Facebook Journalism Project Battles 'Fake News' Problem

[Guest]

Facebook announced that it has partnered up with media outlets, fact-checkers, and others to help combat the spread of misinformation on its social network. Will this prove more effective than the company's previous efforts?

Facebook Journalism Project Battles 'Fake News' Problem : Read more

 

[BadActor]

What this is, is censorship, pure and simple. The problem is that truth isn't always a black and white thing. What may be true for one person isn't necessarily true for another. Therefore, whoever is deciding what is fake and what is not is going to influence what is seen by their own bias, which is inescapable. Just wish FB would believe that most people are able to discern the truth and to decide which "news" is fake or not.

Personally, I'm pretty certain FB's version of the truth isn't going to jive with my own.

 

[falchard]

Fake News on Facebook is a serious problem. They report almost as many fake news stories as CNN and MSNBC.

 

[cwolf78]

I think what you are describing is the concept of relativism which states that "points of view have no absolute truth or validity within themselves, but rather only relative, subjective value according to differences in perception and consideration."

If anything, it would be helpful if FB takes a more traditional newspaper or site approach and have opinion or blog pieces clearly differentiated from actual "news" articles that are just reporting on the facts of a situation. That being said, I must be one of the few that don't rely on social media for news. It just seems weird and potentially problematic to me.

"Truth stands, even if there be no public support. It is self-sustained."
Mahatma Ghandi

 

[dstarr3]

People relying on social media for news is the real problem here.

 

[WFang]

"Just wish FB would believe that most people are able to discern the truth and to decide which "news" is fake or not."

-I laughed! But I agree with your intended wish.. that people would actually be smart enough.. but I think there is a huge FB population that is provably NOT smart enough, no matter what FB believes.

 

[realnoize]

Thruth isn't something variable or something that could differ from person to person. Truth is defined usually by something that's provable, usually backed up by established facts.

When people say "something could be true for someone but not for someone else", they are mixing "truths" with "beliefs". Truth doesn't have to be believed in. It is a truth, plain and simple. Your point of view doesn't matter. It's a truth.

The problem with fake news is that many outlets these days are publishing stories trying to pass them as legitimate news, but are instead either an opinion piece, or something based on rumors or informations that can't be verified.

I agree that the world is not a binary entity. It is not merely 0s or 1s. There's a whole spectrum of variables to take into account. And I also agree that people SHOULD be able to separate the BS from the real stuff, but we all know that's not the case. People usually tend to "believe" as truth whatever seems to validate their pre-conceived opinions. Even if they're based entirely on non-proven "facts". THIS is the heart of the problem.

An innitiative to label "fake news", "opinion pieces", "parody websites" or "unreliable sources" as such, isn't censorship. Censorship would be to prevent those from appearing on the platform, which, as far as I know, isn't what this would be about. This would merely be a label to inform people about the content they're about to click on. Recent studies have demonstrated that people in general are more enclined to believed whatever has been shared by their friends on Facebook, than stuff coming from serious and dedicated news sources. This is a huge problem.

 

[BadActor]

Thruth isn't something variable or something that could differ from person to person. Truth is defined usually by something that's provable, usually backed up by established facts.

When people say "something could be true for someone but not for someone else", they are mixing "truths" with "beliefs". Truth doesn't have to be believed in. It is a truth, plain and simple. Your point of view doesn't matter. It's a truth.

The problem with fake news is that many outlets these days are publishing stories trying to pass them as legitimate news, but are instead either an opinion piece, or something based on rumors or informations that can't be verified.

I agree that the world is not a binary entity. It is not merely 0s or 1s. There's a whole spectrum of variables to take into account. And I also agree that people SHOULD be able to separate the BS from the real stuff, but we all know that's not the case. People usually tend to "believe" as truth whatever seems to validate their pre-conceived opinions. Even they're based entirely on non-proven "facts". THIS is the heart of the problem.

An innitiative to label "fake news", "opinion pieces", "parody websites" or "unreliable sources" as such, isn't censorship. Censorship would be to prevent those from appearing on the platform, which, as far as I know, isn't what this would be about. This would merely be a label to inform people about the content they're about to click on. Recent studies have demonstrated that people in general are more enclined to believed whatever has been shared by their friends on Facebook, than stuff coming from serious and dedicated news channels. This is a huge problem.

