4 ms·

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

24 points by spking 10y ago

jwtadvice 10y ago
The current list of fact checkers: 1. ABC News (USA) Added Dec. 13th 2. Africa Check (South Africa, Senegal and Kenya) 3. Agência Lupa (Brazil) 4. Agência Pública - Truco (Brazil) Added Sept. 16th 5. Aos Fatos (Brazil) 6. AP (USA) Added Dec. 15th 7. Balkan Investigative Reporting Network Kosovo (Kosovo) 8. Climate Feedback (USA) Added Dec. 5th 9. Colombiacheck (Colombia) Added Nov. 11th 10. Chequeado (Argentina) 11. Demagog CZ (Czech Republic) 12. Demagog PL (Poland) 13. Doğruluk Payı (Turkey) 14. El Deber Data (Bolivia) 15. El Mercurio El Poligrafo (Chile) 16. El Objetivo La Sexta (Spain) 17. Factcheck.org (USA) 18. FactCheck Georgia (Georgia) 19. FactCheck Northern Ireland (UK) 20. FactCheck-Ukraine (Ukraine) 21. FactChecker.in (India) 22. FactsCan (Canada) 23. Faktabaari (Finland) 24. Full Fact (UK) 25. GKillCity.com (Ecuador) 26. Internews Kosova (Kosovo) 27. Istinomer (Serbia) 28. Melu Detektors (Latvia) Added Sept. 26th 29. Metamorphosis Foundation (Macedonia) 30. Observador (Portugal) 31. Ojo Publico (Peru) 32. Pagella Politica (Italy) 33. Pesa Check (Kenya) 34. PolitiFact (USA) 35. Snopes (USA) 36. South Asia Check (Nepal) 37. TheJournal.ie (Ireland) 38. UY Check (Uruguay) 39. Valheenpaljastaja (Finland) 40. VERA Files Fact Check (Philippines) Added Sept. 19th 41. VoxUkraine (Ukraine) 42. The Washington Post Fact Checker (USA) 43. Zašto ne Istinomjer (Bosnia & Herzegovina)
- Mao_Zedang 10y ago
  Nice to see a good mix of bipartisan sources. /s
jwtadvice 10y ago
Looking at the list of fack checkers includes a bunch of political organizations (NGOs) supported by the US government abroad. An example is a group in Kosovo that supports Serbian separation. Similarly, the group from Serbia is politically attached to a Eurocentrist worldview. The list includes, for example, an NGO supported by American investors and German and American academics in places like Ukraine. The promise that these are non-partisan sources is a nice garuntee that it is neither Democrat nor Republican. Unfortunately in many controversial political situations, there are far more opinions and perspectives than those shared by Republicans and Democrats. Given that Facebook has been accused of being a front for American political imperialism, I don't think this list of "truth deciders" filled with American investors and groups that have American intelligence and State Department support is going to improve things. At the very least it looks bad.
acchow 10y ago
Would business insider pass?
chmln 10y ago
This would only work if news were a mere presentation of facts. I'm afraid this will be used not the way its intended, but to silence and discredit any opposition to e.g. government's agenda.
ideonexus 10y ago
No fact-checking system will be perfect, but the perfect should not be the enemy of the good. Is there a gray area of what constitutes fake news and what a valid fact-checking body is? Of course, but flags don't stop the discussion, they enable discussion. If someone wants to go ahead and post something knowing it will be flagged, they can also post their argument for why they think it is being wrongly flagged. I am all for this. I've given up on posting snopes links to posts from friends who either tell me snopes is wrong or outright delete my comment. I live near DC, where a man recently opened fire in a restaurant because he read a fake news story that Hillary Clinton was running a child prostitution ring there. I'm sick of this. We are entitled to our own opinions, but we are not entitled to our own facts. The people in my feed who post fake news tend to be obnoxious and not very bright. It's a good customer service move to make the social network more pleasant. I know that the majority of my thoughtful friends on Facebook will greatly appreciate this.
- jwtadvice 10y ago
  During the Snowden Disclosures Facebook prevented me from posting direct links to the leaked documents and articles detailing their technical content. I do not trust Facebook as an information steward, and feel that the solution is much more dangerous than the problem. I personally do not face many problems with fake news, but have suffered a great deal from propaganda, surveillance and censorship. These solutions seem to double down on the costs, without offering a real benefit.
  - ideonexus 10y ago
    If FB outright banned your post and it did not contain graphic content, then that was wrong and an abuse on their part. But this modification isn't taking content down, they are adding a flag to posts identifying the source as suspect and, more importantly, why it is considered suspect. This is a much more transparent solution because we can see what FB is flagging, why it is being flagged, and openly discuss whether the flag is fair or not.
    - jwtadvice 10y ago
liamcardenas 10y ago
This is terrible. The world is too complicated to fact check. For example, "thousands lose their jobs due to minimum wage increase". Is this true or not? Well, some schools of economic thought will think its true, and some will not. Some might say the jobs were lost because there was an increase in automation and some might think the increase in automation was caused by the minimum wage. I truly hope that facebook doesn't try to fact check statements like this. There is inherent bias in the way we look at the world. i.e. "Assad bombs his own people" vs "Assad continues the fight against ISIS and Al Qaeda" Although an argument could be made that these two statements are not mutually exclusive, they are saying different things. It is quite possible that one will pass through the fact checker and one will not. Facebook is such a huge source of information, it makes me very concerned when a select few organizations have the ability to discredit information across the entire site.
- threeseed 10y ago
  I can't imagine Facebook is going to intervene in the examples you listed. Especially when they are factual, thoughtful disagreements on a particular topic. But seriously something has to be done about the situation. You can't just allow kids in Macedonia to say what is and isn't real in this world. And the fact is that what happened during the last election. And it is simply unacceptable for it to continue.
- toor2 10y ago
  > it makes me very concerned when a select few organizations have the ability to discredit information across the entire site One could look at this conversely and say it is concerning when people and oragnizations are able to use Facebook to successfully disseminate misinformation unchecked. I personally find both sides concerning and see no clear solution.
DrScump 10y ago
Meanwhile, they will continue to saturate your feed with ads for fake products... especially counterfeits.
throw7 10y ago
So the onion will be marked fake correct?

