Facebook Chooses To Demote Fake News Instead of Remove It (bbc.co.uk) 154
Facebook says it will not remove fake news from its platform because it does not violate its community standards. According to the BBC, Facebook said publishers often had "very different points of view" and removing fabricated posts would be "contrary to the basic principles of free speech." Instead, it is choosing to demote posts in the news feed that it deems to be fake news. From the report: Facebook has been scrutinized for its role in spreading fake news after evidence emerged that Russia tried to influence U.S. voters using the social network. On Wednesday, the company held an event in New York where it sought to convince journalists it was tackling the problem. The company said it would not remove fake news that did not break its rules but would down-rank content that had been marked as false. "We allow people to post it as a form of expression, but we're not going to show it at the top of News Feed," a spokeswoman told CNN.
Quickly! Write 15 aricles calling Minds racist! (Score:1)
Pfht. Classy. (Score:1)
Wow. That's a real classy response you made there. Just rain more shit on an entire user base of a website for the opinions of really annoying extreme minority of the user base.
And people wonder why social alienation is getting so bad in western society.
Re: (Score:1)
'EVERYONE THAT DOESN'T AGREE WITH ME IS RACIST!!!1' -The cry of those with out an argument.
I tell you want, you want to see some 'actual victimization'? How about you go talk about woman in Britain with their faces burned off with acid in sectarian violence? How about RAMPANT sexual assault in multiple cities in the UK, some of which got NO media OR police attention. How about literally thousands of documented cases of female genital mutilation in Canada? Too spicy for you? Well how about just the con
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Heh, your just getting more entertaining the longer I watch you melt down. You've devolved into some incoherent rant about Jewish Nazis, self-hating immigrants, and repeated homophobic slurs. Let's see here, so far you've used the term 'faggot' no less than 14 times in this thread. I'm not psychologist but that really sounds like you're projecting something your ashamed of.
Why not just calm down and accept it son. There's no reason to be upset, it's 2018 and it's perfectly okay to be gay. it could be w
Re: (Score:1)
Fucking CLASSIC. Get blown out in the comment sections; 'YOUR A RUSSIAN-BOT NAZI PROPAGANDIST!' I'm literally laughing out loud over here listing to you melt down.
And you know, the funniest thing about your complete failure to make a point.. well have you actually even bothered to READ any WW2 history? The Soviets and the Nazi's HATED each other. Jesus, people talk about what the US did in WW2, but the fighting in Russia was wwaayy wwwwaaaayyyy worse on the eastern front. People obsess about the 11 mil
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
'EVERYONE THAT DOESN'T AGREE WITH ME IS RACIST!!!1' -The cry of those with out an argument.
No, it's a quote invented by right wingers to attempt to discredit left wingers.
peep! peep! hear the dog whistle?
I tell you want, you want to see some 'actual victimization'? How about you go talk about woman in Britain ...
You need to listen to less infowars.
When did Fake news become free speech? (Score:1)
When did someone saying something they know to be a lie become protected free speech?
I can see if someone is wrong, but thinks they are right...but to knowingly lie should not be protected!
Re:When did Fake news become free speech? (Score:4, Insightful)
but to knowingly lie should not be protected!
Protecting the right of others to speak when you disagree with them, or even lie to you, is the true test of whether you believe in free speech, or just speech you happen to like or agree with.
Re: (Score:2)
False. While there are laws against libel and slander, as well as the ever fun 'falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater'... many forms of lying are protected, example: http://latimesblogs.latimes.co... [latimes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
You should perhaps read the rulings in question, as well as the lower court ones as well on the subject... as they actually disagree with your take.
In depends on how you are pushing it, as a number of ways would enter the territory of fraud, things we have existing laws about. Primarily what stolen valor did was criminaliz
Re: (Score:1)
Libel is already a crime. Fraud, libel and defamation are already illegal. The issue is twofold:
Jurisdiction. You can bring someone to court for fraud/libel/defamation already, but what if the defense is American and the prosecution lived in Russia? Or any other myriad of country combinations one can think of.
