I can't help but think of The Onion's take on Wikipedia [1]. It's more accurate to say that this AI is fact-checking citations. There are lots of ways you can

I can't help but think of The Onion's take on Wikipedia [1]. It's more accurate to say that this AI is fact-checking citations. There are lots of ways you can skew or fabircate information on Wikipedia. One well known way is to create some source for a claim and then cite it on Wikipedia. What will an AI do in this case? 3-4 years ago I stood in Menlo Park when Mark Zuckerberg got up and announced in response to the misinformation issues of the 2016 election that an effort would be made to fact check articles. My immediate thought, which hasn't changed, is "that's never going to work". You will always find edge cases where reasonable people would disagree but that's not even the big problem. The big problem is that there are lots of people who aren't the slightest bit interested in the "truth". I've heard it say that whatever ridiculous claim you want to fabricate, you can find 30% of Americans who will believe it. As soon as you start trying to label content as truthful or not, you won't change the minds of most people. For many you will be contradicting their world view and you'll simply be dismissed as "biases" or "fake news". I honestly don't know what the solution to this is. I do think sharing links on Facebook itself was probably a mistake for many reasons. So this effort to fact check citations just seems more of the same doomed policy. Disclaimer: Ex-Facebooker. [1]: https://www.theonion.com/wikipedia-celebrates-750-years-of-american-independence-1819568571 https://www.theonion.com/wikipedia-celebrates-750-years-of-a...