has shifted steadily rightward, then people who remain centrist appear relatively more leftist, as the ground moves under their feet. This may explain the "liberal bias" of those simply interested in objective truth, which isn't being offered as much by those on the right.

(and in 3... 2... 1...)

 

[doelcm82]

Well, fact checkers having a "bias" is one explanation. The correct explanation, though, is that the right wing and their self-deputized operatives are lying more so you'll see them called out more.

In statistics, this is called a sampling bias. If the overall political climate has shifted steadily rightward, then people who remain centrist appear relatively more leftist, as the ground moves under their feet. This may explain the "liberal bias" of those simply interested in objective truth, which isn't being offered by those on the right.

(and in 3... 2... 1...)

This. Most people think they're in the middle. But, try this: List some people you think are too liberal. Then list some people you think are too conservative. If your lists are lopsided, you're probably not in the middle.

 

[sudo1996]

"only publishers that are algorithmically determined to be an authoritative source of information"
Not good. Some well-meaning news sites are going to get screwed over by a false negative, and people will figure out how to trick the algorithm as part of the SEO game. Goog/FB will train their neural nets or whatever based on old data, then spammers will adapt.
[doublepost=1491754453][/doublepost]

That's the theory, but the realty is quite different. The fact checking websites that already exist frequently show a very strong leftist bias in what they declare "mostly false" or "mostly true".

Yeah, I went on factcheck.org for the first time and was very disappointed. I don't know if they did exactly what you're saying, but they had a lot of passionate wording in the articles.
[doublepost=1491754760][/doublepost]

Maybe I'll stop seeing conservativedaily.com or christiannews.com (examples) in my feed? One could dream

Google News lets you filter, and I think I got Facebook to stop pushing me those along with Huffington Post. Not sure why my two ad blockers aren't blocking those ads on Facebook anyway!
[doublepost=1491754924][/doublepost]

Well, the worry is that people are gaming Google's algorithms. I forget the one now - but there's a phrase that if you search for on Google you get a racist websites explanation of the phrase, deliberately gamed so its the first thing people see.

Comcast? Maybe not the example you're thinking of, but if you Google Image search Comcast, you get Nazi symbols.
[doublepost=1491755081][/doublepost]

Need to block Occupy Democrats and Buzzfeed.

Ugh. Since when was Buzzfeed a news source? I thought that was the site with quizzes and stuff, and now I'm getting random crappy news articles from them.

 

[0098386]

At the dinner table today "Is the backlash from the right confirmation that their news providers lie?"

 

[szw-mapple fan]

Oh great, now I feel safe. Now I can make sure I have all the unbiased left leaning news delivered right to my phone.

You gave up your right to choose the political leaning of the news you receive the moment you started using Google (or any other privately owned platform) for news.
[doublepost=1491796710][/doublepost]

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

If by impartial you mean giving rumors and conspiracy theories the same weight as facts.

 

[Aloft085]

At the dinner table today "Is the backlash from the right confirmation that their news providers lie?"

The backlash is confirmation that the left controls California tech companies, which want to block partisan opinion "news" from conservative sources while giving the mainstream media a free pass. There's a staggering amount of propaganda in mainstream news on a regular basis, most people here are just too far left to notice.
[doublepost=1491798951][/doublepost]

The backlash is confirmation that the left controls California tech companies, which want to block partisan opinion "news" from conservative sources while giving the mainstream media a free pass. There's a staggering amount of propaganda in mainstream news on a regular basis, most people here are just too far left to notice.

Anyone who isn't concerned about large tech companies attempting to control what people say, isn't thinking for themselves. You already can't speak out at half of the universities in America. Does the left want to completely squelch free speech?

 

[ErikGrim]

How do we block trolls on here? It's so easy on Facebook...

Click their name > Ignore

Sadly you can only block up to 1000 people, a limit I have long since hit.

 

[0098386]

The backlash is confirmation that the left controls California tech companies, which want to block partisan opinion "news" from conservative sources while giving the mainstream media a free pass. There's a staggering amount of propaganda in mainstream news on a regular basis, most people here are just too far left to notice.
[doublepost=1491798951][/doublepost]

Anyone who isn't concerned about large tech companies attempting to control what people say, isn't thinking for themselves. You already can't speak out at half of the universities in America. Does the left want to completely squelch free speech?

Huh. Weird, when I was right wing I never thought of mass news as left leaning. I don't live in America, but the only news I thought had bias were Fox News and most of the British Press (right wing again). Even when I was against gay marriage and the sort I just thought of mainstream media as being non-religious, progressive. I knew my views were outdated but wanted to hold onto them as much as I could so I read papers like the Daily Mail.

Now when I look at fact checking sites it's always right wing outlets that are the worst offenders (just this morning I saw a popular right wing chap spread fake news regarding a journalist that took part in a fashion photo shoot, its embarrassing). I've seen left ones guilty too but by a larger margin it seems right wing lie more. But that makes sense - they want you to be scared, and people that are willing to be scared are more likely to believe lies. Being scared reduces your rationality.

 

[TonyC28]

If you are someone who uses Facebook to get your news, don't be.
If Facebook wants to help they should include a disclaimer with every article that gets shared: This is not the best place to get news. You should do some research beyond clicking the share button.

 

[MacSince1985]

We have to make a distinction between spin and fake news.

Spin consists at looking at actual facts but only highlighting the features that support the message we want to convey. That's what politicians, advertisers, and partisan news outlets have done for centuries.

Fake news consists of reporting something that's completely made up and never happened. You can call it fiction or lie. That's not a new phenomenon either, but it's becoming more and more common and spreads faster than ever through social media.
[doublepost=1491834595][/doublepost]

Maybe I'll stop seeing conservativedaily.com or christiannews.com (examples) in my feed? One could dream

You can already do that. Next time you see an article by a publication you don't like, click the little arrow in the top right corner and select "Hide all from [publication name]".

 

[SoN1NjA]

You can already do that. Next time you see an article by a publication you don't like, click the little arrow in the top right corner and select "Hide all from [publication name]".

I mean from my idiot cousins, maybe they'll realize the **** they read isn't real

 

[BuddyTronic]

This is fake news! What the Glorious leader says is always true and CNN is lies /s

I'd say that CNN promotes most of the fake news. So this business of "Facebook and google" fighting fake news is already biased.

My advice to every human being - Folks, don't believe what you think!

Whatever you might believe, I challenge you to question it and research and find out if you really are sure about anything you think. I say this using the proverbial "you" - because it's all of us.

We have all been affected by what we assume to be the facts in global politics etc etc. I have found that by researching the simplest of assumptions, that just about everything we think we "know" is false these days.

The fake news comes from EVERYWHERE - please consider that before simply agreeing with something that jives with your current level of brainwashing. This rule applies to me too! Let's all fight the brainwashing!

Seek the truth everywhere and question every assumption.

Journalism seems to be dead these days. Only Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalists should be listened to I'd say, and even then you gotta fact check them too!
[doublepost=1491891809][/doublepost]

Who decides who the fact checkers are and are they always correct?

Exactly - I mean, look at recent world politics. Can we even fact check anything? Is logical proof needed for anything? I'd say no. When many world leaders ignore things that the UN says and not one "journalist" questions the premise for any position or argument, logic goes out the window.

To do any "fact checking" means somehow we have to begin at some starting position that does not IN OF ITSELF consist of more assumptions and falsehoods!

I could try to use examples - but it would certainly turn political. Instead I ask my fellow human beings to please examine every fact that you think is a "fact" and find out how much is "assumed" to be fact and how much is "actual fact"