Let me give you an example. The facts: Two different married men catch their wives having an affair and decide to file for divorce. Although the basic facts are the same, one man is happy about if because he was looking for a reason to file for divorce while the other is sad because he loved his wife. The truth, based on the same facts, can be different for two people based on circumstances, experiences, or even things like culture.

My point is, no one can decide what the truth is for you, but you.

 

[shrapnel_indie]

QUALITY Journalism has died... years ago... At least when it comes to political angles and government. Even the MAJOR news outlets will gladly publish/print/broadcast "Fake NEWS" when it fits their agenda. and views. Sometimes they even get caught in the act. One point they had scapegoats for such things (IIRC, think back to Bush Jr and the lies aired on CBS about his service record.) Think of more recently of CNN being busted for editing video segments to remove damning evidence that the speakers in the video, who were touted as talking for peace, were actually not asking for peace at all.

Yes, "fake news" exists outside the networks too. But I see the crack down on "fake news" as being a little too broad in scope... to the point of shutting down "unauthorized" news sources not controlled by big money.

 

[littleleo]

Fox News created the fake news landslide. I heard it is banded in Canada because of that. I've spoken with people that watch their shows, and they believe all the Fox "News" stories regardless of the facts. Sometimes people don't want to know the truth it would destroy their world view, and comfort zone.

Perhaps it would be better to offer 3 levels of news. 1. unfiltered, un-fact-checked news from all sites and sources; 2. Filtered news, removing all news from known fake news sites and sources; 3. Filtered and verified news adding fact checking of all stories before posting.

I'm sure number 3 would be the least popular most people can't handle the truth (isn't that right Jack).

People are more inclined to read news with sensational headlines so the news organizations air news designed to bring in viewers, not convey the truth. Stations that just tell the real news w/o leaning it one way or the other or exaggerating the facts tend to do poorly in ratings.

Case in point no major news network is talking about the nand shortage yet, but you hear about a cat that used to ride a train everyday in Japan that died. One can really affect you and your business the other not at all unless you live in Japan but you can see which was reported in the USA.

 

[BadActor]

It's a complex issue. Even facts can be misrepresented, spun, taken in or out of context. Being old and cynical, I generally believe nothing until proven otherwise. Perhaps the best measure is to wait and see what kind of fruit a tree bears. You'll have your answer as to the truth, like it or mot.

 

[dstarr3]

Thruth isn't something variable or something that could differ from person to person. Truth is defined usually by something that's provable, usually backed up by established facts.

When people say "something could be true for someone but not for someone else", they are mixing "truths" with "beliefs". Truth doesn't have to be believed in. It is a truth, plain and simple. Your point of view doesn't matter. It's a truth.

The problem with fake news is that many outlets these days are publishing stories trying to pass them as legitimate news, but are instead either an opinion piece, or something based on rumors or informations that can't be verified.

I agree that the world is not a binary entity. It is not merely 0s or 1s. There's a whole spectrum of variables to take into account. And I also agree that people SHOULD be able to separate the BS from the real stuff, but we all know that's not the case. People usually tend to "believe" as truth whatever seems to validate their pre-conceived opinions. Even they're based entirely on non-proven "facts". THIS is the heart of the problem.

An innitiative to label "fake news", "opinion pieces", "parody websites" or "unreliable sources" as such, isn't censorship. Censorship would be to prevent those from appearing on the platform, which, as far as I know, isn't what this would be about. This would merely be a label to inform people about the content they're about to click on. Recent studies have demonstrated that people in general are more enclined to believed whatever has been shared by their friends on Facebook, than stuff coming from serious and dedicated news channels. This is a huge problem.

Let me give you an example. The facts: Two different married men catch their wives having an affair and decide to file for divorce. Although the basic facts are the same, one man is happy about if because he was looking for a reason to file for divorce while the other is sad because he loved his wife. The truth, based on the same facts, can be different for two people based on circumstances, experiences, or even things like culture.

My point is, no one can decide what the truth is for you, but you.

That has nothing to do with truth. That's perspective. Facts are facts, perspective is perspective. Facts influence perspective, but perspective does not influence fact.

 

[BadActor]

What is truth?

 

[ahnirv]

now, how about these clickbait garbage advertisements on this site?

 

[BadActor]

now, how about these clickbait garbage advertisements on this site?

