Facebook steps up 'false news' crackdown with tips for spotting and reporting bogus storie...

Posted:
in General Discussion
This week, users on Facebook began receiving a public service announcement from the social networking site regarding what it has branded as "false news," offering tips on how to spot a fake story.




Notably, Facebook has chosen to refer to the trend as "false news," rather than "fake news," in an attempt to avoid the rhetoric --and accompanying political minefield --that now surrounds the latter term.

In announcing its initiative, Facebook has dubbed it "a new educational tool against information." Adam Mosseri, vice president of News Feed at Facebook, said the company's goal is for people to see accurate, truthful information when using the service.

"False news and hoaxes are harmful to our community and make the world less informed," Mosseri wrote. "All of us have a responsibility to curb the spread of false news."
"All of us have a responsibility to curb the spread of false news."
As part of its efforts, Facebook has focused on disrupting economic incentives for "false news," building new products to stop the spread, and helping people make informed decisions.

To aid the last two goals, the company added a new page to its help section called "Tips to Spot False News," which includes a top 10 list of things users can look out for. The page also gives detailed instructions on how to report a bogus story shared in a Facebook News Feed.

The new series of tips are being promoted on the Facebook News Feed on both desktop and mobile in 14 countries.




Once a news story is reported as false, it may be reviewed by independent third-party fact checkers. If those fact checkers determine the story is false, the story will be marked as "disputed."

Disputed stories are accompanied by a warning presented to users before they can share it, intended to discourage them from posting it to their feed.

Facebook's efforts are done in partnership with The News Literacy Project, Arizona State University's Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication, and the News Literacy Lessons for Digital Citizens.

Whether branded as "fake" or "false," Apple has also signaled it is working to curb the spread of factually inaccurate news stories. The company's internet service chief Eddy Cue indicated in February that Apple is working on backend solutions to stop misleading and dangerous content via its own News app for iOS.

Since last year's U.S. presidential election, "fake news" has morphed from a disinformation campaign to a major journalist problems. Entire websites are now devoted to churning out bogus stories that reinforce previously-held beliefs on hot-button political issues such as immigration, crime and the economy.

Such stories can go viral, either being spread through Facebook or Twitter or sent directly via Apple's own iMessages. Sometimes these stories gain enough traction to make it into legitimate news cycles, duping mainstream journalists and major news outlets.

"We're very concerned about all of the news items and the clickbait from that standpoint, and that driving a lot of the news coverage," Cue said. "We're trying to do some things in Apple News, we're learning from that and we need to share that together as an industry and improve it."
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 39
    Independent fact checkers like Politifact, who rated John Kerry's statement that they got all the chemical weapons out of Syria a "mostly true"? Yeah, so reliable. 
    spacekidmacseekergeorgie01lkruppSpamSandwichewtheckmanequality72521frantisekdesignrmonstrosity
  • Reply 2 of 39
    spacekidspacekid Posts: 159member
    What happens when groups report true news as false and fact checker agree with that false decision? Any way to refute or reverse bad judgements?
    macseekergeorgie01SpamSandwichewtheckmanequality72521frantisekdesignrlostkiwimonstrosityZyreenjen22
  • Reply 3 of 39
    NotsofastNotsofast Posts: 255member
    And so it begins.  The era of censorship. It will be accomplished in incremental steps where "incorrect" information as determined by the "correct" people first just label the information, at some point progressing to deleting it,  then banning the user, and then "legal" action, which will range from civil to criminal sanctions.  

    Putting up with silly, offensive and even lies is an vital part of a true freedom of speech. Yes, Facebook is a private entity and the Bill of Rights does not apply to them so they can censor in any way they want, and yes there are always limits to the First Amendment protections, libel/slander laws, etc, but because of the reach and expanse of Facebook , and the likelihood that this will be emulated elsewhere, this is an ominous development.   

    Even with the best of intentions, this is unworkable.  Take the recent controversies over the alleged spying by the Obama administration on the Trump campaign team, and the alleged involvement of the Russians with Trump staff.  When someone posts a story, comment, etc., that "Obama spied on Trump" or "The Russians teamed up with Trump staffer" who is the oracle that gets to decide if either, neither or both or false/true?   Now carry that out a thousand times every day with every story, report, etc. 

    Indeed, the beginning of a dark era if this isn't fought by civil libertarians left and right.
    thewhitefalcongeorgie01williamhlkruppSpamSandwichewtheckmanequality72521frantisekdesignrlostkiwi
  • Reply 4 of 39
    SoliSoli Posts: 8,288member
    Independent fact checkers like Politifact, who rated John Kerry's statement that they got all the chemical weapons out of Syria a "mostly true"? Yeah, so reliable. 
    1) It's ironic that you complain about reliable facts and then fail to post a single source to back up your claims. At least your man Trump will say things like "people are saying" and "I'm hearing" when he makes unsubstantiated claims.

