Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Facebook Businesses News

Facebook To Exempt Opinion and Satire From Fact-Checking (wsj.com) 91

Posted by BeauHD from the limiting-the-spread-of-misinformation-vs-free-speech dept.
According to The Wall Street Journal, Facebook plans to exempt opinion pieces and satire from its fact-checking program, as the social-media giant grapples with how to stop the spread of falsehoods while maintaining its own neutrality. From the report: As part of the new rules, Facebook will allow publishers of information found to be false by outside fact-checkers to appeal to the company, said the people familiar with the changes. Posts that Facebook deems to be either opinion or satire won't be labeled as false even if they contain information the fact-checkers determined was inaccurate, the people said. The new rules follow Facebook's acknowledgment last week that it will continue exempting politicians from fact-checks, on the grounds that such comments are newsworthy, as well as a recent controversy arising from a third-party fact checker's determination that an antiabortion group's video was false.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Facebook To Exempt Opinion and Satire From Fact-Checking More

Facebook To Exempt Opinion and Satire From Fact-Checking

Comments Filter:

  • So No Snopes-style Smear Campaigns? (Score:4, Informative)

    by Kunedog ( 1033226 ) on Tuesday October 01, 2019 @08:35PM (#59259468)
    Snopes recently put a(nother) torch to their credibility by pretending to "fact-check" Babylon Bee articles and then doubling down when called on it. It's just partisan hackery on their part to try to counter obvious satire (as obvious as the Onion, anyway).

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by AvitarX ( 172628 )

      Sad fact. I know somebody that posted obvious satire from Babylon Bee as real. I pointed it out politely, and they just doubled down as "something to think about"

      I've also seen The Onion at the very least commented on by a friend with the vigor as they thought it was real.

      If hope that exempt sites are tagged for why they're exempt (including (especially even) op eds).

      • Sad fact. I know somebody that posted obvious satire from Babylon Bee as real. I pointed it out politely, and they just doubled down as "something to think about"

        I've also seen The Onion at the very least commented on by a friend with the vigor as they thought it was real.

        If hope that exempt sites are tagged for why they're exempt (including (especially even) op eds).

        I think it's a fun friendly "test".

        Sent an Onion link to a family member or friend, and wait for the response.

        Admittedly I have only ever tested this on my own father. He correctly identified it straight away.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by rtb61 ( 674572 )

          All too easy, create a banned from free use word, that word meant to indicate the veracity of the article, the willingness of the people who published it, to defend it in court with custodial sentence as threat for the writer and publisher of that content. Now I am sure and certain, there is word out there that could be legally used for, one word that would cover it, a word that would inform, a word to let people know what the article is about, now what possibly could that word be, I don't know, like maybe

        • Admittedly I have only ever tested this on my own father. He correctly identified it straight away.

          The other way round though, the false positives....

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Kejiro ( 2803123 )

        I think the problem with The Onion (and probably other satirical sites), is that they used to be satirical, but nowadays are more predicting the future.

        It's like people read the sites and decides to do exactly what they satirize.

      • Zogby did a poll after the 2008 election and found most people who voted for Obama thought Sarah Palin had said she could see Russia from her house.

        What she really said was you can see Russia from Alaska. SNL's Tina Fey dressed as Sarah Palin said the other quote.

        So really, I think Babylon Bee is just doing what SNL and the Onion have been doing for a long time on the other side of the aisle.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AvitarX ( 172628 )

          I agree.

          And when it was new people didn't necessarily know it was satire, I'd hope they do now. Similar to how people shared The Onion unironically ages ago.

          I have no issue with the Bee, just think that if they're going to fact check, the articles they don't should be marked as "Satire", "sponsored", "Opinion" etc.