Lol

 

[shrapnel_indie]

When people say "something could be true for someone but not for someone else", they are mixing "truths" with "beliefs". Truth doesn't have to be believed in. It is a truth, plain and simple. Your point of view doesn't matter. It's a truth.

Sounds a bit like the results of a recent high profile FBI investigation that was just pre-election in the U.S.

The problem with fake news is that many outlets these days are publishing stories trying to pass them as legitimate news, but are instead either an opinion piece, or something based on rumors or information that can't be verified.

I agree that the world is not a binary entity. It is not merely 0s or 1s. There's a whole spectrum of variables to take into account. And I also agree that people SHOULD be able to separate the BS from the real stuff, but we all know that's not the case. People usually tend to "believe" as truth whatever seems to validate their pre-conceived opinions. Even if they're based entirely on non-proven "facts". THIS is the heart of the problem.

An initiative to label "fake news", "opinion pieces", "parody websites" or "unreliable sources" as such, isn't censorship. Censorship would be to prevent those from appearing on the platform, which, as far as I know, isn't what this would be about. This would merely be a label to inform people about the content they're about to click on. Recent studies have demonstrated that people in general are more inclined to believed whatever has been shared by their friends on Facebook, than stuff coming from serious and dedicated news sources. This is a huge problem.

We have to watch labels though. It is common to mislabel something.... and not hard to have a conflict of interest that can lead to intentional mislabeling... especially if it is an inconvenient truth. We could easily also get to the point of inconvenient truth being labeled as "fake news" with "fake news" taking on the same stigma as "conspiracy theory." Where fact could potentially hide as "conspiracy theory" and be immediately dismissed because of the label, even if it is real.

For this labeling thing to have a chance to work, we need individuals/teams that are 100% independent of ANY AND ALL news sources AND political agendas. and other teams of the same or greater independence to police the the ones who label. Unfortunately... people can be bought... people have their own agendas... and those who have the ethics (and morals) to objectively do such labeling are getting fewer and fewer.

 

[shrapnel_indie]

Fox News created the fake news landslide. I heard it is banded in Canada because of that. I've spoken with people that watch their shows, and they believe all the Fox "News" stories regardless of the facts. Sometimes people don't want to know the truth it would destroy their world view, and comfort zone.

Perhaps it would be better to offer 3 levels of news. 1. unfiltered, un-fact-checked news from all sites and sources; 2. Filtered news, removing all news from known fake news sites and sources; 3. Filtered and verified news adding fact checking of all stories before posting.

I'm sure number 3 would be the least popular most people can't handle the truth (isn't that right Jack).

People are more inclined to read news with sensational headlines so the news organizations air news designed to bring in viewers, not convey the truth. Stations that just tell the real news w/o leaning it one way or the other or exaggerating the facts tend to do poorly in ratings.

Case in point no major news network is talking about the nand shortage yet, but you hear about a cat that used to ride a train everyday in Japan that died. One can really affect you and your business the other not at all unless you live in Japan but you can see which was reported in the USA.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with "cat stories" to help you out. It's "cat stories" instead of real and important news that can be a problem. Other types of "distraction stories" can be problematic too, keeping your from real stories that can impact your life. People have loved "Dirty Laundry" for ages, even to the point The Eagles had a song called "Dirty Laundry" which, interestingly enough, involved the NEWS ... before "fake news" was even a thing to do outside of Government Propaganda. Fact in point: Government officials stating leaked emails (published though Wikileaks) were edited by "the Russians" in spite of the authors of said emails stating that the emails (and its contents) were indeed theirs,

 

[realnoize]

Let me give you an example. The facts: Two different married men catch their wives having an affair and decide to file for divorce. Although the basic facts are the same, one man is happy about if because he was looking for a reason to file for divorce while the other is sad because he loved his wife. The truth, based on the same facts, can be different for two people based on circumstances, experiences, or even things like culture.

My point is, no one can decide what the truth is for you, but you.

Of course no one can decide what the truth is. Truth isn't something to be "decided". It just is.

There are no different truths at play in your examples. In both cases, them filing for divorce is truth.
One's happy about it. Also true. The other's sad, which is also true.

I don't get the last part of your post. "The truth, based on the same facts".... welll, those facts aren't the same to begin with. What's the same is that both filed for divorce. THAT part is the same for both. The other part is different.

