21–30 of 268 posts
When fake news passes from the spotlight, and something else takes its place, what will they do then?
Even if fake news is a larger business threat to facebook, they can't justify it to the public: "they are allowing horrible thing XYZ, but blocking fake news?!".
Blocking it to be advertised might - just might - slow its viral expansion. Is that the best FB can do about this?
I hate the idea of information being filtered through Snopes. Why is a huge global corporation like FB using a dodgy divorced couple to decide who sees what, seems ridiculous to me. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4042194/Facebook-fac... AP has other issues to put it politely.
I often see this talking point come from a certain segment of people with particular persuasions. It is extremely peculiar that you chose to link to a Daily Mail (I cannot articulate how ironic that is) article that uses another talking point/myth that's been appropriately cast aside again and again. Just for an observable example of the nature of the people that hold these persuaisans and view points, you can gather…
You don't have to look far to find troubling criticism of Snopes and their ad agency owners online
example https://foodbabe.com/2017/02/24/do-you-trust-snopes-you-wont...
The fact that they are a fundamental information filter for FB seems very off to me...
instant question: which entity decides and how does such entity decide what news is true news ?
Scary times ahead. It's straight out of 1984.
This is really interesting. I wonder how it will effect Pages that are known for sarcastic/satire type of content on purpose. Pages like The Onion, Hard Times, etc. I feel like there would have to be a lot of work in the fact-checking part of this. At what point will it be too manual of a process, or will the algorithm start to fail on these "grey" areas? Also, it's nice to see Facebook implement a feature solely for…
They played with flagging satirical articles back in 2014: http://mashable.com/2014/08/17/facebook-satire-tag/
It is unfortunate that platforms like Facebook have become the beacons of pessimism. I am talking in the context of the usage of social media tools to harm society, rather than help it. For me, FB, TW, etc have become unreliable sources of news. Here, FB is trying to limit ads from pages that share false news, but who will decide that?? 1. FB - Leads to a dangerous slippery slope of putting too much power into a sing…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I often see this talking point come from a certain segment of people with particular persuasions. It is extremely peculiar that you chose to link to a Daily Mail (I cannot articulate how ironic that is) article that uses another talking point/myth that's been appropriately cast aside again and again. Just for an observable example of the nature of the people that hold these persuaisans and view points, you can gather…
I deliberately and ironically linked to the UK Daily Mail - the largest online 'newspaper' on the planet- and their Snopes story as an example of a 'credible' news site (despite all the click bait Taboola style 'stories' on it). You don't have to look far to find troubling criticism of Snopes and their ad agency owners online example https://foodbabe.com/2017/02/24/do-you-trust-snopes-you-wont... The fact that they a…
Of course you won't have to go far to find circular sources in an echo chamber, but finding qualified sources for your point seems to be difficult.