24 points by spking 10y ago

The current list of fact checkers: 1. ABC News (USA) Added Dec. 13th 2. Africa Check (South Africa, Senegal and Kenya) 3. Agência Lupa (Brazil) 4. Agência Pública - Truco (Brazil) Added Sept. 16th 5. Aos Fatos (Brazil) 6. AP (USA) Added Dec. 15th 7. Balkan Investigative Reporting Network Kosovo (Kosovo) 8. Climate Feedback (USA) Added Dec. 5th 9. Colombiacheck (Colombia) Added Nov. 11th 10. Chequeado (Argentina) 11. Demagog CZ (Czech Republic) 12. Demagog PL (Poland) 13. Doğruluk Payı (Turkey) 14. El Deber Data (Bolivia) 15. El Mercurio El Poligrafo (Chile) 16. El Objetivo La Sexta (Spain) 17. Factcheck.org (USA) 18. FactCheck Georgia (Georgia) 19. FactCheck Northern Ireland (UK) 20. FactCheck-Ukraine (Ukraine) 21. FactChecker.in (India) 22. FactsCan (Canada) 23. Faktabaari (Finland) 24. Full Fact (UK) 25. GKillCity.com (Ecuador) 26. Internews Kosova (Kosovo) 27. Istinomer (Serbia) 28. Melu Detektors (Latvia) Added Sept. 26th 29. Metamorphosis Foundation (Macedonia) 30. Observador (Portugal) 31. Ojo Publico (Peru) 32. Pagella Politica (Italy) 33. Pesa Check (Kenya) 34. PolitiFact (USA) 35. Snopes (USA) 36. South Asia Check (Nepal) 37. TheJournal.ie (Ireland) 38. UY Check (Uruguay) 39. Valheenpaljastaja (Finland) 40. VERA Files Fact Check (Philippines) Added Sept. 19th 41. VoxUkraine (Ukraine) 42. The Washington Post Fact Checker (USA) 43. Zašto ne Istinomjer (Bosnia & Herzegovina)