          I'm pretty liberal, but I find the Bee better satire than that useless New Yorker guy that I've definitely see people share having read only the headline and thinking it was a real article (they (

    • Re:So No Snopes-style Smear Campaigns? (Score:5, Informative)

      by MobyDisk ( 75490 ) on Tuesday October 01, 2019 @09:22PM (#59259576) Homepage

      While it does seem silly to fact-check a satirical site, maybe there are people who don't realize it. Maybe a fact checker should not be concerned with the fact that something is intended to be humorous or not. Also, satire sometimes is used to make a point. Did Snopes fact-check the literal article, or did they fact-check the statement the satire was trying to make? ... Oh, I see the concern: [nytimes.com] The Babylon Bee thinks that, by having been fact checked, someone will think they are just a fake news site and not a satire site. Ohhh maan, what a strange world we live in.

      • https://pjmedia.com/faith/face... [pjmedia.com]

        Facebook Threatens Satire Site Babylon Bee over CNN Story That Snopes Rated 'False'

        Christian satire site The Babylon Bee received a terse warning from Facebook this week after the "independent fact-checkers" at Snopes reported that one of the site's humor articles was "false."

        Adam Ford, who runs The Babylon Bee, was warned by Facebook that a recent satire article about CNN "contains information disputed by (Snopes.com) an independent fact checker." Repeat offenders, Ford was told, "will see their distribution reduced and their ability to monetize and advertized [sic] removed."

        Do you get why it matters now?

        The story in question pokes fun at CNN with the headline: "CNN Purchases Industrial-Sized Washing Machine To Spin News Before Publication." Anyone with even a sliver of a funny bone tucked away behind their appendix would know that it wasn't a serious news piece, but, alas, the humorless dolts at Snopes had to take spell out the obvious.

        Claim: CNN invested in an industrial-sized washing machine to help their journalists and news anchors spin the news before publication.

        Rating: False

        "Although it should have been obvious that the Babylon Bee piece was just a spoof of the ongoing political brouhaha over alleged news media 'bias' and 'fake news,'" Snopes explained, "some readers missed that aspect of the article and interpreted it literally."

        No getting around it, at best Snopes was irresponsibly using its (now shredded) reputation as a fact-checker to smear the Babylon Bee as "fake news." At worst (and more probably), they were using it maliciously and disingenuously to get the Babylon Bee deplatformed.

        Maybe a fact checker should not be concerned with the fact that something is intended to be humorous or not.

        That's fair to say in general, but it doesn't help Snopes at all. They never tried any of these attacks on the Weekly World News or the Onion (or any other satirical site AFAIK), d

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by MobyDisk ( 75490 )

          As Slashdot readers you and I see a new development every week about how some automated censorship platform (Youtube, Facebook, etc.) did something dumb. But this one takes the cake: Facebook blindly took Snopes "false" rating and turned it into censorship. *STOP MAKING AUTOMATED CENSORSHIP SYSTEMS* If this not automated, and it was was humans, then even more shame on Facebook. They would have had to both not read the satire article, but also not read the Snopes article. I wonder if they wrote a web scr

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by guruevi ( 827432 )

          Snopes isn't an 'independent' fact checking site though. Besides the internal issues they've faced where the owners were trying to scam each other, they've been caught plenty of times with their pants down in the last couple of years.

          Forbes even ran a story where they investigated the claim that a number of their 'fact checkers' were sourced from political campaigns and Mikkelson admitted it and then later on says he can't talk about how he runs the company because of his divorce settlement. Finally that re

  • So everything on Facebook will now be "opinions" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by psperl ( 1704658 ) on Tuesday October 01, 2019 @08:52PM (#59259512) Homepage
    And the status quo will not have changed.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by sd4f ( 1891894 )
      But for now, a lot of entertainers have collectively breathed a sigh of relief.
    • If you can fact-check it, then it isn't an opinion. "I believe Obama was a bad president." is an opinion. "I believe Obama was born in Kenya." is a false statement of fact and should be labeled as such, even in an "opinion" piece.

