Facebook Targets 30,000 Fake France Accounts Before Election (go.com) 112
An anonymous reader quotes a report from ABC News: Facebook says it has targeted 30,000 fake accounts linked to France ahead of the country's presidential election, as part of a worldwide effort against misinformation. The company said Thursday it's trying to "reduce the spread of material generated through inauthentic activity, including spam, misinformation, or other deceptive content that is often shared by creators of fake accounts." It said its efforts "enabled us to take action" against the French accounts and that it is removing sites with the highest traffic. Facebook and French media are also running fact-checking programs in France to combat misleading information, especially around the campaign for the two-round April 23-May 7 presidential election. European authorities have also pressured Facebook and Twitter to remove extremist propaganda or other postings that violate European hate speech or other laws.
Good approach but (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not going to last forever. People will learn not to trust everything they read on the net. They're naturally trained to trust *written* sources that look like print, as they've been more or less authoritative their whole life (newspapers, books, etc). I remember when my family first got on e-mail, and it took a few years for them to stop falling for every e-mail hoax in existence (it took more than a few carefully worded replies with links to Snopes). I think the same thing will happen with fake ne
Fact checking? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds more like shaping the message they want you to hear.
We all know how well "fact checking" and poll massaging CNN and Politifact were doing prior to the elections in an attempt to shape the election and it backfired.
Even if the content is considered fringe to the MSM, repressing it usually has the opposite effect, it only confirms the persecution complex of those fringe groups.
Re: (Score:1)
CNN and a number of the "news" organizations are still spreading their lies through Facebook. It's just that their lies fits Zucker's agenda so they're left to stand. Like it or not, Facebook is now a media outlet of its own and they're shaping the consciousness of their users.
Re:Fact checking? (Score:5, Informative)
None of that is true. CNN did not attempt to shape the elections. They reported facts. You just don't like the facts.
Perhaps you should research the CNN blackout of Bernie Sanders to promote Hillary Clinton.
Or the CNN clip telling its viewers that it's illegal to read the wikileaks e-mail, and that we're only allowed to get information parsed through CNN. Here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Or perhaps the January fiasco where CNN got themselves labeled fake news (again) by reporting that Russia had compromising personal and financial information leashing Trump? You know, the stuff no one else would publish?
You could google "CNN Fake news" or "CNN controversies" if you were really interested in seeing whether CNN is really just a fact reporting organization or not. I don't think you will though; your opinion is your opinion at this stage in your life, and rather than searching for facts, you search for spin that supports your view.
Re: (Score:1)
You forgot Project Veritas, who had an intern wear a wire and caught Authur Brice, Executive Editor of CNN saying to buy tweets to add believability to their stories. CNN is agitprop.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
When you want to prove a point with a bomb strike, not a body count, you give warning that you are doing it. This lets the 'enemy' move their troops out, and prevents the news coverage from focusing on all those "poor innocent soldiers" lying dead in the target zone.
The fact that you can't even conceive there is a reason to warn the enemy this way shows how much you understand of the real world.
Now go back to class so you can get more idiotic arguments shoved into your brain.
Re: (Score:1)
I think Trump is an incompetent halfwit, and even I think warning the Russians was essential. Just about every Syrian-controlled airbase and military facility has Russian forces present. If the US had simply launched an unannounced attack, there would have been Russian fatalities and while one may dicker as to whether the Russians would consider that an act of war, at the very least it would greatly escalated matters and it's those sorts of "inadvertent" attacks on Russian forces that could lead to direct c
Re: (Score:1)
Every argument you make is spot on. Thank you for the reply.
Re:Fact checking? (Score:4, Interesting)
I notice people who have a beef with Fox never mention specific incidents for some reason.
The people who don't like CNN, on the other hand, have specifics, whats more they have the reporters donating to and working for the candidates they cover.
But speaking of long term vendettas in the news, somehow those people who don't like Fox seem to forget Dan Rather as the head of CBS news, George Stephanopulous at ABC, or that entire joke of a network MSNBC
Re: (Score:3)
The alt-right is certainly better organised with its criticism of media outlets it doesn't like. At this point we just kind of assume everyone knows how crazy Fox is, has seen the movie, read the wiki article... But the alt-right does it better, they have a long list of talking points and incidents to rehash every time CNN comes up. And CNN has come to represent the whole "MSM" to them, the default straw man used to discredit dozens of reputable organisations.