Spin and effect. You can write a lot of things about someone and even though it's technically true or even proven to be a lie, someone will spin it to avoid the aforementioned crimes. Let's open
Re: (Score:1)
You are missing the point but I appreciate your opinion. What we are missing is a fact-check by some third party before it goes all twitter/facebook/et. al. but the angry mongrels that like the tilt from the post go after it and latch onto it like an attack dog. They re-blast the point without any verification and wait for their swarm-identity to bring more that won't research before re-post.
You've identified a problem.. but sadly sided with me for the same issues I've been trying to counter. Congratulat
Re: (Score:2)
How do you know when something is factual?
Well, there are two possibilities. First, you're indeed kind of lost and don't know at all how to find out when something is factual. Consequently, you should have no beliefs about anything, certainly not about what's going on in the world, since you cannot figure out how to find out when something is factual. Or, second, you are one of those "post-fact" bullshitters who think that facts don't exist and are social constructions.
Both possibilities would rather bad, so I'll be charitable and assume you were
They Have To Retain It (Score:1)
FB needs to not start deleting, because once they start it's like the proverbial kitten who starts swallowing a long string. When the deleting gets started, now ALL the fake news has to be deleted. That means a big chunk of MSNBC, CNN, The Huffington Post, etc. gets whisked off to nowhere. Would any references to Rachel Maddog even remain after the broom started sweeping?
No, Facebook just needs to step back and let the cesspit reek, and the left and right monkeys sling their 'facts' at one another.
Re: (Score:1)
When did someone saying something they know to be a lie become protected free speech?
That's not what "fake news" is, though, at least in the eyes of corporations like Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc.
"Fake news" is whatever the left would prefer people don't report, regardless of accuracy. On the other hand anything mainstream sources like CNN write is automatically not "fake news" regardless of whether it's the most transparent opinion piece or outright proven incorrect.
Re: (Score:2)
Fake news is alleged news that has intentionally been fabricated in order to spread disinformation. That's how it's defined and that's exactly what it means to companies like Facebooj, Google, and Twitter, despite some ardent attempts of a small minority of people who like to spread fake news to change the narrative and give the term some useless meaning.
You're obviously one of the latter, since otherwise you would at least acknowledge that the useless definition you mention was actually invented by Trump
Controversy Makes Facebook go round! (Score:4, Insightful)
The entire point of Facebook is engagement. A bunch of people discussing whether the earth is round or not or whether vaccines cause autism really helps keep users checking Facebook as often as possible. Each button is carefully calibrated to express a reptilian emotion whose purpose is impossible to determine. Are you angered by the person's inflammatory rhetoric in a post, or is someone posting about something that makes you outraged? Who knows! Who cares! You're engaged!
Facebook is like a shitty version of family/friend therapy where your everyone hates each other more but the therapist is happy because she got to show you some Viagra ads.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Let them Facebook, foolishly, publicly, claim authority on validity of news, what is true and what is false and claim this at a professional level, as a part of it's marketing strategy and to bring in customers of what ever description. Screw that up and you become subject to multiple class action suits across the globe for fraudulent misrepresentation of the truth as in accurate truthful news. Publicly claim yourself as the authority on the accuracy of the news and do so for profit and then you are fully l
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Comments on a religion approved by a cult, faith?
News about a nation approved by their junta, monarchy, theocracy?
News from nations state-run media?
Re: (Score:1)
As much as I want to say that is useless....... (Score:5, Informative)
Facebook is an online chat. That's it. People who use it to gather factual data... there's not much we can do about it. *shrug*.
Face News! (Score:3)
Facebook is *not* the New York Times. People that get their news from Facebook will go around saying "Everybody says that....." or "Nobody really thinks...." so when somebody says that just say "Face News"!
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Actually, there isn't much difference between them these days, other than style and syntax.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It's more subtle than that. They might be skeptical, but the fake stories prime them to think about facts in a certain way. The language, the framing of current events.
Streisand effect (Score:5, Insightful)
The absolute failure of the MSM and various governments to control the narrative of any one issue has already proven the futility of trying to censor dissenting opinions and narratives. The more you try to shape opinion by forcing the more people will chose to find other sources of information. And sadly if often drives people into falling into the trap of buying into narratives that may or may not be accurate at all. See just about any news story from Buzzfeed.
And that's before we actually get into talking about when the media actively and provably lies to the public. I'm looking at you CNN. 'It's illegal to read Wikileaks' my ass...
No, neither situation has any evidence. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...