      • If you can fact-check it, then it isn't an opinion. "I believe Obama was a bad president." is an opinion. "I believe Obama was born in Kenya." is a false statement of fact and should be labeled as such, even in an "opinion" piece.

        I think you'll get a lot of pushback on that last one. We're allowed to believe in anything.

        Believing in Jesus, Ganesha, or Dagon is conceptually the same as believing that O'Blama was born in Kenya. Might not be any facts to back those concepts up, but such is faith.

        Although, it would be awesome if Ganesha was real. That's my kind of god.

        • I can't prove or disprove the existence of supernatural beings. I can easily prove where someone was born (birth certificate, eye-witness testimony, etc). "Faith" that is contrary to easily verifiable facts are called lies.

          • I can't prove or disprove the existence of supernatural beings. I can easily prove where someone was born (birth certificate, eye-witness testimony, etc). "Faith" that is contrary to easily verifiable facts are called lies.

            And there is where you are wrong. Christians are often citing "proof" that their god exists. And there are people who despite all proof offered, still believe that President O'Blama was illegally elected to the presidency because he was Kenyan.

            It's quite simple really. They reject all of the evidence - Which takes some serious mental gymnastics.

            But there are people out there that believe in faked moon landings, chemtrails, perpetual motion. Area 51 ET's .

            After all, in an age of "alternative facts" ,

            • You're not even responding to what you clicked "reply" to, you're just repeating what you (incorrectly) believe the words mean, without any attention to what was said and what it means.

              It is in fact simple. Using the Law of Identity [wikipedia.org] you should be able to identify the difference between a fact and an opinion.

              Socrates: With regard to sound and color, in the first place, do you think this about both: do they exist?
              Theaetetus: Yes.
              Socrates: Then do you think that each differs to the other, and is identical to itself?
              Theaetetus: Certainly.
              Socrates: And that both are two and each of them one?
              Theaetetus: Yes, that too.

              An opinion given by one person is not the same as an opinion given by another person. Anything based on personal belief has this property.
              A fact given by two people does have the same identity. This is a

          • You can prove documents exist. You cannot prove they are real and unaltered, merely official.

            Thr birther stuff is BS, but that's because of a bunch of evidence, not because of some proven fact in a logical sense.

            You do not want govenment becoming the arbiter of Truth.

      • If you can fact-check it, then it isn't an opinion. "I believe Obama was a bad president." is an opinion. "I believe Obama was born in Kenya." is a false statement of fact and should be labeled as such, even in an "opinion" piece.

        So people's beliefs are open to fact-checking? How about religious beliefs (God created the universe and homosexuality is a sin)? How about ideological and political beliefs (socialism and communism have failed every time they've been tried as they've never actually been achieved or that Hillary is responsible for Amb. Steven's death)? Beliefs that FB/Google/Twitter/YT are attempting to interfere in US and foreign elections?

        Sounds like implementing MiniTruth when you start policing beliefs. Who watches the

        • "So people's beliefs are open to fact-checking? "

          Yes.
          You are allowed your own opinion of those facts, but you are not allowed your own facts or as Kellyanne Conway so elegantly put it, "alternative facts." (read: Lies)

          Religious beliefs are not falsifiable and therefore exempt.
          Anything else if fair game.

          Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? ("Who will guard the guards themselves?" Roman poet Juvenal from his Satires (Satire VI, lines 347â€"348))
          Facts leave a verifiable trail. Alternative facts al
          • OOPS! Sorry, I forgot to remove the Unicode (assuming that's what it is, I'm a mechanic, not a coder) from the copied text.
            Roman poet Juvenal from his Satires (Satire VI, lines 347â€"348).
            Should read: (Satire VI, lines 347-348).

      • "I believe Obama was born in Kenya."

        How do you know what the "I" believes. Perhaps it really does believe that Obama was born in Kenya. Whether or not he actually was born in Kenya is irrelevant to its belief that Obama was born in Kenya.

        In other words, "I believe Obama was born in Kenya" is a statement of fact about "I"s belief. Whether or not Obama was born in Kenya is irrelevant to that belief.