    2) If you had a bare minimum of research you would see that Politifact used to have a "Mostly True" rating for Kerry's 2014 statement, "We struck a deal where we got 100 percent of the chemical weapons out," after citing a statement from director general of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, Ahmet Üzümcü, who stated, "The last of the remaining chemicals identified for removal from Syria were loaded this afternoon aboard the Danish ship Ark Futura." Despite those comments, Politifact still only gave it a "Mostly True" rating because there were still discrepancies between how many chemical weapons Syria claimed to have and how many outside observers claimed the country had. It was only 3 years later—which is why you bring it up now—that Politifact removed the statement and stated, "we don't know key details about the reported chemical attack in Syria on April 4, 2017, but it raises two clear possibilities: Either Syria never fully complied with its 2013 promise to reveal all of its chemical weapons; or it did, but then converted otherwise non-lethal chemicals to military uses. One way or another, subsequent events have proved Kerry wrong," Funny how you left out Politifact's statement.

    3) Do you understand how facts work or are you purposely being obtuse to further a political agenda (which I hope you aren't since that's going to get this thread locked down). I'll make it simple by showing you in video in the form of a comedy gameshow…





    spice-boy
  • Reply 5 of 39
    SoliSoli Posts: 8,288member
    spacekid said:
    What happens when groups report true news as false and fact checker agree with that false decision? Any way to refute or reverse bad judgements?
    If it's the masses v the educated then the masses are going to win every time, but that's the very reason why FB, Twitter, Apple, and many other others are having to fact check sources.
    edited April 2017
  • Reply 6 of 39
    spice-boyspice-boy Posts: 605member
    Independent fact checkers like Politifact, who rated John Kerry's statement that they got all the chemical weapons out of Syria a "mostly true"? Yeah, so reliable. 
    You're right Kerry should not have bothered getting out the large amounts that he did. It's 100% or nothing right?
    diegoglostkiwi
  • Reply 7 of 39
    spice-boy said:
    Independent fact checkers like Politifact, who rated John Kerry's statement that they got all the chemical weapons out of Syria a "mostly true"? Yeah, so reliable. 
    You're right Kerry should not have bothered getting out the large amounts that he did. It's 100% or nothing right?
    Is there evidence he got *any* out? Kerry has a history of lying, particularly before Congress. Maybe he decided to lie in "a manner reminiscent of Genghis Khan"?
    williamh
  • Reply 8 of 39
    SoliSoli Posts: 8,288member
    spice-boy said:
    Independent fact checkers like Politifact, who rated John Kerry's statement that they got all the chemical weapons out of Syria a "mostly true"? Yeah, so reliable. 
    You're right Kerry should not have bothered getting out the large amounts that he did. It's 100% or nothing right?
    Is there evidence he got *any* out? Kerry has a history of lying, particularly before Congress. Maybe he decided to lie in "a manner reminiscent of Genghis Khan"?
    Search engines are helpful. You should try one sometime.

    lostkiwi
  • Reply 9 of 39
    We need this in the White House
    frantisek
  • Reply 10 of 39
    This whole issue is so ridiculous. It only gained traction as a petty way to find any reason to undermine the election of the current US president. He won. It happened. It wasn't due to sneaky russians or fake news. There was a battle of ideas and philosophies. And, for better or worse, we have the outcome we have.

    Also, I have yet to see a single fake (factually false) news story. Not a single one. What I have seen is that all the news I get, from my facebook feed to mainstream media sources, is %95 biased.

    Bias is the real enemy of the truth; not some silly fringe 'fake news' that is/was more than likely inconsequential.
    williamhjdgazfrantisekdesignr
  • Reply 11 of 39
    georgie01georgie01 Posts: 179member
    Notsofast said:
    And so it begins.  The era of censorship. It will be accomplished in incremental steps where "incorrect" information as determined by the "correct" people ... Putting up with silly, offensive and even lies is an vital part of a true freedom of speech. 
    ...
    Indeed, the beginning of a dark era if this isn't fought by civil libertarians left and right.
    This is such an important point. The near censorship of news already happens in the form of bias presentations and deprioritising news which doesn't fit an agency's agenda. Imagine how much worse it's going to get when there's a pretty face to put on it.
    williamh
  • Reply 12 of 39
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 4,270member

    The problem Facebook has is all news is fake, as soon as the report starts putting in their own opinions and make statement of fact with no supporting data, or quote so call anonymous source it is all fake. Unless the say a red car hit a blue on highway xyz, it become fake the moment that say one car was driving too fast, until the get the data from the accident reconstruction experts or the police report which clear says what happen, they turn real news into fake news. People need to start asking themselves when they see a report on the news, how do they know the facts the are claiming what is the actual source and are the showing the actual data or direct statement form the actual person involved.