And that's before we actually get into talking about when the media actively and provably lies to the public. I'm looking at you CNN. 'It's illegal to read Wikileaks' my ass...
Are you referring to what Chris Cuomo said about the Clinton emails? Because that's not what he said. What he said was "It's illegal to possess these uh, stolen documents".
Now, you can argue about whether or not he was deliberately trying to discourage people from reading them on their own because CNN wanted to protect Clinton. And I'm sure depending on your political persuasion, you might be inclined to believe that. But your quote is not a quote at all and a distortion of what he actually said.
Was
Re: (Score:2)
The absolute failure of the MSM and various governments to control the narrative of any one issue has already proven the futility of trying to censor dissenting opinions and narratives. The more you try to shape opinion by forcing the more people will chose to find other sources of information
This is a very good thing.
And sadly if often drives people into falling into the trap of buying into narratives that may or may not be accurate at all. See just about any news story from Buzzfeed.
This is a bad thing.
Re: (Score:2)
The absolute failure of the MSM and various governments to control the narrative of any one issue has already proven the futility of trying to censor dissenting opinions and narratives.
That's because the mainstream media don't even have a coherent "narrative". The most mainstream of mainstream media, i.e. Fox news (it's the #1 TV news channel) is completely at odds with the second most mainstream of mainstream media, CNN.
See just about any news story from Buzzfeed.
Oddly enough, buzzfeed appears to be using
Re: (Score:2)
This is a good thing, isn't it?
If they start agreeing on anything on anything other than the weather it's time to get seriously worried.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is a good thing, isn't it?
Sure, but it still means most of the claims about the "MSM" are utter bullshit because I'd say about 99% of people saying such things are ignoring the huge chunk of the mainstream media they happen to agree with.
Re: (Score:2)
The absolute failure of the MSM and various governments to control the narrative of any one issue has already proven the futility of trying to censor dissenting opinions and narratives.
Call me crazy or whatever, since I am... but... How about this: MSM gives us facts and each individual controls their own narrative?
Control is an illusion. Influence is as close to control as you can get. If the MSM is trying to influence me, I immediately reject the attempt, which is why I have not watched television since the early 1980s. Every time I have gone back to that cesspool, I grow disgusted at how stupid they are and how stupid they think we must be. You can't get any useful information from the
Very Fake News (Score:1)
CNN is last in the ratings so they have demoted themselves.
Re: (Score:1)
Not a news feed. (Score:3)
If you aren't removing things that aren't news from the "news feed" then it's not actually a news feed, it's just stories with a chance of truth.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess we can make up stories abut Zuck... (Score:2)
...and post them all over FaceBook now that they're "free speech"
wait a sec... (Score:3)
Wasn't there a report recently that said that the fake news was less fake than the nominally real news?
Re: (Score:2)
Wasn't there a report recently that said that the fake news was less fake than the nominally real news?
True. Alex Jones will verify this.
Re: (Score:2)
Then he'll sell you on the efficacy his nutritional bone marrow protein shake.
It hasn't stopped him from playing with his poop yet.
bizarre (Score:2)
Cop out (Score:2)
If fake news is not against the rules, then the rules are flawed. There's no way the deliberate spreading of misinformation should be a permitted activity.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook and my front porch aren't the government, genius.
Right. Which is why they can do what they want with their platform, and you can do what you want on your front porch. Thanks for confirming that you're one of those who doesn't understand the Bill of Rights and what it does and doesn't cover. "There's no way ... should be a permitted activity" in the context of the GP to whom I responded is pure nonsense. You seem to not understand that. Please don't do anything dangerous to other people, like voting.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Easy Explanation (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nostalgia (Score:2)
"The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back...." - Barack Obama sneering at Mitt Romney, October 22, 2012, Third Presidential Debate https://www.npr.org/2012/10/22... [npr.org]
At least certain politic campaign leaders will be (Score:1)
... super duper happy again, now they can lie trump into second term.
So "curating" the news won't cause any problems (Score:1)
Sure, FB removed part of the Declaration of Independence. But it put it back later.
But they'd never do that with news, deliberately or accidentally or algorithmically. Right?
Re: (Score:1)
Let that resound.
TRUMP
Instead of talking abouit useless things instead you could be doing Humanity a Favor (TM) and ranting against old orange hands.
-beau