Facebook employees have reportedly created a task force to stop fake news stories

[Bigtruckseries]

I assumed US UNCUT was legitimate news because they had "Breaking News" on every story???

Wow - the moar you know huh?

 

[Cycloid Torus]

Wow - the moar you know huh?

Or, rather, the more we didn't know...that is how my friend feels when he finally gets it (yes, pal, they were lying, but it was supposed to be funny in a weird way).

 

[p51d007]

These organizations are some of the least trusted in the world. Forbidding content because it doesn't meet "their" truth standard is only going to magnify its impact.

Case in point: spirit cooking and "pizza." These turned up in the Podesta emails and were promptly and universally denounced by the media and so-called fact checkers as utter non-issues based on supposedly fake conspiracy theories.

Everyone saw this and it blew up. So now, if you supported Clinton, you are probably a supporter of a satanist pedophile. Because "fake."

Establishing a ministry of truth will only serve to empower that which you claim to want banished. If you want to stop the propagation of actual fake information, you have to make its subscribers look gullible not turn the sources into something sexy.

Just the opposite. I was saying the "only" way to stop the fake stories would be to vet them, before posting.
That goes against what I call "freedom" of speech. Personally, about 70% of the crap on the internet, tv, print etc, I don't care for, but, I'd fight against getting rid of if. When you start down that road, limiting someones right to express themselves, it's a road you can't turn around and go back on. What one person likes, another one won't, and it shouldn't be the party in power, that gets to make that decision. Everyone has the right to express themselves, but they don't have the right to be heard. The choice should be left up to the individual. Something comes on tv, if I don't like it, I don't watch it. When I see a story on the web, if it's something similar to "person A says all xxxx people should be killed", I will search the web to see if I can find verification. I'm not one of these types that sees something on the internet, and believes it at face value. THAT is the problem with FB/twitter. Someone sees something, forwards it on, before seeing if it is really true, and it blows up like a virus.

 

[mbrowne5061]

Just the opposite. I was saying the "only" way to stop the fake stories would be to vet them, before posting.
That goes against what I call "freedom" of speech. Personally, about 70% of the crap on the internet, tv, print etc, I don't care for, but, I'd fight against getting rid of if. When you start down that road, limiting someones right to express themselves, it's a road you can't turn around and go back on. What one person likes, another one won't, and it shouldn't be the party in power, that gets to make that decision. Everyone has the right to express themselves, but they don't have the right to be heard. The choice should be left up to the individual. Something comes on tv, if I don't like it, I don't watch it. When I see a story on the web, if it's something similar to "person A says all xxxx people should be killed", I will search the web to see if I can find verification. I'm not one of these types that sees something on the internet, and believes it at face value. THAT is the problem with FB/twitter. Someone sees something, forwards it on, before seeing if it is really true, and it blows up like a virus.

I should also have a right to accurate information - especially with a representative government that requires the population at least be somewhat educated.

Pre-internet, this wasn't too much a problem. The cost of publication was too high to be printing false stories - knowingly or not. You either printed facts, satire, or 'personal interest' pieces that had little impact on society, but the distinction was always clear because the writing was purposefully clear. There were no 'fake' stories. Closest you got was satire, and it was written in a way to make fun of politicians (or celebrities) regarding something that actually did happen - instead of making up an entirely fake situation.

I don't think anyone is championing against The Onion. Instead, they're attacking the "news" sources that publish blatantly false stories (both against the Left and Right), because they only need people to load the webpage (and specifically, the ads) to generate revenue. It isn't their money they 'lose' when they find out they were spoon fed BS, so they just move on with their lives instead of railing against the source.

 

[petert]

Yeah, good luck with that!

 

[Cycloid Torus]

Yeah, good luck with that!

Sincerely, good luck with that... it is important to a free society and worth thinking over and speaking out.

 

[mbrowne5061]

Yeah, good luck with that!