    If anyone ever listen to the Howard Stern show, there were listeners form his show who would call into TV news shows and act like some so call expert and make all kinds of statement about recent event the media was covering, the media reporters would eat this stuff up and repeat for days until they were told they were scammed.

    Until the media and prove their sources and show the actual data, do not trust them and treat it all as fake and they are there for the entertainment factor.

  • Reply 13 of 39
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 4,270member
    Soli said:
    spice-boy said:
    Independent fact checkers like Politifact, who rated John Kerry's statement that they got all the chemical weapons out of Syria a "mostly true"? Yeah, so reliable. 
    You're right Kerry should not have bothered getting out the large amounts that he did. It's 100% or nothing right?
    Is there evidence he got *any* out? Kerry has a history of lying, particularly before Congress. Maybe he decided to lie in "a manner reminiscent of Genghis Khan"?
    Search engines are helpful. You should try one sometime.


    search engines are fine until you realize google and others push you to information sources which google and other make the most ad money. Don't you think there is just a little bit of a conflict of interest. Is Google push you to what they know as being 100% true or pushing you to what they know to make them more money.

     Plus any politic by definition is a lie, who side to you believe, it hard to fact check lies based on non data or made up data, unless you know the data to be 100% accurate you have to assume it is all bad.

    SpamSandwich
  • Reply 14 of 39
    diegogdiegog Posts: 133member
    Soli said:
    spacekid said:
    What happens when groups report true news as false and fact checker agree with that false decision? Any way to refute or reverse bad judgements?
    If it's the masses v the educated then the masses are going to win every time, but it's that very reason why FB, Twitter, Apple, and many other others are having to fact check sources.
    Maybe this forum needs a "false news" button....
  • Reply 15 of 39
    SoliSoli Posts: 8,288member
    maestro64 said:

     Plus any politic by definition is a lie

    1) That's a lie.

    2) So you don't use any search engine? You don't trust that when you look up "cute puppies playing" on YouTube that you won't find cute puppies playing?

    3) What exactly is your recourse if you think that "(of an action) seeming sensible and judicious under the circumstances" is an inherent lie and that no results you get from a search engine can be trusted?
  • Reply 16 of 39
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 4,245member
    Notsofast said:
    And so it begins.  The era of censorship. It will be accomplished in incremental steps where "incorrect" information as determined by the "correct" people first just label the information, at some point progressing to deleting it,  then banning the user, and then "legal" action, which will range from civil to criminal sanctions.  

    Putting up with silly, offensive and even lies is an vital part of a true freedom of speech. Yes, Facebook is a private entity and the Bill of Rights does not apply to them so they can censor in any way they want, and yes there are always limits to the First Amendment protections, libel/slander laws, etc, but because of the reach and expanse of Facebook , and the likelihood that this will be emulated elsewhere, this is an ominous development.   

    Even with the best of intentions, this is unworkable.  Take the recent controversies over the alleged spying by the Obama administration on the Trump campaign team, and the alleged involvement of the Russians with Trump staff.  When someone posts a story, comment, etc., that "Obama spied on Trump" or "The Russians teamed up with Trump staffer" who is the oracle that gets to decide if either, neither or both or false/true?   Now carry that out a thousand times every day with every story, report, etc. 

    Indeed, the beginning of a dark era if this isn't fought by civil libertarians left and right.
    Oh please... tone down the melodramatics.  Is it "free speech", yes.  Will I cry a river over some viable attempt to rid the infestation that is fake news?  Absolutely not.

    Remember folks like "Mr. Daisey" that made up all that shit about Apple and got exposed?  Free speech, but with consequences.

    If our government does it, I'd maybe be concerned.  When shops like Facebook want to crack down on it, by all means do it.  I'm fed up with it.  Many are.
  • Reply 17 of 39
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 19,284member
    maestro64 said:
    Soli said:
    spice-boy said:
    Independent fact checkers like Politifact, who rated John Kerry's statement that they got all the chemical weapons out of Syria a "mostly true"? Yeah, so reliable. 
    You're right Kerry should not have bothered getting out the large amounts that he did. It's 100% or nothing right?
    Is there evidence he got *any* out? Kerry has a history of lying, particularly before Congress. Maybe he decided to lie in "a manner reminiscent of Genghis Khan"?
    Search engines are helpful. You should try one sometime.


    search engines are fine until you realize google and others push you to information sources which google and other make the most ad money.

    For news? Bull. Why post FUD when there's so many legitimate issues you could bring up about "Google and others". 
  • Reply 18 of 39
    frantisekfrantisek Posts: 347member
    As it was pointed out it is beginning of censorship that should diminish political or any other opponent of establishment in the name or protecting true, but often biased true.