        • This is all in the context having many billions of dollars kicked out of it by regulators who want to break it up. Silence opinions those in power dislike?

          Pure coincidence.

        • How do you know what the "I" believes.

          You simply either don't believe in the existence of facts, or you don't know what an opinion is.

          Pathetic, but true.

          Stating a false fact as an opinion doesn't actually make it an opinion, it just makes it a lie.

          When somebody say, "I believe in Deity!" that is their belief. "Deity is Good!" That is their opinion. "I can prove Deity exists!" This is just a lie. "I believe someday I will be able to prove Deity exists!" An absurd belief, but still a belief. "I believe I can prove Deity exists in the present tens

    • Funny enough, I've seen this argument many times already: people have characterized fact-checking as "suppressing alternative viewpoints." As though making a false statement was simply a matter of having a different opinion.

  • ...single unnamed sources who are familiar with the subject's thinking. Journalism had some interesting evolution in the last 3 years. I guess they thought the shotgun approach was the best way to regain our trust.

  • Sounds good if marked (Score:5, Interesting)

    by AvitarX ( 172628 ) <.gro.derdnuheniwydnarb. .ta. .em.> on Tuesday October 01, 2019 @09:09PM (#59259540) Journal

    Will they flag it as such? I thought they flagged satire, but I haven't seen a satire note for a long minute.

    This seems excellent to me, I like the idea of things being tagged opinion or satire. I'd also like politicians statements to be flagged as "not fact checked, news worthy" if they are making statements and not fact checked.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by guruevi ( 827432 )

      Why does it matter whether or not something is fact checked? Who is doing the fact checking? Why can't people make up their own mind? Why does FaceBook need to tell you whether something is worthy of your reading? Are people not intelligent enough?

      On the other hand, everybody has bias and opinion, there are virtually no "facts" to be found anywhere, especially in politics it's all interpretation, the question is, whose interpretation and why are they trying to sell it to you as a fact.

      It's like saying somet

      • Why does it matter whether or not something is fact checked? Who is doing the fact checking? Why can't people make up their own mind?

        Do you realize just how few people make up their own mind? They simply regurgitate what they are told.

        We live in an age where a lot of people believe that the laws of physics are controlled by a majority vote. And that's why doing some fact checking before you decide to walk off the top of the building is a pretty good idea.

        And here's the rub - If a fact checking group makes a mistake, those who decide that it invalidates all their other fact checking might just need a bit of checking themselves. It i

  • is the narrative that we've accepted moderation already?

    • is the narrative that we've accepted moderation already?

      Yes, you can fact check this by looking at the number after the subject line of your post.

      • is the narrative that we've accepted moderation already?

        Yes, you can fact check this by looking at the number after the subject line of your post.

        Sure, but no comments disappear - they are just rated -1 at worst, and people can find them if they really want to. On controversial articles, I often do read at -1 - skipping the trolls, but reading the comments that somehow offended the community.

        Facebook (and other social media sites) are different: If you present views that they don't like, they not only remove your posts, they will ban your account.

        FB has, unfortunately, become so large that it is effectively a public space. They absolutely should be r

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      Political cartoons and memes near election time still need to be banned by the good censor.
      Funny jokes about politicians who cant win are not funny.
      Health issues are not funny. Past comments by political leaders are not funny. Past poor heath related events are not funny.
      No cartoon bear doing politics in Communist China jokes.
      Funny jokes allowed.
      Funny political meme as a cartoon?
      Thats too creative and way too political.
      The good censor says no uploading, linking, sending of political cartoons.
      Co

  • Thats not how journalism spreads fake news (Score:5, Insightful)

    by e3m4n ( 947977 ) on Tuesday October 01, 2019 @09:41PM (#59259624)

    Ive seen it all over now. NTY, WaPo, La Times, Fox, they all do the same bullshit to pretend they are not fake new. So here is the gameplay

    BIG HEADLINES WITH SOME OVER THE TOP ACCUSATIONS

    then the next two paragraphs go on to talk about this....
    as the story continues they never get around to substantiating this claim...
    and finally by the time you get to the end, the articles finally come as close to contradicting the headlines as possible.

