Facebook is going to use Snopes and other fact-checkers to combat and bury 'fake news'


#1

businessinsider.com/facebook-will-fact-check-label-fake-news-in-news-feed-2016-12


#2

And everybody on the Right is going to start reporting Left-Wing stuff as “fake news” and everybody on Left is going to start reporting Right-Wing stuff as “fake news.”

People can’t seem to differentiate between facts and opinions. They all have this notion that if they disagree with something then it isn’t true. :shrug:


#3

Facebook is starting out with the following four: Snopes, Factcheck.org, ABC News, and PolitiFact.

Alas, the foxes in charge of the chicken coup. :rolleyes:


#4

The same Facebook that allows radical leftists to use their site to advocate violence against anyone they disagree with, including the upcoming Presidential inauguration ?


#5

Um, can’t Facebook work with the National Catholic Register? How about The Wanderer?


#6

This is patently false. Because reasons.


#7

I searched “Snopes wrong” on google and there are a lot of results that come up. I don’t know the veracity of all those claims regarding Snopes but why should Snopes be trusted to check the veracity of news for people?


#8

They have a good reputation.


#9

This won’t really hurt the system Facebook is proposing. The subscriber responses will not do anything immediately to how Facebook treats something. The subscriber responses, after they reach a certain threshold, will be passed on to the third-party fact-checkers, who are going to apply a very high bar to what qualifies as “fake news.” A story that is only somewhat true and maybe incomplete will not be flagged, so they say. Only stories that are outright fabrications or stories clearly designed to deceive. And even then, Facebook will only issue an advisory when want to share that posting. You can still share it if you really want to.


#10

They had a good reputation. I used to rely on them quite a bit just a few years ago. However, within the last year I’ve found their conclusions to be suspect based on other outside information I found later. I came to a point of not using them as a source anymore because they are wrong too often.


#11

Yep. Because even if it’s wrong, and people know it’s wrong, “where there’s smoke there’s fire.”

Facebook ought to just let it go as is. If some “news” item that seems too crazy to be true pops up, then people ought to have enough sense to doubt it.


#12

Snopes should not be trusted.


#13

Who is fact checking the fact checkers?


#14

Us? :shrug:


#15

You might be talking about confirmation bias.


#16

Facebook


#17

Not convinced Facebook can be trusted over this. They were, after all, caught filtering out alternative reporting from their news feeds. Plus the fact checkers they picked are all part of the “approved” media apparatus. We’ll find out very quickly whether they can be trusted. Don’t remember about the others, but Snopes is longer completely trustworthy, they lost some of that trust this year and a fair amount of credibility along with it. They should never have got into politics in the first place as they aren’t neutral there and cannot be trusted to be neutral.

I see this as just another chapter in the battle for the degree of control that “approved” propaganda will have over all media reporting outlets. One that will only result in greater polarization. Today they are saying they’ll just mark the story as fake or true or in between and still shareable no matter what. But the way it will go in the long run is that the progressives will not stop there. Their goal to actually censor “unapproved news” from reaching the Facebook audience and eventually as the needle is moved, kick it off the internet entirely. Or “no-platform” it as the geeks would say.


#18

What could possibly go wrong?


#19

10 - 15 years ago, fake news was limited to the tabloids in the checkout line and the supermarket.

Things like, “Oshkosh woman sees Elvis in her mashed potatoes” or “Woman marries space alien, and is expecting a human/space hybrid”

Now it’s easier to stick fake news on Facebook feeds. I read about a town in Romania where teens make money by planting Facebook fake stories. They get paid by click.

They found that certain topics received lots of clicks, such as this past election.

Just yesterday, I saw an article somewhere about a makeover that an actress went through, but the headline was about one actress, the lead paragraph that was visible in the link was about another actress.

Personally, if something to me sounds implausible, I look for the story in other news sites. If I only see it in just one fringe source, I usually don’t give it much credence.


#20

All the more reason to trust them. “Unapproved” media sources could be some teenagers in Macedonia.

We’ll find out very quickly whether they can be trusted. Don’t remember about the others, but Snopes is longer completely trustworthy, they lost some of that trust this year and a fair amount of credibility along with it.

No source is “completely trustworth”. But Snopes is better than most.

They should never have got into politics in the first place as they aren’t neutral there and cannot be trusted to be neutral.

They are as neutral as you can get. What sort of standards are you proposing for “neutrality”?

I see this as just another chapter in the battle for the degree of control that “approved” propaganda

Your use of the biased word “propaganda” is noted. Apparently it is not so easy to be a neutral news source as you imagine.

Today they are saying they’ll just mark the story as fake or true or in between and still shareable no matter what. But the way it will go in the long run is that the progressives will not stop there.

Ah, yes. The old “slippery slope” argument. It is also noted that you automatically assign this move to reduce fake news as a “progressive” movement. I would think that conservatives would want to reduce fake news too.

Their goal to actually censor “unapproved news” from reaching the Facebook audience and eventually as the needle is moved, kick it off the internet entirely. Or “no-platform” it as the geeks would say.

Sounds like you are cheerleading for the fake news cause.

The fact is there is no left-wing conspiracy here. The third-party fact checkers value their reputations and if they go beyond their stated goals, it hurts their reputation. They have no incentive to do that. The only reason to oppose the steps Facebook is taking is to keep fake news polluting the media.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.