Facebook will begin blocking ads for Pages that share fake news

[William Gayde]

The term "fake news" began receiving attention during the 2016 presidential election. While often thrown around today to delegitimize any article that the speaker doesn't like, "real" fake news has become a growing problem online.

One such widespread article from the election stated Pope Francis had endorsed Donald Trump for president when in fact he made no such statement. Many inaccurate stories like this one are believed to have influenced voters on Facebook. As a response, the social network has put in place numerous policies to combat fake news.

Their goal is to fight bogus news by:

• Disrupting the economic incentives to create false news;
• Building new products to curb the spread of false news; and
• Helping people make more informed decisions when they encounter false news.

Today Facebook announced an additional defense against fake news and other viral hoaxes shared on its social network.

Currently, advertisers are not allowed to run ads that link to stories that have been marked as false by third-party fact checkers. The new policy goes one step further by banning Pages that repeatedly engage in sharing false stories from advertising on Facebook. If a Page stops sharing false news though, they may be eligible to start running ads again.

There are two key motives that would lead one to post a false article: money and influence. Facebook claims to have found instances of Pages using ads to build their audiences and more broadly distribute fake news. Stopping someone's influence is difficult but since Facebook controls the advertising, they can easily reduce the profit generated by such sites.

This is just one part of Facebook's three-pronged approach to stopping false news. Facebook can only do so much prevention though as the final decision ultimately comes down to the reader. Facebook encourages readers to be skeptical of headlines and look for other reports from reputable sources.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/70756-facebook-begin-blocking-ads-pages-share-fake-news.html

 

[cliffordcooley]

If the shares are proven to be fake and it continues to be a problem, how about the removal of said page.

 

[bmw95]

I wonder if this includes satire news sites like the onion.

 

[alabama man]

So trump won? Fake news are banned?

 

[Dyson Parkes]

I wonder if this includes satire news sites like the onion.

I would hope that sites that are run for amusements sake and who try to make it as clear as possible that they are in no way a legitimate source of news would be classed as 'entertainment' rather than 'news' by whatever algorithm is handling this.
If they can actually figure it out, brilliant. I'd love to see more accurate information coming to the front.

Once they have this figured out can they figure out how to stop advertising on people sharing old junk? I'm sick of seeing stories that are sensationalist and outdated resurfacing because someone saw it and shared it again without checking dates - like the asteroid could hit Earth story from the early '00s that comes back every year or two.

 

[Uncle Al]

Of course, the ultimate question will be "who's fake news?". It comes from so many different directions and some has just a slight glimmer of truth, weeding out the 100% from the 90% fake news could be difficult. No wait, the President will tell us which is the real fake news ...... yeah! LOL

 

[davislane1]

Of course, the ultimate question will be "who's fake news?"

Anyone not explicitly supporting The Narrative.

 

[LaDawn McLemore]

No, the real question is who's deciding what's real and what's fake because if it's coming from MSM it sure as hell is fake propaganda. b.s. ..Another way to censor people
Good luck reading Silicon Valley suck-ups bullshit and seeing any justice in this world!

 

[cliffordcooley]

No, the real question is who's deciding what's real and what's fake because if it's coming from MSM it sure as hell is fake propaganda. b.s. ..Another way to censor people
Good luck reading Silicon Valley suck-ups bullshit and seeing any justice in this world!

Sounds about like our history books.

 

[Axle Grease]

Oh boy! The fake news merchants at CNN and Buzzfeed are going to be pissed!

 

[Magnums94]

That is a very good decision, except my problem with this is - How do you determine ''fake news''? Obviously there are sites *ahem* Buzzfeed, that are full of bullsh!t, but sometimes it takes time to discover whther or not the specific report was truly false.

In my opinion, they should have system implemented that checks the accuracy of specific news sites and instead of blocking them - just provide users with information of their accuracy so we ourselves can determine, wehther or not specific report can be trusted or that likely it's another liberal propaganda for example.

Freedom of speech and stuff. Don't block anything, just provide accuracy of specific site regarding their posted history of events. If you see some kind of report from site that has very low accuracy rating - take it with a huge grain of salt, before we know for 100% how it really was.

This is my idea.

 

[cliffordcooley]

The masters of misconception and confusion are those that rule over its people. Facebook will choose to remain in their pocket. That's just the way it will be. There is less chance of anyone rising up and overthrowing leadership, if we are all bickering between ourselves. That's the way those in power want to keep it. The problem with this so-called fake-news is that it's not being controlled, the fact that it is fake or true is not the issue.