    Apparently most of these triggered assholes just skim headlines, maybe a paragraph or two, and go on ranting online about how X or Y is the worst thing yet.

  • Silly buggers ... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Retired ICS ( 6159680 ) on Tuesday October 01, 2019 @09:46PM (#59259644)

    They are doing this all wrong. If they are going to go to all the trouble of fact-checking, then all that they should be permitted to do is post the results of their fact-checking along with the original piece, which should not be modified, censored, or otherwise tampered with. And the statements and drivel spewing from politicians and their flunkies should be treated exactly the same way.

    Simply making things disappear serves no purpose whatsoever. Simply letting politicians and their flunkies (or applying an exception to anyone for any reason) post whatever drivel they want without being subject to the same constraints as everyone else is simply appalling.

    • So how do FB post a "fact check", providing links to alternative sources of information? Unfortunately, Big Data companies such as FB and Google have grown too big for most human intervention except for the few sensational cases (which their algorithms would probably show as a spike in clicks). And so whatever "fact checking" happens is going to be done by machine or random sampling (an algorithm directing groups of humans to fact check some random article and use statistical recaptcha style analysis to fin

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by nagora ( 177841 )

        So how do FB post a "fact check", providing links to alternative sources of information? Unfortunately, Big Data companies such as FB and Google have grown too big for most human intervention

        They haven't "grown" that way - they are that way by design. Neither Google nor Facebook could ever have worked if they had to do their job properly. So they never even tried - that's literally their business model: save money by not making any effort.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by DarkOx ( 621550 )

          BINGO - And the very same politicians that decry this (on both sides of the aisle) whether by demanding these platforms censor, accuse them of spreading fake news, or insist they should implement some modern version of "equal time" created this with the CDA - 230.

          We had a perfectly good system of libel and slander laws that would have allowed individuals to deal with these publishers, that is what they actually are after all, when the run blatantly false damaging material. Republicans (not the same as cons

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      How would they deal with spam and scams? They need to remove some material and ban some accounts that aren't posting outright illegal stuff, same as you and I need to filter out spam emails.

      There is no perfect solution, and the more they try to sit on the fence the worse it gets for them. Even their fact checking system is partially broken, with some of the fact checkers using it for political censorship.

      • "How would they deal with spam and scams?"

        That's an easy one. Just don't put them into anyone's streams. You have to go to the users page where you will see a bunch of posts marked as spam or scams. I mark spam with the spam intensifies meme, personally. People seem to like it.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          Ah but that would be censorship, which is a crime against humanity now. Failure to properly distribute and promote messages is a serious freeze peach violation.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by DarkOx ( 621550 )

          SPAM and SCAMS have defining characteristics that separate them from other speech. SPAM is unsolicited off topic material. You stand on a soap box in the park and say what you like. - If you turn the megaphone up past a certain level you can still be removed for causing a public disturbance! So if you post your "ad" - "Earn up to $5000 week working form home!" in our discussion about facebook fact checkers 10s of times that crosses a line into SPAMing as your are making it difficult for others to follow

  • But they have to be real funny jokes.
    Is a political cartoon still a joke or will that be time for the good censor?
    A joke about the results of German politics? Still funny?
    A French politician? Still joke funny?
    A joke about a cartoon bear doing politics in China? Its a bear and its funny?
    Wonder if the political jokes will be allowed and when the good censor will step in?
    To protect Communists, China, France, elections, feelings, NGO's, governments, Spain?
    Some sort of test to see if a joke is too pol

  • Unlike all of their other public declarations about privacy, censorship, security, fairness, ethics, data sharing, and tracking, this time when they confidently state that they are going to exempt some people from 'fact checking', clearly they really really really mean it with the best of intentions pinky swear style.