Re: (Score:2)
Going to point out something to you, just so you understand. It's not the alt-right. It's liberals, conservatives, republicans, and democrats that are on the verge of abandoning the party that don't like NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, WAPO, NYT and so on. It's the far left that has a problem with Fox, but those people don't. You know why? Because almost ~20 years ago Fox News gave those center and right-leaning people news that wasn't left slanted. They didn't try to hide their ideological bias on it either, the
Re: (Score:2)
We already new Fox News was garbage. That's not news. There's no point in bringing it up. The fact that CNN and the Guardian have become just as bad is something new. Or perhaps it isn't and we're finally noticing it now.
CNN helped confirmed new information. Namely, nearly the entire industry is corrupt and little more than party shills for one side or the other. They all ignore stories or information that contradict their chosen narrative. Their stories are at best distortions if not blatant lies.
The more
Re: (Score:3)
I would like to note that while CNN was a bit bold reporting the Steele dossier, they reported the news. They didn't claim the dossier was true.
Yes - ONE of those things on that list may turn out to possibly not be fake news, spin, or lies.
Congrats. That's precisely what *I* look for in a reputable news source.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
CNN reported some facts, parts of other facts, suppressed more facts, and put heavy spin on everything from top to bottom. The Clinton News Network had an agenda, and it wasn't "telling the truth".
As for Syria - you do know that the US-Russia agreement was created by Obama, right? He wanted to make sure that when the US was bombing stuff in Syria, he didn't kill any Russians and accidentally start WWIII. Now you call Trump a 'spy' for doing the same thing?
Seriously, take your head out of your ass and try
Re:Fact checking? (Score:5, Informative)
I guess that's why they had so many cases where people were suddenly "cut off" when they started talking about things that CNN considered forbidden. And they did so, so many times that it became a meme. [bing.com] As for CNN trying to shape the election? Remember their reporters(along with politico, nbc, and several other publications) getting caught sending drafts to the DNC? Then there were the other cases where they directly published stuff from the DNC. You can find those both in the wikileaks dumps. Then there was the case where someone under their employ(Donna Brazile) fed Clinton debate questions. [nypost.com] Oh you bet your ass they tried to shape the election and got caught doing it.
The US on the other hand, interfered with so many European elections that it's scary. And Russian elections, and in Canadian elections, and Israeli, and, and, and, and....
Hey did you catch that bit about the Steele thing? You know where they're refusing to answer any questions regarding it to the senate intelligence committee? No? That's okay. [dailycaller.com] It's not like something doesn't stink there.
Re: Fact checking? (Score:1)
CNN did not attempt to shape the elections. They reported facts. You just don't like the facts.
Sure, dude; whatever you say [wikipedia.org]...
Are you dyslexic? Is that your problem? (Score:2)
Or do you somehow believe that CNN and CIA are the same thing?
If that's the case, I have some super-secret NASA designed from alien technology aluminum foil to stop those government rays they are beaming into your head.
We can negotiate the price later. It's your health that's the priority here.
Re:Fact checking? (Score:4, Insightful)
As incomprehensible as this may appear to some people, there are facts and it's also very easy to get down to them and discern real news from false news and its way worse cousin fake news. If some alleged news does not withstand repeated scrutinity from various different news organizations, including professional ones, and if it is not taken up by many different sources including professional ones, then it's most likely false news and might also be fake news. (The latter is even easier to spot for anyone but the mentally deranged, but see the comment below.) As for "fringe content", that is reported by news agencies every day, if you're interested in local traffic accidents, curious or funny anecdotes, etc. you should get a subscriptions to AP, Reuters, etc.
If some news is repeated by many different newspapers and TV channels, that's a good sign, because there is only one reality.
The people who think there are multiple realities are confused, they confuse opinions and editorial comments with facts and have chosen bad and unreliable sources (news aggregator sites, for instance). In my experience a principle from sound engineering describes very well what's going on when people start to get confused, babble about social constructivism or 'alternative facts': Garbage in, garbage out. If you get your 'news' primarily from Facebook, that's too bad for you.
