Become a MacRumors Supporter for $25/year with no ads, private forums, and more!

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
54,663
16,824


WhatsApp is rolling out a new way for users to fact-check forwarded messages for misinformation, after several months testing the new feature.

whatsapp-fact-check-forwarded-messages.jpg

From today, messages that have been forwarded through a chain of five or more people will display a magnifying glass button alongside them in the chat thread.

Users who tap the button will be asked if they want to search the web to try and find news results or other sources of information about the content they have received.

WhatsApp says the feature works by allowing users to upload the message via their browser without WhatsApp ever seeing the message itself.

The ability is being piloted starting today in Brazil, Italy, Ireland, Mexico, Spain, the U.K. and the U.S. for everyone on the latest versions of WhatsApp for Android, iOS and WhatsApp Web.

The feature is the latest in a series of attempts by WhatsApp to slow the spread of misinformation on the chat platform. In April, for example, it imposed new restrictions on the mass forwarding of messages, so that if a user receives a message that has been forwarded more than five times, they will only be able to send it on to a single chat at a time.

The move comes after several hoaxes went viral on the platform, including false stories about the ongoing global pandemic one of which linked the outbreak to the rollout of 5G networks.

Article Link: WhatsApp Users Can Now Fact-Check Forwarded Messages for Misinformation
 

cmaus

macrumors regular
Jun 27, 2008
105
112
Germany
In my experience, People who blindly believe everything and anything the media puts up, are not interested in facts.

I mean, this is awful. People should be able to critically assess content that’s sent to them ok their own. Letting someone else do it for them is just another sign they can’t think for themselves.

I think every human being is or should be able to think critically on their own.

Otherwise, you are just giving up on sovereignty.
 

ian87w

macrumors 601
Feb 22, 2020
4,470
6,422
Indonesia
In my experience, People who blindly believe everything and anything the media puts up, are not interested in facts.

I mean, this is awful. People should be able to critically assess content that’s sent to them ok their own. Letting someone else do it for them is just another sign they can’t think for themselves.

I think every human being is or should be able to think critically on their own.

Otherwise, you are just giving up on sovereignty.
True. People has the option to Google things themselves if they wanted to, but they didn't. So having this imo won't really make a ton of difference.
 

chucker23n1

macrumors 603
Dec 7, 2014
6,087
7,721

I would wager the person who wants to read about coronavirus being "cured" (what does that even mean? Does it fight against SARS-CoV-2? Does it mitigate symptoms of COVID-19? Does your previous lung capacity return?) doesn't want to hear about whether it's true. The story is about comfort, not truth.

the failing and dying Snopes

OK sure.
 

centauratlas

macrumors 65816
Jan 29, 2003
1,467
2,552
Florida
>"Fact check"

More like getting your personal communication editorialized by some propaganda outfit (the failing and dying Snopes, etc.)

We know that snopes will twist a statement in order to debunk something that wasn't actually claimed and often can't be trusted. All the so-called fact checks need to be fact checked themselves. They will twist what they check to make a point.

For example, to pick something that is quite old and hopefully not contentious, snopes "fact checks" the "Claim: Vice-President Al Gore claimed he ‘invented’ the Internet.” which they say is false, and that is true he never used the word "invented" and never said "I invented the internet". By including "invented" vs "created" snopes can label it false.

The actual statement that Gore said is:
“I’ve traveled to every part of this country during the last six years. During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet.” (CNN transcript of discussion on March 9, 1999’s “Late Edition” with Wolf Blitzer, see http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/03/09/president.2000/transcript.gore/index.html)

Of course ARPANET, the internet precursor, was created in 1969, and Gore started serving in Congress in 1977.

So while snopes may be fact checking something, one has to be extremely careful in exactly what they are fact checking. Clearly Gore was not "creating the internet" since ARPANET was well before his time. Snopes then goes through a lot of verbiage to explain what they are saying, to enable them to label it false.

Anyone who doesn't fact check the fact checkers is asking to be uninformed.
 

chucker23n1

macrumors 603
Dec 7, 2014
6,087
7,721
We know that snopes will twist a statement in order to debunk something that wasn't actually claimed and often can't be trusted. All the so-called fact checks need to be fact checked themselves. They will twist what they check to make a point.

For example, to pick something that is quite old and hopefully not contentious, snopes "fact checks" the "Claim: Vice-President Al Gore claimed he ‘invented’ the Internet.” which they say is false, and that is true he never used the word "invented" and never said "I invented the internet". By including "invented" vs "created" snopes can label it false.