  • Because satire and opinion is what they mostly deliver these days. Gone is both the theory and practice of journalism.

  • It's only really news if it contains facts, in which case there is no point checking it.

  • So what underpaid, time-pressured people decide? In the end, it remains subjective. One person's rant is another person's hate-speech. One person's satire is another person's fake-news.

    Wouldn't it be better if Facebook would just stop playing censor? Declare themselves a platform, and therefore not responsible for user-submitted content?

    This is YARNTUF: Yet Another Reason Not To Use Facebook.

  • https://assets.amuniversal.com... [amuniversal.com]

    Dilbert: "According to my algorithm we are heading toward a parody inversion point. That happens when reality is so absurd it is indistinguishable from parody."
    Dogbert: "Maybe the Government can fix that"
    Dogbert: "GAAH! I CAN'T TELL IF YOU'RE SERIOUS!"

    clearly, the dilbert authors read slashdot...

  • "I have to label this satire so THEY don't censor this truth!"

  • Then, at least label such commentary as âoeopinionâ or âoeSatireâ .

    Not doing so, especially in this political climate, shows why we detest a Facebook and Zuckerberg.

  • as the social-media giant grapples with how to stop the spread of falsehoods while maintaining its own neutrality.

    Utter tosh. Facebook's is not concerned with neutrality nor with stopping falsehoods. It is concerned with its reputation and its interests. It has to be engaged in the current propaganda and censorship offensive while maintaining a facade of neutrality.

    I read yesterday that Twitter welcomed Gordon McMillan in a senior post. That is someone from the 77th brigade , a British information warfare

    • I say 'welcomes' but MacMillan has been working for both Twitter middle east department and 77th brigade for the last 3 years.

  • I get satire, but opinion? So "opinion" continues to have the same face value as facts... no wonder Facebook is a cesspool, an aggregation of echo chambers that are ideal for fake news and propaganda.

    • Like currency, Facebook comments are worth what people will give you for them. You're complaining about Facebook when what you should be complaining about is human nature. We had spam on Usenet.

  • " continue exempting politicians from fact-checks"

    Politicians can't tell the truth to save their life, so I guess it's expected.

  • That's kind of part of the problem, the MSM simply publishes whatever libelous hit pieces it wants then cowers behind "It was an op-ed".

  • No, that's not why (Score:3)

    by fred911 ( 83970 ) on Wednesday October 02, 2019 @06:31AM (#59260442) Journal

    '' Facebook's acknowledgment last week that it will continue exempting politicians from fact-checks, on the grounds that such comments are newsworthy,''

    This should read; ''on the grounds that we would be forced to prohibit all politicians content if we had to vet it for truth.''

  • How magnanimous. Now Fascistbook could allow some heresy even let us crack a joke without administering punishment. But who exactly is so fond of being censored by a corporate network ? It's unclear to me how you people can tolerate this situation at all. It is degrading and outrageous. See, we are not talking about hate speech or advocating crime or starting smear campaigns against someone, but about what opinions are legitimate and which ones are not and need to be banned. No wonder that at some point th

    • What's "opinion" will be anything that Twitter is scared of banning. They are giving themselves an out. Now they can have it both ways - they can say they make a stand for the truth, except for when they don't. Doublethink, applied.

      Is Twitter a media company? Any respectable media company purges liars from their list of contributors. (People paying attention to trash media is another issue...) Is Twitter a guardian of the public square? I'm not sure being positionless is good there either. Norway and severa

  • They were just joking.
    Get it?

    However, by complaining about it you have
    broken our terms of usage policy, and we
    have therefore deleted your account.

    As a public service we have leaked your name,
    address and phone number to ANTIFA --
    hopefully they can WOKE you up.

    Have a nice day.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

Slashdot Top Deals

On a clear disk you can seek forever. -- P. Denning

Close