Why should it be impossible? From a practicality standpoint, its not. Not even a little. Just introduce a tagging system that accompanies the domain system - and you have to select a tag (much like you choose between .com, .net. .org, etc) when you register a domain. Those tags could be pretty much anything, but should be somewhat regulated (and the policies actually enforced). Keep the 'trusted news' site tag reserved for investigative journalism sources (NYT, WSJ, BBC, etc) much like how .edu domains are reserved for registered universities, but let anyone register a 'satire' or 'social news' site. Browsers could then display just what 'kind' of site it is with a simple click.

The trouble is with people and the 'not muh internetz' attitude a lot of them have. The internet will always be completely unregulated thanks to projects like Tor, and technologies like P2P and blockchains, but I think this past year has taught us that perhaps the World Wide Web should not be unregulated. Too many lies traveled way too fast, too far, were believed by too many people.

 

[davislane1]

The trouble is with people and the 'not muh internetz' attitude a lot of them have. The internet will always be completely unregulated thanks to projects like Tor, and technologies like P2P and blockchains, but I think this past year has taught us that perhaps the World Wide Web should not be unregulated. Too many lies traveled way too fast, too far, were believed by too many people.

And just like we predicted when they reclassified the Internet as a utility (and handed over ICANN), now begin the calls to regulate the web in the public interest.

 

[Cycloid Torus]

And just like we predicted when they reclassified the Internet as a utility (and handed over ICANN), now begin the calls to regulate the web in the public interest.

Similarly, I would like the federal highway system unregulated, so I could move my herd of sheep to summer pasture up and down I-95 - but, I guess a bit of regulation for the public good is warranted.

 

[davislane1]

Similarly, I would like the federal highway system unregulated, so I could move my herd of sheep to summer pasture up and down I-95 - but, I guess a bit of regulation for the public good is warranted.

Very poor analogy. Regulation of speech is not the same as regulation of roadways. That's like saying baseball players shouldn't be allowed to use pine tar because golf balls don't have seams. It's not even tangentially related.

What you are advocating for is the same thing China, Iran, North Korea, and all the others who censor web content support: "the curtailment of false information."

Please, dude.

 

[Cycloid Torus]

Very poor analogy. Regulation of speech is not the same as regulation of roadways. That's like saying baseball players shouldn't be allowed to use pine tar because golf balls don't have seams. It's not even tangentially related.

What you are advocating for is the same thing China, Iran, North Korea, and all the others who censor web content support: "the curtailment of false information."

Please, dude.

Actually, it was meant to be funny... but, being the internet, we seem to risk being taken seriously...maybe it should have a label?

 

[mbrowne5061]

What you are advocating for is the same thing China, Iran, North Korea, and all the others who censor web content support: "the curtailment of false information."

No, what we are advocating is the classification of content. China, Iran, and the DPRK all actively block and remove "undesirable" content, regardless of context or factuality. What we're proposing is adding some additional meta data to the HTTP/S and other ICANN standards, that allow browsers and social networks (and therefore users) to easily identify and visually flag when a story is coming from an accredited news agency (BBS/NYT/WSJ), an information aggregator (Neowin, Techspot, most other topic-specific sites), Satirists, or from known publishers of false stories. It might even make it possible for Facebook to have their news feed entirely run by bots, by simply forcing tag-specific feeds that are rank-sorted by trends and link-backs.

You could also make domain tags it opt-in. The benefit being that getting access to the "accredited news" domain tag means people are more likely to trust the content from your site, and the downside of not being tagged could be a browser message or a flag on social media letting you know that the site is unclassified. This should mean more traffic for qualified news sites, and thus increased ad revenues, and better ad targeting for all, increasing ad rates.

 

[davislane1]

Actually, it was meant to be funny... but, being the internet, we seem to risk being taken seriously...maybe it should have a label?

Convenient.

No, what we are advocating is the classification of content.

You mean to tell me they don't use a classification system in China? They just point and shoot?

We said reclassification would eventuate in regulation, which many people argued would never happen. You are now advocating for regulation (which wasn't supposed to happen) on the premise that adding tags isn't going to result in censorship, which we say is going to happen.