Re:Fact checking? (Score:5, Insightful)
> and if it is not taken up by many different sources including professional ones, then it's most likely false news and might also be fake news.
The fakers are well aware of this. They've taken two steps to compensate:
(1) Construct an alternate media ecosystem with hundreds of news sources with the full range of national-enquirer level to very professional looking sites
(2) Constantly bang away at every error, no matter the scope, made by professional news sources. Hold them to unreasonable standards (standards that they can't even hope of meeting themselves) in order to de-legitimize those sources in the minds of people looking for excuses to dismiss them.
These facebook accounts are part of #1, often they are feeders meant to channel people into the websites of this alternate ecosystem.
Ultimately it comes down to people choosing to uncritically believe articles that confirm their biases. Its as if a whole segment of the population never learned the proverb that "If its too good to be true, it probably is."
Re: (Score:2)
Right; Just to make it absolutely clear, this isn't Facebook fact checking out making any kind of judgement on the content of these accounts. They are simply culling the thousands and thousands of sock puppet accounts made by 4chan users.
I posted about this a while back. 4chan's /pol is being used to organise a fake news campaign. Kits for creating fake accounts are provided, with instructions on creating a shell profile with stolen photos and networked to other fake accounts.
These accounts are then used to
Re: (Score:1)
You're right, the Russians were much more effective.
Re: (Score:1)
You know, all this 'Russian' bullshit is just new birther shtick, from the democrats this time. If you want an honest election, go back to paper ballots if you are interested in putting an end to all the stupid arguments.
Re: (Score:2)
Keep telling yourself that while you stare at the mirror telling yourself that you've got the biggest dick and a body of an athlete.
It's all about repeating it until you yourself fall for it. After that evidence to the contrary won't matter.
You'll be able to "Hail Trump!" all the way to the land of delusion. Or dementia. Which ever kicks in first.
Re: (Score:1)
Um, I'm not sure if your post has anything to do with securing the elections or not.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought so too, at first. Now, the list of names in the Trump administration with direct ties to Russian Mafiya and oligarchs is just too long to deny. Add in the number of people with ties to Eastern European neo-nazi "nationalist" (Russian front groups) organizations and you've got an administration that is thoroughly and deeply tied to some seriously bad people (see, "gay concentration camps, Chechnya")
Re: (Score:2)
That's the great irony of Russia trying to buy itself a US President. The only way Trump is going to be able to hang on now is becoming even more anti-Russian than his recent predecessors. He has to prove to clearly very skeptical Congress that he's not Putin's man. Putin would probably have been in a better place if Clinton had won. She was very much "status quo", but now they have a man whose real and/or imagined ties to Russia may soon threaten his very presidency, so that whether he stands or falls, the
Re: (Score:1)
It's all theater, now. Trump bombs Syria, but calls Putin to warn him (aka, "ask permission") first. Nothing gets damaged, but it changes the conversation. A "mother of all bombs" is dropped on some godforsaken part of Afghanistan, that it just so happens the Russians were trying to destroy a few decades ago.
"Looking t
Re: (Score:1)
I'm not saying Trump isn't under the influence. The same tired old rule applies to them all, follow the money. But the elections? Please. The voters did that to themselves. They run with the lie that makes them feel good.
Re: (Score:2)
Liberals continue to kid themselves. They think they and their idea are far more popular than they are. CNN helped with this during the election with their polls. They tried to make Trump look unelectable but that was a big lie. It's the big obvious lie that completely destroys their credibility.
Now of course both parties drink their own kool-aid far too much. Liberals have just taken it to a new level.
People have hated Hillary since she was first lady. Those people hated Hillary before she got the nominati
Re: (Score:1)
You can't depend on your name got get into the White House. You have to actually earn it.
Well, that's a nice theory, but it still hasn't escaped the lab. Name recognition is the reason Trump/Clinton got over 95% of the vote.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Double edged sword (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I hate to break it to you but the elites of which you speak own alternative media. Billionaires and their fellow travelers cannot buy the output of CNN but they can buy as many shill accounts and alt-right blogs as they like. It is pretty good money too I can tell you losers. Facebook is run by a vaguely leftist idealistic collage graduate and the sooner we kill off his network the sooner we can get that police state that keeps the scummy poor where they belong.
