Facebook Experiments With Solutions to Hoaxes and Fake News

[engine]

Facebook says it's still experimenting with ways to address the issue of fake news and hoaxes on its site. It's using a combination of methods, including user flagged capability with the drop down on the top right of a post.

It's also using signatories of Poynter’s International Fact Checking Code of Principles [poynter.org], which include Snopes, AP, ABC News, The Washington Post Fact Checker, and many others.

According to Facebook, you can still share a story, but it may come with a warning.

We’ve found that a lot of fake news is financially motivated. Spammers make money by masquerading as well-known news organizations, and posting hoaxes that get people to visit to their sites, which are often mostly ads. So we’re doing several things to reduce the financial incentives. On the buying side we’ve eliminated the ability to spoof domains, which will reduce the prevalence of sites that pretend to be real publications. On the publisher side, we are analyzing publisher sites to detect where policy enforcement actions might be necessary. Facebook Experiments With Solutions to Hoaxes and Fake News [newsroom.fb.com]

[keyplyr]

That's a really big phone :)

Good to hear Facebook is still looking for ways to combat the hoaxes & misinformation masquerading as authentic news stories, but I am still seeing it on FB; possibly not as much as during the US presidential campaigns, but it's still there and the bottom line... FB is publishing it.

There's also the huge problem of images annotated with misinformation and false facts, much of which also politically charged.

[nonstop]

this won't stop anyone people are emotionally charged and will just click continue

[jambam]

Cool censorship masquerading as a way of "combatting spammers" smells familiar.

[motorhaven]

Considering the political leanings of the some of the organizations they have on the fact checking list, it smells more dressing up of biased censorship.

I've seen "fact checking" sections of some news organizations state things are true which are not, and visa versa.

[2oddSox]

Personally I think the scourge of fake news and misinformation is an epidemic that is far beyond the scope and ability of Facebook (or other multinational organisations) to counter by themselves effectively. How on Earth can people be expected to decide for themselves what is real information and what isn't? What is needed is a government organisation that decides what is 'fake news' and what isn't. Something like a 'Department of Information' or a 'Department of Approved Thoughts'. We can increase taxes to pay for it (because it benefits everyone), but we can especially tax 'the rich'.

Something needs to be done.

[JAB Creations]

What is needed is a 95% reduction in governments run by an oligarchy who run a collusion of media companies producing propaganda and pretending it's real news.

John

[romerome]

This "Department of Information" is a great idea 2oddSox. I think there are some technologists in North Korea and China that have some experience in this area and could probably help us out . It's really important that "someone" is making sure we don't read stories we are not supposed to be reading.

[DaveOzric]

Certainly would be nice to have only real information.

[2oddSox]

@romerome, you are exactly right. We need to turn to the real experts in this field, namely North Korea and China (although I'd hate to exclude Russia, Cuba and Zimbabwe, as I'm sure they'd have a lot to offer on the topic). I just can't see the technicians at Facebook or Twitter, et al, being able to do this on their own and in a trustworthy manner. There are far too many establishment and upper-class careers, legacies and family futures on the line to allow the hoi polloi to determine what is to be discussed and what is 'fake news'.

Luckily for us, Facebook has chosen the Poynter Institute to act as a third party in this endeavour. I don't, for one minute, think that contributions from Google, the Gates Foundation, the Open Foundation (George Soros) etc would have any bearing on their impartiality. None whatsoever. Nope. Nada.