You'll excuse me for doubting a group of people who have been consistently wrong.

 

[Cycloid Torus]

I was actually seeing it as a self-classification. By self-classifying as a 'parody' site, the 'big liar' would have broader license to exaggerate and invert the truth without risking defamation suits. Inversely, those sites purporting to be 'real news' would have a professional requirement to double check facts and limit fiction in pursuit of revenues.

 

[mbrowne5061]

You mean to tell me they don't use a classification system in China? They just point and shoot?

They don't. They use a key wording system, not a tagging system. Topics are banned, writing styles are not (aside from blatant falsehoods, knowingly published as false)

 

[davislane1]

I was actually seeing it as a self-classification. By self-classifying as a 'parody' site, the 'big liar' would have broader license to exaggerate and invert the truth without risking defamation suits. Inversely, those sites purporting to be 'real news' would have a professional requirement to double check facts and limit fiction in pursuit of revenues.

1. Parody sites are already labeled for this reason.
2. In other words, censorship. It is not the job of the gov't to make sure news websites report facts. "You will not receive revenue if you don't report what XYZ agency considers factual" is the premise of every fascist and communist media control ever conceived. But I get it. Our guys are the one's who are going to do it right. Because 'Murica. And because we said this won't go beyond our absolute best intentions.

They don't. They use a key wording system, not a tagging system. Topics are banned, writing styles are not (aside from blatant falsehoods, knowingly published as false)

Method does not trump function.

 

[petert]

Is it funny how people are speaking of free speech but as soon as the candidate they don't wanna vote comes into discussion they go full Nazi. Anything goes, including contradicting whatever they said 5 minutes ago because they don't want free speech but only to vent their anger. It is not free speech if only you and people having similar political opinion are entitled to voice an opinion.

 

[mbrowne5061]

1. Parody sites are already labeled for this reason.
2. In other words, censorship. It is not the job of the gov't to make sure news websites report facts. "You will not receive revenue if you don't report what XYZ agency considers factual" is the premise of every fascist and communist media control ever conceived. But I get it. Our guys are the one's who are going to do it right. Because 'Murica. And because we said this won't go beyond our absolute best intentions.

Is it funny how people are speaking of free speech but as soon as the candidate they don't wanna vote comes into discussion they go full Nazi. Anything goes, including contradicting whatever they said 5 minutes ago because they don't want free speech but only to vent their anger. It is not free speech if only you and people having similar political opinion are entitled to voice an opinion.

Except because the tagging system would enforced by an independent, international organization, wouldn't ad agencies adjusting their sales models be the definition of market correction?

And what are your thoughts on the Dewey Decimal system? A standardized tool for identifying a type of publication and the context of its contents? Or tool of fascist oppression? Because that is essentially what cycloid and I are arguing for: some kind of Dewey Decimal system for content on the Word Wide Web (not the internet as a whole).

Also, parody sites are almost never labeled as such - because that is exactly the point of parody. Closest you get might be a small-font disclaimer at the very bottom of the page.

 

[davislane1]

Except because the tagging system would enforced by an independent, international organization, wouldn't ad agencies adjusting their sales models be the definition of market correction?

And what are your thoughts on the Dewey Decimal system? A standardized tool for identifying a type of publication and the context of its contents? Or tool of fascist oppression? Because that is essentially what cycloid and I are arguing for: some kind of Dewey Decimal system for content on the Word Wide Web (not the internet as a whole).

No, you aren't. You are arguing for the creation of a truth keeper. Per your own words, an international organization that has the power to decide what is labeled fact and what is labeled fiction. All in the name of protecting people from false information.

That will lead to censorship, just like reclassification has lead to calls to regulate in the public interest, which many said wasn't going to happen.

Also, parody sites are almost never labeled as such - because that is exactly the point of parody. Closest you get might be a small-font disclaimer at the very bottom of the page.

Either parody sites are labeled or they aren't. You can't have it both ways.