What wouldn't be the truth would be assuming both are sad or both are happy about it. It wouldn't be a "different truth". It would be an unfounded assumption. An opinion. A belief. Nothing to do with "truth".

People are mixing "truths" with beliefs, opinions and assumptions.

What you think about something doesn't make it truth. What you assume others are thinking also doesn't make it truth. It's not "your truth". It's "your opinion".

 

[BadActor]

And why I raised the question of what is the truth. This is the inherent problem. A definition of truth that applies to everyone equally.

 

[caustin582]

Let me give you an example. The facts: Two different married men catch their wives having an affair and decide to file for divorce. Although the basic facts are the same, one man is happy about if because he was looking for a reason to file for divorce while the other is sad because he loved his wife. The truth, based on the same facts, can be different for two people based on circumstances, experiences, or even things like culture.

My point is, no one can decide what the truth is for you, but you.

You seem to have a bizarre definition of the word "truth." Your example has nothing to do with a difference in truth; it's just two people with different reactions and motivations. Facts ARE the truth, and the truth is singular and objective by definition.

 

[BadActor]

A fact is merely a fact. Truth is a determination made by an individual. Saying that some men are happy to get a divorce is a fact and also true for them. Saying that some men are sad to get a divorce is also a fact and true for those men, even though they are polar opposites. Truth isn't just facts, if it were, we would all agree on everything.

 

[bigpinkdragon286]

"There is only one honest reason for believing anything: because it is true."

The statement that, "truth is relative," is untrue and refutes itself. The consequences of beliefs such as this are catastrophic.

Strictly speaking, I have to agree that this is about censorship and nothing else. I am of the opinion, FB has no business censoring anything that is not already against the law in the country in which it is operating, whether fake or real.

Most reported news stories do not immediately effect people, except the weather, which is often wrong, so should we censor that as fake too? How much leeway shall be given? News to a great many people is nothing more than entertainment, so should we start banning fake entertainment next?

FB considering itself a bulwark of truth for masses of plebs is a very arrogant stance to take.

 

[IceMyth]

So they only realized this after US 2016 elections! They didn't know about all fake news that are posted around the world!
Personally, I believe FB at some point was supporting these fake news on away or another or simply by giving any excuse so the post won't be removed if get reported among other problems.

 

[timeconsumer]

A month ago Kai Ryssdal (NPR Marketplace) was reporting on this story (or a similar facet of it). He ended the segment with:

"Also, you know what's helpful? Critical Thinking."

Nailed it.

 

[wildkitten]

Fox News created the fake news landslide. I heard it is banded in Canada because of that. I've spoken with people that watch their shows, and they believe all the Fox "News" stories regardless of the facts. Sometimes people don't want to know the truth it would destroy their world view, and comfort zone.

Perhaps it would be better to offer 3 levels of news. 1. unfiltered, un-fact-checked news from all sites and sources; 2. Filtered news, removing all news from known fake news sites and sources; 3. Filtered and verified news adding fact checking of all stories before posting.

I'm sure number 3 would be the least popular most people can't handle the truth (isn't that right Jack).

People are more inclined to read news with sensational headlines so the news organizations air news designed to bring in viewers, not convey the truth. Stations that just tell the real news w/o leaning it one way or the other or exaggerating the facts tend to do poorly in ratings.

Case in point no major news network is talking about the nand shortage yet, but you hear about a cat that used to ride a train everyday in Japan that died. One can really affect you and your business the other not at all unless you live in Japan but you can see which was reported in the USA.

Ah Fox News, the whipping post of the left.

Well oddly no one can point to anything on the news side of Fox where they report fake news. People hate Fox News because of their OPINION shows which give a differing perspective of the other networks.

Actual fake news is that of NBC who edited the George Zimmerman 911 audio to make him sound racist by cutting out a question by the 911 operator. Fake news is the meme of "Hands up, don't shoot" when it came to the Micheal Brown case, something that never happened as even the Obama administration has had to come out and admit and where a fine police officer is off the force and hiding because his life is still under threat because of the lies. Fake news is a Rolling Stone article about a rape that never happened at the University of Virginia. Ironic how President Obama went to the very same Rolling Stone that published that infamous fake rape news story to complain about fake news.

The problem is the vast majority of "journalists" are no longer journalists, they are activists for their political beliefs. There is very little objective news reporting and when there is, people call that the fake news.