The actual statement that Gore said is:
“I’ve traveled to every part of this country during the last six years. During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet.” (CNN transcript of discussion on March 9, 1999’s “Late Edition” with Wolf Blitzer, see http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/03/09/president.2000/transcript.gore/index.html)

Of course ARPANET, the internet precursor, was created in 1969, and Gore started serving in Congress in 1977.

So while snopes may be fact checking something, one has to be extremely careful in exactly what they are fact checking. Clearly Gore was not "creating the internet" since ARPANET was well before his time. Snopes then goes through a lot of verbiage to explain what they are saying, to enable them to label it false.

Anyone who doesn't fact check the fact checkers is asking to be uninformed.

Except… what Snopes fact-checks is literally: "Did Al Gore Say ‘I Invented the Internet’?"

Did he? No.

Did he say something hyperbolic or misleading? Yes.

But Snopes's article goes into a lot of detail and nuance on that, such as how the actual "inventors" of the Internet feel about him: quite positively, in fact.

So if you want to criticize the "false" rating, yeah, I can see that. But what Snopes did isn't just apply a rating; they provided a ton of context, and once you've read that, you get a pretty good answer on the facts.
 

826317

Cancelled
Jun 28, 2013
460
4,327
Rent-free in your head
Having a big corporation such as Google / Facebook determine for you what is correct information and what is incorrect information is akin to the methods used by the National Socialist German Workers' Party during the 1920s. They will push one agenda and are not actually interested in facts. When it comes to COVID they will select experts who they agree with to determine what the truth really is and will simultaneously ban and prohibit other equally qualified experts from telling their contrary version of events.

Speech is fought by more speech. Not by limitation.
 

blackcrayon

macrumors 68020
Mar 10, 2003
2,150
1,739
Except… what Snopes fact-checks is literally: "Did Al Gore Say ‘I Invented the Internet’?"

Did he? No.

Did he say something hyperbolic or misleading? Yes.

But Snopes's article goes into a lot of detail and nuance on that, such as how the actual "inventors" of the Internet feel about him: quite positively, in fact.

So if you want to criticize the "false" rating, yeah, I can see that. But what Snopes did isn't just apply a rating; they provided a ton of context, and once you've read that, you get a pretty good answer on the facts.

Right. They have to cover it "both ways" for the strict pedants. It would be different if there were no explanation at all.

>"Fact check"

More like getting your personal communication editorialized by some propaganda outfit (the failing and dying Snopes, etc.)
Is that you, Don? ;)
 

ruka.snow

macrumors 68000
Jun 6, 2017
1,616
4,183
Scotland
It would be more effective if the fact check was inline or the message was spoiler tagged until you read the fact checks. I have no idea why people are against this, even today we still have nonsense on the internet like snakes sizing you up by laying next to you. The internet needs checks and controls, it has given voices and echo chambers to people that still think the Earth is flat or people preying on desperate and scared people that still believe in religion and think water under a full moon with garlic will protect them from COVID 19 so they don't need to wear a mask and social distance.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: russell_314

chucker23n1

macrumors 603
Dec 7, 2014
6,087
7,721
Having a big corporation such as Google / Facebook determine for you what is correct information and what is incorrect information is akin to the methods used by the National Socialist German Workers' Party during the 1920s.

No it isn't. A private company doing something isn't the same as the government doing it. You can regulate companies.

They will push one agenda and are not actually interested in facts.

They're not really pushing anything, though. They're offering a web search.

When it comes to COVID they will select experts who they agree with to determine what the truth really is and will simultaneously ban and prohibit other equally qualified experts from telling their contrary version of events.

Luckily, there are no "equally qualified experts" telling a "contrary version of events" regarding COVID.
[automerge]1596545915[/automerge]
Right. They have to cover it "both ways" for the strict pedants. It would be different if there were no explanation at all.

I think it'd be better to give it a "mostly false" rating.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CarlJ

chucker23n1

macrumors 603
Dec 7, 2014
6,087
7,721
It would be more effective if the fact check was inline or the message was spoiler tagged until you read the fact checks.

That's tricky, cause now WhatsApp would start inserting itself as… a quasi-journalistic entity.

I have no idea why people are against this, even today we still have nonsense on the internet like snakes sizing you up by laying next to you.

I mean, just read this thread for an idea of why some people are against it…
 
  • Like
Reactions: CarlJ

Seanm87

macrumors 68000
Oct 10, 2014
1,701
2,986
In my experience, People who blindly believe everything and anything the media puts up, are not interested in facts.

I don't blindly believe the media but I do believe the doctors, scientists and virologists that are interviewed on there.

I certainly don't believe Steve who works in a warehouse, with no qualifications in science and biology, claiming 5g spreads corona virus.

Conspiracy theorists are the biggest idiots you'll ever meet.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.