 

[Cycloid Torus]

@davislane1 If asked, I would describe myself as a Conservative with a care for the less fortunate. I do not like government regulation because it clogs stuff up, wastes money, gets it wrong too often. I agree with your antipathy for any kind of 'Truthiness Agency' as I do like and will fight to protect free speech (including all those folks who might disagree with me).

However, I do have an issue with scoundrels - slick, smart, malicious folks who prey on the weak. In hopes that you have a similar feeling, we have been discussing possible solutions to a real issue.

My current thought is that folks who do parodies should be willing to self-classify themselves - as there are few Onion level players who are well known for their style. Those other folks, who use parodies to manipulate, will not self-classify. They mean to deceive. So, I think there should be some kind of legal redress - to reduce frauds perpetuated in this manner. The legal redress need not be draconian, but it must be speedy.

Do you have any thoughts as to how this could be done?

 

[davislane1]

@davislane1However, I do have an issue with scoundrels - slick, smart, malicious folks who prey on the weak. In hopes that you have a similar feeling, we have been discussing possible solutions to a real issue.

My current thought is that folks who do parodies should be willing to self-classify themselves - as there are few Onion level players who are well known for their style. Those other folks, who use parodies to manipulate, will not self-classify. They mean to deceive. So, I think there should be some kind of legal redress - to reduce frauds perpetuated in this manner. The legal redress need not be draconian, but it must be speedy.

Do you have any thoughts as to how this could be done?

1. Teach people, children in particular, to critically think. Tricksters tend to be reasonably intelligent dark triad types* who exploit people's general tendency to not question things that look "official." They can game any system and subvert any regulation because those things do not solve the actual problem (lack of critical thought).

2. Teach people how to vet information for themselves. Creating a special organization to perform this task merely opens it up to the same problems as (1). Specifically, highly intelligent and/or influential manipulators can simply work their way into the organization and deceive with an official seal, which is magnitudes more harmful than fake stories published by randoms. If people understand how to verify information themselves, you solve the problem of fake information becoming "true."

*The exception being social justice types who just lie.

 

[ATLVM]

The ONLY way to stop "fake" news on Fakebook, would be to NOT allow stories to post, unless they are vetted.
"instant" access to everything, these days, prevents stories from being vetted properly.

BINGO!

 

[ATLVM]

During the election I was checking snopes on just about every story or news post. Almost all completely fake or a half truth. I bet the majority just accept it for truth.

Majority? LOL I am pretty sure everyone except you and me and maybe 5 people that have integrity take it at face value.

Still irritates me to this day, a story ran about a 17 year old kid over the summer in NY that made over $72M selling stock.. ran by just about every major news paper in USA... no one bothered to check the story.. They ALL were wrong since the story was fake and that teen said he made it up, because he wanted a good a story to tell his friends.. LOL.

The days of "news" are gone its called "stories" now.. because there is no truth to most of them.

http://money.cnn.com/2014/12/15/media/mohammed-islam/index.html

 

[ATLVM]

Zuckerberg: Facebook had no effect on the election.

Zuckerberg: We're creating a task force to stop fake news.

Nothing like contradiction to make a good day huh? I don't believe Facebook changed the election.. I think its simply easy to point fingers when things don't go our way.

 

[ATLVM]

No, you aren't. You are arguing for the creation of a truth keeper. Per your own words, an international organization that has the power to decide what is labeled fact and what is labeled fiction. All in the name of protecting people from false information.

That will lead to censorship, just like reclassification has lead to calls to regulate in the public interest, which many said wasn't going to happen.



Either parody sites are labeled or they aren't. You can't have it both ways.

Classic case of taking things out of context... you highlighted what you wanted to SEE, but what he WROTE is completely different.

He SAID parody sites do not self label, as in "we are a parody site, nothing on here is real"... Then he goes on to say that they MIGHT put a small disclaimer at the bottom of the page.. he didn't say they do in FACT put a disclaimer.

Therefore it's not both ways you didn't read completely his point of view.