4 ms·

> Since fake news is nearly by definition opinion I don't think this statement is true. I googled "example of fake news" and the first article gave a good coun

by swombat 10y ago

> Since fake news is nearly by definition opinion I don't think this statement is true. I googled "example of fake news" and the first article gave a good counter-argument: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/facebook-fake-news-stories-zuckerberg_us_5829f34ee4b0c4b63b0da2ea http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/facebook-fake-news-stori... > One example of fake news is this anti-Hillary Clinton story from the faux Denver Guardian, which declared in all caps: “FBI AGENT SUSPECTED IN HILLARY EMAIL LEAKS FOUND DEAD IN APPARENT MURDER-SUICIDE.” > Everything about the article was made up, from the city where the crime supposedly occurred (there is no Walkerville, Maryland), to the quote from “Walkerville Police Chief Pat Frederick.” (A town with a similar spelling ― Walkersville ― does exist, but doesn’t even have a police department.) This is not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of simple fact. An organisation with the reach and revenues of facebook, which has become a de facto conduit for news on a scale unparalleled before, does have a responsibility to civil society to not corrode it from the inside by acting as a giant megaphone for completely made up crap.

kirykl 10y ago
Something like this is already covered under libel law (in the US) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_malice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_malice Labeling it as fake news is too broad, hence new-speak. Call it what it is 'libel'
bluecalm 10y ago
I don't know man. Anyone can go out and shout random things to people on the street. Anyone can make a website and put made up stuff there or maybe a blog, or a a micro-blog, maybe Twitter account. It seems Facebook is organized around people and their "walls" where they can put w/e they please. If people want to follow such person and share their content it's really on those people not the platform provider.
- eli_gottlieb 10y ago
  >If people want to follow such person and share their content it's really on those people not the platform provider. The operative problem here is that Facebook has a monopoly or near-monopoly on being the platform. Monopolies come with responsibilities.
- feketegy 10y ago
  Facebook is not just a platform provider in this case, because it has algorithms which decides what content will show up on users' news feed, therefore it's filtering content (even though it's a script). By this it could be said that the algorithm acts as an editor over content and in Germany this kind of filtering/moderation/censoring has laws and responsibilities.

by swombat 10y ago

kirykl 10y ago

Something like this is already covered under libel law (in the US) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_malice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_malice Labeling it as fake news is too broad, hence new-speak. Call it what it is 'libel'

bluecalm 10y ago

I don't know man. Anyone can go out and shout random things to people on the street. Anyone can make a website and put made up stuff there or maybe a blog, or a a micro-blog, maybe Twitter account. It seems Facebook is organized around people and their "walls" where they can put w/e they please. If people want to follow such person and share their content it's really on those people not the platform provider.

eli_gottlieb 10y ago
>If people want to follow such person and share their content it's really on those people not the platform provider. The operative problem here is that Facebook has a monopoly or near-monopoly on being the platform. Monopolies come with responsibilities.
feketegy 10y ago
Facebook is not just a platform provider in this case, because it has algorithms which decides what content will show up on users' news feed, therefore it's filtering content (even though it's a script). By this it could be said that the algorithm acts as an editor over content and in Germany this kind of filtering/moderation/censoring has laws and responsibilities.