    What is it true? When you have cube with 3 sides green and 3 red and two people ale looking from opposite sides, each see just one color. But they would be willing to start a war to push their true.
    True is point of view.

    How mass media could live in such new system when huge part of their reporting is just biased propaganda. It will be interesting to see how masses will react on this propaganda. It may be all flagged as fake news by people. And I hope so.

    Soli said:
    Independent fact checkers like Politifact, who rated John Kerry's statement that they got all the chemical weapons out of Syria a "mostly true"? Yeah, so reliable. 
    1) It's ironic that you complain about reliable facts and then fail to post a single source to back up your claims. At least your man Trump will say things like "people are saying" and "I'm hearing" when he makes unsubstantiated claims.

    2) If you had a bare minimum of research you would see that Politifact used to have a "Mostly True" rating for Kerry's 2014 statement, "We struck a deal where we got 100 percent of the chemical weapons out," after citing a statement from director general of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, Ahmet Üzümcü, who stated, "The last of the remaining chemicals identified for removal from Syria were loaded this afternoon aboard the Danish ship Ark Futura." Despite those comments, Politifact still only gave it a "Mostly True" rating because there were still discrepancies between how many chemical weapons Syria claimed to have and how many outside observers claimed the country had. It was only 3 years later—which is why you bring it up now—that Politifact removed the statement and stated, "we don't know key details about the reported chemical attack in Syria on April 4, 2017, but it raises two clear possibilities: Either Syria never fully complied with its 2013 promise to reveal all of its chemical weapons; or it did, but then converted otherwise non-lethal chemicals to military uses. One way or another, subsequent events have proved Kerry wrong," Funny how you left out Politifact's statement.
    Syria can be good example. Nobody know anything but everybody is claiming its agenda. Kerry could be true. It is possible that all chemical weapons were removed from Syria but.... just from Assad controlled territory. You can hardly see any discussion in mass media talking about possibility of chemical weapons in hands of those Al-kaida jihadi "rebels". It would not fit into biased propaganda.
    There is so many interests from all superpowers and oil states in Syria that you can not believe nearby anything about it you read hear or see. It is good to watch local people reporting on twitter from all sides to get some conclusion.
    edited April 2017
  • Reply 19 of 39
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 29,902member
    sflocal said:
    Notsofast said:
    And so it begins.  The era of censorship. It will be accomplished in incremental steps where "incorrect" information as determined by the "correct" people first just label the information, at some point progressing to deleting it,  then banning the user, and then "legal" action, which will range from civil to criminal sanctions.  

    Putting up with silly, offensive and even lies is an vital part of a true freedom of speech. Yes, Facebook is a private entity and the Bill of Rights does not apply to them so they can censor in any way they want, and yes there are always limits to the First Amendment protections, libel/slander laws, etc, but because of the reach and expanse of Facebook , and the likelihood that this will be emulated elsewhere, this is an ominous development.   

    Even with the best of intentions, this is unworkable.  Take the recent controversies over the alleged spying by the Obama administration on the Trump campaign team, and the alleged involvement of the Russians with Trump staff.  When someone posts a story, comment, etc., that "Obama spied on Trump" or "The Russians teamed up with Trump staffer" who is the oracle that gets to decide if either, neither or both or false/true?   Now carry that out a thousand times every day with every story, report, etc. 

    Indeed, the beginning of a dark era if this isn't fought by civil libertarians left and right.
    Oh please... tone down the melodramatics.  Is it "free speech", yes.  Will I cry a river over some viable attempt to rid the infestation that is fake news?  Absolutely not.

    Remember folks like "Mr. Daisey" that made up all that shit about Apple and got exposed?  Free speech, but with consequences.

    If our government does it, I'd maybe be concerned.  When shops like Facebook want to crack down on it, by all means do it.  I'm fed up with it.  Many are.
    You brought up the perfect example in Mike Daisey. His claims were widely accepted as true and trumpeted from the rooftops until someone actually did a small bit of investigation and exposed it as a fraud.

    It wasn't considered "fake" for some time because there was no evidence against it. Facebook attempting to cull stories cannot possibly result in anything other than agenda pushing.
  • Reply 20 of 39
    gregalexandergregalexander Posts: 1,381member
    We must find a way of better reporting to people. 

    Small changes would be to overlay a big red heading to highlight something

    eg:  June, 2012 (Overlaid when someone shares a sensational news article from 5 years ago) 

    or Satire (Overlaid for jokes that are too often believed)

    Those are easy. 

    Then there's context (for news that ignore an important aspect - like an "association" that implies it represents the whole state, when it just had a cool name with 3 members!). 

    If we believe no news sources (or just ones that sound pretty good!) then society will suffer. 
    Soli
Sign In or Register to comment.