What happens when I make a post with satirical content? (guessing: ban-hammer)
Facebook to Exempt Opinion and Satire from Fact-Checking
101–110 of 119 posts
Re: Facebook to Exempt Opinion and Satire from Fact-Checking
#102An exemption for satire makes sense. There's even an existing legal framework for it, as it's an exception to defamation. Opinion, however, seems much more difficult. How do you handle an opinion that relies substantially on a provably false assertion?
The example in the article seems like it could be handled:
> That op-ed argued that global-warming climate models have been inaccurate and that the risks of climate change is overblown.
Included in that sentence are an assertion of fact (yes, climate models have been inaccurate. This is not controversial, and it's also not really as useful to the argument as the author thinks it is) and an opinion that, while I disagree with it, is still an opinion. For purposes of discussion, assume the article contains no other information. There shouldn't be any kind of "false" designation assigned to it, because nothing in it is provably false.
However, imagine the article said something like "Atmospheric CO2 has declined since 1978, global-warming climate models have been inaccurate, and the risks of climate change is overblown." The first statement in that sentence is provably false, yet the article would still constitute an opinion piece. Is there a framework for handling that?
Re: Facebook to Exempt Opinion and Satire from Fact-Checking
#103I have a domain "madeup.world" that I was thinking on putting up a fake news site called "Real World News Today" given the domain, I was wanting to try to make it obvious. However, there are times where even the Onion feels a bit real, and I don't think I have any faith in actual media.
Maybe I'll put up genuine commentary, I just don't have the time or inclination to deal with it.
Re: Facebook to Exempt Opinion and Satire from Fact-Checking
#104An exemption for satire makes sense. There's even an existing legal framework for it, as it's an exception to defamation. Opinion, however, seems much more difficult. How do you handle an opinion that relies substantially on a provably false assertion? The example in the article seems like it could be handled: > That op-ed argued that global-warming climate models have been inaccurate and that the risks of climate ch…
The way things have been trending, I'd anticipate something like a label for satire and a label for "opinion, was not not fact checked" (which would apply to any piece that could be considered an op-ed), and fact checks applying to anything purporting to be news.
To be honest, setting a rule that anything that purports to be "BREAKING" will be fact checked at least to the extent of "the contents of this article cannot be proven entirely factually correct" would be a pretty big step forward and potentially reduce the virality of outright disinformation.
Re: Facebook to Exempt Opinion and Satire from Fact-Checking
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
We wouldn't allow the American government to behave this way, but somehow it's okay if a big corporation takes control of a large portion of communication and enacts these draconian rules. But it's a private totalitarian state. /s
At least when the government does it, you have a presumed outlet of voting for one that doesn't. When a corporation does something you have no outlet if it has an effective monopoly or they all do it or you just have negative net worth and cannot possibly vote with your dollars.
Otoh, governments can detain, arrest, or kill you and your family. Regardless of whether you can vote.
Both corporations and governments have a history of bad behavior. But I warrant the government ledger has much worse capacity to do me harm, as well as a few orders of magnitude more deaths caused by their decisions.
Re: Facebook to Exempt Opinion and Satire from Fact-Checking
#106An exemption for satire makes sense. There's even an existing legal framework for it, as it's an exception to defamation. Opinion, however, seems much more difficult. How do you handle an opinion that relies substantially on a provably false assertion? The example in the article seems like it could be handled: > That op-ed argued that global-warming climate models have been inaccurate and that the risks of climate ch…
Why should there be a framework for handling this? Facebook, perhaps better than any other publisher or newspaper or public utility, puts the actual name of the guy writing this dribble front and center. Before you can even read the title of the article, you are exposed to the source. Facebook only warrants that the source that published this article indeed did so. It should be up to the reader, not facebook, whether or not to trust them. Facebook engages in no moral hazard by making it clear who wrote what.
Re: Facebook to Exempt Opinion and Satire from Fact-Checking
#107My opinion is that the Earth is flat. Prove me wrong.
> Prove me wrong
Well, there's really nothing to prove. You didn't make the claim that 'the earth is flat'. Instead you made the claim that 'My [papito's] opinion is that the Earth is flat'. There is no reason to disbelieve the latter. It is clear from your own statement that your opinion is that the Earth is flat. There is no reason to counter that statement.
This is why facebook has no obligation to do anything. Facebook's entire platform is to allow various entities to self-publish their opinions. If it is clear that this is your opinion on hacker news (where the anonymous username is actually relatively obscured compared to facebook's real name policy and name placement), then it is extremely clear on Facebook.
Re: Facebook to Exempt Opinion and Satire from Fact-Checking
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most reporting is based on opinions, or is at least misleading in the sense that it tends to be reported from well defined perspective. The editorial decisions about what to report, what to not report, what to report as important or credible, and what to report as irrelevant or non-credible, can all be used to mislead the audience and misrepresent events. I can’t think of one mainstream news outlet that doesn’t do th…
> Most reporting is based on opinions, or is at least misleading in the sense that it tends to be reported from well defined perspective. What do you mean by this? Most new organizations have a separate, opinion section. Does your statement include the news department, too?
Even beyond editorializing as the sibling comments point out, there is considerable opinion in what is reported vs brushed aside.
On August 3, 46 people were shot in El Paso, Texas. [1]
That same weekend, 51 people were shot in Chicago, Illinois. [2] [3]
One statistic gets hours and hours of national press cycles, Wikipedia page, etc.
The other statistic gets a passing mention in local channel and papers.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_El_Paso_shooting
[2] https://abc7chicago.com/49-shot-6-fatally-in-chicago-weekend...
[3] Later updated to 68, if you read Breibart https://www.breitbart.com/crime/2019/08/05/many-el-pasos-day...
Re: Facebook to Exempt Opinion and Satire from Fact-Checking
#109If you think Facebook fact-checking anything for you is a good idea, you belong on Facebook.
This is big tech authoritarian borderline-fascist bubble-producing social media illness run amok.
People who clamor for "tools" and "accountability" on social media to combat "fake news" and "misinformation" are people who do not belong on the internet. They want to be coddled and protected, when they should be researching on their own or having an independent thought.
The answer to bad speech is always more speech. The answer to bad information is more information. Anything else is censorship in the name of [insert your god here].
Re: Facebook to Exempt Opinion and Satire from Fact-Checking
#110Interesting times, and a slippery slope. These fairly square rules will surely cause other uproars as it invites back the alt-right with their tongue-in-cheek fascism. And the Facebook algorithms seem embarrassingly incapable of nuance, like this Tommy Robinson debacle: the mere mention of the name "Tommy Robinson" in a post (in Sweden) renders your profile inactive for several days or indefinitely. In other countrie…
What is tongue-in-cheek fascism? Example.