3 ms·

I also don't think they should take the responsability for it (pretty much like Torrent Trackers, or Youtube, when it comes to content distribution). But I thi

I also don't think they should take the responsability for it (pretty much like Torrent Trackers, or Youtube, when it comes to content distribution). But I think there could be some mechanisms in place, similar to how Youtube handles copyright claims - where upon reporting, or a request for a source from any Facebook user - the publication would get it's Reach capped, or the publication would be hidden, until further evidence is displayed. Now, there are a lot of problems with this approach - first it's user based (which has it's pros and cons), second it may be target for malicious activity and anti-competitive pratices - but on the other hand if the source was displayed, it would somehow protect them (at least briefly), without having the Reach capped, but still flagged if the source is dubious.

JamesMcMinn 10y ago
The problem with having to provide a source is that the majority of "fake news" type stories, even the ones that are true, come from anonymous sources "close to X" or "within Y". It also means every Onion story will be capped. Something at a publisher level, where the publisher themselves is given a fake news rating, rather than individual stories, might work, but even that is full of difficult to solve issues.
- libertine 10y ago
  Well, the Onion is considered a news or entertainment? Publishers always had reputation (good or bad) based on their work, which maybe could be displayed with a rating - the problem is when even those with good rep are wrong...
  - JamesMcMinn 10y ago
    The Onion is listed as a Media/news company on Facebook. For those that know what the Onion is, it's entertainment masquerading as news, but for those who don't know, it certainly looks a lot like news.
tullianus 10y ago
Yeah, this sounds prone to malicious abuse, mostly because of the subject matter. I've heard of occasional malicious use of Youtube copyright claims, but in the case of fake news on Facebook, the same system seems like it would devolve to Breitbart readers and Mother Jones readers dogpiling each the other source's articles to limit their reach in the short term. Come to think of it, that might not be the worst thing in the world.
- CM30 10y ago
  Until they start dogpiling the media that disagrees with both of their biases. Which already happens. If you're far enough on any side of a political spectrum, even reasonable news sounds fake to you.
Bartweiss 10y ago
> similar to how Youtube handles copyright claims This is a practical suggestion, but not one I find reassuring. The Youtube copyright system works fairly well from the perspective of big rights holders, but is relentlessly abused for both censorship and corporate overreach in taking down fair-use or even non-infringing content. That's basically the outcome I expect from a fake-news-takedown system, too. It would almost inevitably end up working for whoever was willing to throw the most time and money at manipulating content.

JamesMcMinn 10y ago

The problem with having to provide a source is that the majority of "fake news" type stories, even the ones that are true, come from anonymous sources "close to X" or "within Y". It also means every Onion story will be capped. Something at a publisher level, where the publisher themselves is given a fake news rating, rather than individual stories, might work, but even that is full of difficult to solve issues.

libertine 10y ago
Well, the Onion is considered a news or entertainment? Publishers always had reputation (good or bad) based on their work, which maybe could be displayed with a rating - the problem is when even those with good rep are wrong...
- JamesMcMinn 10y ago
  The Onion is listed as a Media/news company on Facebook. For those that know what the Onion is, it's entertainment masquerading as news, but for those who don't know, it certainly looks a lot like news.

tullianus 10y ago

Yeah, this sounds prone to malicious abuse, mostly because of the subject matter. I've heard of occasional malicious use of Youtube copyright claims, but in the case of fake news on Facebook, the same system seems like it would devolve to Breitbart readers and Mother Jones readers dogpiling each the other source's articles to limit their reach in the short term. Come to think of it, that might not be the worst thing in the world.

CM30 10y ago
Until they start dogpiling the media that disagrees with both of their biases. Which already happens. If you're far enough on any side of a political spectrum, even reasonable news sounds fake to you.

Bartweiss 10y ago

> similar to how Youtube handles copyright claims This is a practical suggestion, but not one I find reassuring. The Youtube copyright system works fairly well from the perspective of big rights holders, but is relentlessly abused for both censorship and corporate overreach in taking down fair-use or even non-infringing content. That's basically the outcome I expect from a fake-news-takedown system, too. It would almost inevitably end up working for whoever was willing to throw the most time and money at manipulating content.