Facebook Advertisers Can Write Their Own Headlines For Shared News Stories

An anonymous reader quotes a report from CBC.ca: Advertisers on Facebook are able to completely rewrite the displayed headline for news stories, CBC News has learned, opening the door for potential disinformation to spread on the platform while using news media branding as cover. When placing an ad on the platform, one option is to include a link to a website, including links to news stories. The news story's real headline is auto-filled into the ad copy, but advertisers have the option to rewrite the headline. However, the article's website address still appears in the ad, giving the impression that the headline is the one written by the article's author. This policy raises the possibility that it could be abused by political parties or third-party advertisers during the federal election campaign. The article provides an example where the UK's Conservative Party ran an ad containing a BBC article whose headline was, "14 billion pound cash boost for schools." However, the actual BBC story is headlined "School spending: Multi-billion pound cash boost announced," and instead put the number at 7.1 billion pounds, criticizing the government's use of 14 billion pound figure as not the usual way of calculating spending.

Facebook is aware of the issue and said it is planning changes. "We have a system that gives publishers control over how their links appear on Facebook. We're working to put additional safeguards in place by the end of this year to make sure advertisers don't misuse this tool," said a Facebook spokesperson in an email to CBC News.

Additional safeguard:

[CaptainDork]

Delete Facebook.

Re: Additional safeguard:

[CoolDiscoRex]

I thought about deleting it but decided against it. I have had the same fake, highly-offensive name for years. Besides facilitating access to the walled-off areas, I am helping advertisers learn what a 102 year-old Pygmy prostitute wants out of life.

I can do this right here!

[BAReFO0t]

<a href="https://m.slashdot.org/story/9001/">CmdrTaco is an actual taco, trying to invade humanity</a>

As long as it is easily recognized as an ad, what does it matter what it says and what it links to? It goes to the "lies" bin, by definition. Presuming I am insane enough to both disable my ad blocker, *and* use Facebook. (I don't think anyting can save me at that point.)

P.S.: Except Ting from Nompradu, of course!

[BAReFO0t]

Stupid sneaky typo!

Re:

[CaptainDork]

CmdrTaco is an actual taco, trying to invade humanity [slashdot.org]

I didn't read yer shit, but what was the typo? I copy/pasted and it works for me.

Re:

[Chris Mattern]

I don't think it was a typo; he intentionally formatted it that way to display the HTML for a misleading link.

Re:

[CaptainDork]

I don't think it was a typo; he intentionally formatted it that way to display the HTML for a misleading link.

Thanks for the clarification. I was duped. I didn't click on the link. I was duped. Now I'm embarrassed because I was pranked and I'm not going to Panera Bread today because the /. demographic loves Panera Bread and I look like Captain Dork of the Weenie Patrol. (~ Dave Barry)

Re:

[anegg]

A publishing platform should provide clear attribution for the information that it publishes, and should be structured so as to prevent incorrect attributions. That way, if/when lies are published, everyone knows who to blame for the lying.

Providing a pathway for a statement to be made under the control of one party but attributed to another seems to be a major fault in a publishing platform, and one that is ripe for abuse.

huh?

[slick7]

And how many kinds of wrong could this generate?

Zombie news cycle

[I am not a Bicycle]

In the past, news stories tended to have a shorter life, since the means of storage were less efficient. Only the newspapers and networks themselves, libraries or historians saved the news in microfilm or blurry videotapes. Since not everybody watched the news or read the papers, information or misinformation spread more slowly, as much as by word of mouth as by broadcast or publication. News stories can therefore be corrected more easily or simply buried by newer news, breaking events, in the graveyard of oblivion. Nowadays, bad information tends to stick around, amplified and spread by the effects of algorithms designed to work like recreational drugs and their millions of "users". Because of the so-called first mover advantage, news that came out first often becomes, wrong or not, the definitive version of a controversial event.

A competition to see who can be most abusive?

[Anonymous Coward]

Quote:

" 'We're working to put additional safeguards in place by the end of this year to make sure advertisers don't misuse this tool,' said a Facebook spokesperson..."

The meaning of that seems to be "We won't do much to avoid misleading readers."

Re: A competition to see who can be most abusive?

[slick7]

said a Facebook spokesperson

Now there's an endorsement I can believe in...NOT!

Facebook intentionally created this feature

[shubus]

Yes, FB intentionally enabled this feature to facilitate the creation of as much fake news as possible. Let's not wait any longer folks! Let's all head over to FB and create as much fake news as possible. I'm sure FB will thank us for it. OR........we simply DELETE FACEBOOK, like I did years ago.

One Correction

[haggie]

"Russian Bots Can Write Their Own Headlines For Pro-Trump News Stories"

Your content?

[AHuxley]

Social media was the owner, publisher and censor?

FARK

[jg6r]

Didn't fark.com patent this 10+ years ago?...

The Legitimate News Media

[CoolDiscoRex]

Is no more.