Mao_Zedang 10y ago
Nice to see a good mix of bipartisan sources. /s

jwtadvice 10y ago

Looking at the list of fack checkers includes a bunch of political organizations (NGOs) supported by the US government abroad. An example is a group in Kosovo that supports Serbian separation. Similarly, the group from Serbia is politically attached to a Eurocentrist worldview. The list includes, for example, an NGO supported by American investors and German and American academics in places like Ukraine. The promise that these are non-partisan sources is a nice garuntee that it is neither Democrat nor Republican. Unfortunately in many controversial political situations, there are far more opinions and perspectives than those shared by Republicans and Democrats. Given that Facebook has been accused of being a front for American political imperialism, I don't think this list of "truth deciders" filled with American investors and groups that have American intelligence and State Department support is going to improve things. At the very least it looks bad.

acchow 10y ago

Would business insider pass?

chmln 10y ago

This would only work if news were a mere presentation of facts. I'm afraid this will be used not the way its intended, but to silence and discredit any opposition to e.g. government's agenda.

ideonexus 10y ago

No fact-checking system will be perfect, but the perfect should not be the enemy of the good. Is there a gray area of what constitutes fake news and what a valid fact-checking body is? Of course, but flags don't stop the discussion, they enable discussion. If someone wants to go ahead and post something knowing it will be flagged, they can also post their argument for why they think it is being wrongly flagged. I am all for this. I've given up on posting snopes links to posts from friends who either tell me snopes is wrong or outright delete my comment. I live near DC, where a man recently opened fire in a restaurant because he read a fake news story that Hillary Clinton was running a child prostitution ring there. I'm sick of this. We are entitled to our own opinions, but we are not entitled to our own facts. The people in my feed who post fake news tend to be obnoxious and not very bright. It's a good customer service move to make the social network more pleasant. I know that the majority of my thoughtful friends on Facebook will greatly appreciate this.

jwtadvice 10y ago
During the Snowden Disclosures Facebook prevented me from posting direct links to the leaked documents and articles detailing their technical content. I do not trust Facebook as an information steward, and feel that the solution is much more dangerous than the problem. I personally do not face many problems with fake news, but have suffered a great deal from propaganda, surveillance and censorship. These solutions seem to double down on the costs, without offering a real benefit.
- ideonexus 10y ago
  If FB outright banned your post and it did not contain graphic content, then that was wrong and an abuse on their part. But this modification isn't taking content down, they are adding a flag to posts identifying the source as suspect and, more importantly, why it is considered suspect. This is a much more transparent solution because we can see what FB is flagging, why it is being flagged, and openly discuss whether the flag is fair or not.
  - jwtadvice 10y ago

liamcardenas 10y ago

This is terrible. The world is too complicated to fact check. For example, "thousands lose their jobs due to minimum wage increase". Is this true or not? Well, some schools of economic thought will think its true, and some will not. Some might say the jobs were lost because there was an increase in automation and some might think the increase in automation was caused by the minimum wage. I truly hope that facebook doesn't try to fact check statements like this. There is inherent bias in the way we look at the world. i.e. "Assad bombs his own people" vs "Assad continues the fight against ISIS and Al Qaeda" Although an argument could be made that these two statements are not mutually exclusive, they are saying different things. It is quite possible that one will pass through the fact checker and one will not. Facebook is such a huge source of information, it makes me very concerned when a select few organizations have the ability to discredit information across the entire site.

threeseed 10y ago
I can't imagine Facebook is going to intervene in the examples you listed. Especially when they are factual, thoughtful disagreements on a particular topic. But seriously something has to be done about the situation. You can't just allow kids in Macedonia to say what is and isn't real in this world. And the fact is that what happened during the last election. And it is simply unacceptable for it to continue.
toor2 10y ago
> it makes me very concerned when a select few organizations have the ability to discredit information across the entire site One could look at this conversely and say it is concerning when people and oragnizations are able to use Facebook to successfully disseminate misinformation unchecked. I personally find both sides concerning and see no clear solution.

DrScump 10y ago

Meanwhile, they will continue to saturate your feed with ads for fake products... especially counterfeits.

throw7 10y ago

So the onion will be marked fake correct?