So, FB will close the accounts of all candidates ? (Score:2)
Best way to stop fake news & info, isn't it ?
Fake = Conservative (Score:2, Insightful)
Apparently.
Fake = Monied (Score:1)
Follow the money.
Typically a rich backer wants some story put out. e.g. "Acorn helps black pimps evade the law". They fund a straw man front, someone like James O'Keefe. He then makes fake videos, puts them out as "project veritas" truths. "Acorn helps pimps evade laws, here watch this video".
He then gets sued, Acorn get the full UNEDITED video, in which he pretends to be representing a congressman, not a pimp, and it's clear he's edited it to deceive people, cutting in stuff filmed after the fact to change
Usually... It's just how the world is. (Score:2)
Stick to same old ideas (i.e. stay conservative) and with every second you are more and more wrong until you're standing in the middle of the street shouting anti-gay slogans wearing nothing but a Reagan-Thatcher "love" shirt.
But it's actually Right wing == fake news and disinformation.
http://www.cjr.org/analysis/br... [cjr.org]
Our own study of over 1.25 million stories published online between April 1, 2015 and Election Day shows that a right-wing media network anchored around Breitbart developed as a distinct and insulated media system, using social media as a backbone to transmit a hyper-partisan perspective to the world.
This pro-Trump media sphere appears to have not only successfully set the agenda for the conservative media sphere, but also strongly influenced the broader media agenda, in particular coverage of Hillary Clinton.
While concerns about political and media polarization online are longstanding, our study suggests that polarization was asymmetric.
Pro-Clinton audiences were highly attentive to traditional media outlets, which continued to be the most prominent outlets across the public sphere, alongside more left-oriented online sites.
But pro-Trump audiences paid the majority of their attention to polarized outlets that have developed recently, many of them only since the 2008 election season.
Attacks on the integrity and professionalism of opposing media were also a central theme of right-wing media.
Rather than "fake news" in the sense of wholly fabricated falsities, many of the most-shared stories can more accurately be understood as disinformation: the purposeful construction of true or partly true bits of information into a message that is, at its core, misleading.
Over the course of the election, this turned the right-wing media system into an internally coherent, relatively insulated knowledge community, reinforcing the shared worldview of readers and shielding them from journalism that challenged it.
The prevalence of such material has created an environment in which the President can tell supporters about events in Sweden that never happened, or a presidential advisor can reference a non-existent "Bowling Green massacre."
Re: (Score:2)
There is no equivalence between the right and left. One side chooses willful ignorance and has gone completely bat shit crazy and the other party still embrace fact and science while fighting for the same basic principles as they were a generation ago.
*Join a march fo
Re: (Score:2)
Democrats fact checking? You must be joking. They can't even tell when something is obvious OBVIOUS satire. They just run with it because it panders to their biases.
"Fake" accounts (Score:2)
Citizen Kane strikes again (Score:2)
I dumped Zuckerbook years ago. This madman is out of control
Re: (Score:2)
I can't disagree with you. From Day 1 Zuckerberg has been one of those people who pushes my "This Guy Is A Pervert/Creep" Button.
Too little, too late (Score:1)
After that a-hole on Facebook's board almost single-handedly turned the site into a Trump-friendly fake news factory during the US election...NOW they suddenly care about this?
More likely they're just afraid the EU will fine them into the poorhouse if they try the same kind of nonsense in civilized countries.
Marine Le Pen is their target (Score:1, Troll)
Better Late Than Never (Score:2)
It amazes me that a party who never met a conspiracy about Obama or Hillary they didn't believe, can be so un-curious about the very real foreign interference and domestic treason during the election and probably still ongoing
Re: Im-poss-ee-blay! (Score:2)
take a stand against information crime.
Surely you meant to post as AC?
Re: (Score:2)
Forget "globalist". He's just an unhinged idiot that would rather believe in an insane conspiracy theory than believe his party's anointed one is anything but perfect.
He's just engaging in classic blame deflection.
Some disturbing cult of personality nonsense too...