11–20 of 148 posts
The timing of this makes it seem politically motivated. I've seen plenty of fake news on my liberal feed. Things like 9/11 conspiracy theories, anti-vaccination stories, stories about the dangers of genetically modified foods, etc.
The timing of this makes it seem politically motivated. I've seen plenty of fake news on my liberal feed. Things like 9/11 conspiracy theories, anti-vaccination stories, stories about the dangers of genetically modified foods, etc.
ok, so now the obvious question becomes, who fact checks the fact checkers? i don't blame facebook, but the people that have been asking for this i guess are about to get what they deserve: more consolidation of the power of persuasion of the masses into the hands of facebook. want to instantly discredit a story? just UPDATE stories SET disputed = t WHERE ID = ?
Ripping the embed out of the blogspam, and turning it into a direct link, is trivial. If the only content on a page is a youtube video covered in a hundred ads, just return me the youtube video. Flag websites as blogspam, and more agressivly return just the content they "stole." Make it hard to get off that shitlist. Id rather facebook make a little money deconstructing the web, than whomever spun up wordpress and paid for a bad theme being rewarded for polluting it. Facebook has an opportunity to add through reduction; to add value by finding signal in noise, leaving noise on the cutting room floor. Deduplication should be something incredibly easy to do algorithmically, compared to fact checking. (Hell facebook is already half way there with trending, anthough it too often lumps semi-unrelated events.) Google News and Techmeme do a great job of it. Techmeme eloquently spells out the solution http://news.techmeme.com/111031/techmeme-revealed
Too many different ideas are getting conflated here. Clean up the spam/dupe mess FIRST, and sifting the sensationalized salon/dailycaller hyperbole from the blatant false news becomes easier (because we then arent are drowning in nearly identical but different copies of articles.)
The timing of this makes it seem politically motivated. I've seen plenty of fake news on my liberal feed. Things like 9/11 conspiracy theories, anti-vaccination stories, stories about the dangers of genetically modified foods, etc.
Does it matter what the motivations are if they are using the same criteria for filtering all kinds of fake news?
The timing of this makes it seem politically motivated. I've seen plenty of fake news on my liberal feed. Things like 9/11 conspiracy theories, anti-vaccination stories, stories about the dangers of genetically modified foods, etc.
The SNL skits are probably writing themselves as we speak...Girl posts on her friends wall "I'm so happy for you!!!!" [WARNING: 3rd party fact checker determined this to be false]
If that happens, the brand damage to facebook will be real
ok, so now the obvious question becomes, who fact checks the fact checkers? i don't blame facebook, but the people that have been asking for this i guess are about to get what they deserve: more consolidation of the power of persuasion of the masses into the hands of facebook. want to instantly discredit a story? just UPDATE stories SET disputed = t WHERE ID = ?
It's not that easy. They need provide a link with an explanation why a certain story is disputed.
It's true that Facebook has a lot of power. But that was already the case before this update: they could manipulate what stories a user saw, which could be used to influence a large part of their user base. I don't see this as adding that much power. It's also easier to check this mechanism than feed manipulation.
I wonder if this will be as sketchy as politifact? I hope it won't be, but I reckon it might be. (What I mean is: extremely uncharitable readings of things that they don't like, but overly charitable readings of anything that they like.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does it matter what the motivations are if they are using the same criteria for filtering all kinds of fake news?
Humans in the loop means the criteria will not be the same.
I wonder if this will be as sketchy as politifact? I hope it won't be, but I reckon it might be. (What I mean is: extremely uncharitable readings of things that they don't like, but overly charitable readings of anything that they like.)
[1] http://www.poynter.org/fact-checkers-code-of-principles/