 

[Nobina]

Did they do something about it yet or are they just talking about it every week?

 

[captaincranky]

....[ ]...There is less chance of anyone rising up and overthrowing leadership, if we are all bickering between ourselves.... [ ]...

Cliff, thou hast cut me to the quick. I thought our constant bickering, was the one bond we truly shared....

 

[commanderasus]

You are now logged into Facebook. ALERT ALERT FAKE WEBSITE You are now logged out. Please try to log in again in 1 million minutes.

 

[NicktheWVAHick]

"third party fact-checkers" ......translation.... "Communist Party fact-checkers" .....

 

[Skidmarksdeluxe]

....[ ]...There is less chance of anyone rising up and overthrowing leadership, if we are all bickering between ourselves.... [ ]...

Cliff, thou hast cut me to the quick. I thought our constant bickering, was the one bond we truly shared....

Can I cut you to the quick as well?

 

[p51d007]

Great...WHO makes the decision if it is fake or not? Now we have to have "thought" police?
Once we head down this path, they will never be able to turn around!

 

[Luurch]

So long as they don't mess with the Onion News Feed I will be fine, the other stuff like the shark swimming next to the k rail in Houston was just wrong.

 

[psycros]

That is a very good decision, except my problem with this is - How do you determine ''fake news''? Obviously there are sites *ahem* Buzzfeed, that are full of bullsh!t, but sometimes it takes time to discover whther or not the specific report was truly false.

In my opinion, they should have system implemented that checks the accuracy of specific news sites and instead of blocking them - just provide users with information of their accuracy so we ourselves can determine, wehther or not specific report can be trusted or that likely it's another liberal propaganda for example.

Freedom of speech and stuff. Don't block anything, just provide accuracy of specific site regarding their posted history of events. If you see some kind of report from site that has very low accuracy rating - take it with a huge grain of salt, before we know for 100% how it really was.

This is my idea.

And a darn good idea it is. Unfortunately their likely to rely on leftist propaganda mills like Factcheck.org to provide the "guidance" you describe. That will only drive the last of the free thinking celebs away from the platform, taking their followers with them. And that's exactly what Zuckerburg's potential competition is waiting for.

 

[Dyson Parkes]

Unfortunately their likely to rely on leftist propaganda mills like Factcheck.org to provide the "guidance" you describe.

Unless we start to see an aggregate rating based on multiple sources (RottenTomatoes style) drawing from Snopes, FactCheck, Conservative Fact Check, Politifact etc. Then it could be good.

 

[OutlawCecil]

Wow always so many people in support of fake news aka lack of removal of fake news. So much skepticism on who decides if it's fake news and that person being left or right wing. I for one am tired of seeing the ongoing trend of obvious fake news such as celebs dieing, vaccine's causing autism, and facebook won't be free soon. There's tons of non-political fake news out there that isn't going away and is a problem. Thank you Facebook for helping with this problem. I trust that only obvious fake news will be removed and not grey-area news.

 

[Dyson Parkes]

Wow always so many people in support of fake news aka lack of removal of fake news. So much skepticism on who decides if it's fake news and that person being left or right wing. I for one am tired of seeing the ongoing trend of obvious fake news...
I trust that only obvious fake news will be removed and not grey-area news.

Who decides what's "fake" and what's just biased, or what's parody? It's hard to make a system that accepts both left and right supporting facts as truth, while still being able to identify falsehood.
For example, It's very easy to put a spin on a topic and make it seem far nicer than it is, but it's still true. I'd rather hear about a 4/5 success rate than a 1/5 failure, but they're both the same thing. Add political satire into the mix and it's even harder to determine without destroying an entire field of humour.

That's what most of us are talking about here. Not supporting fake news or left/right wing, but debating how it could be managed best.

 

[OutlawCecil]

Who decides what's "fake" and what's just biased, or what's parody? It's hard to make a system that accepts both left and right supporting facts as truth, while still being able to identify falsehood.
For example, It's very easy to put a spin on a topic and make it seem far nicer than it is, but it's still true. I'd rather hear about a 4/5 success rate than a 1/5 failure, but they're both the same thing. Add political satire into the mix and it's even harder to determine without destroying an entire field of humour.

That's what most of us are talking about here. Not supporting fake news or left/right wing, but debating how it could be managed best.

Either way, we all agree it's a problem. I for one would rather have these questionable posts removed regardless than to see them get shared a million times (literally). An occasional inability to post something is much better than the ability to post as much fake stuff as you want. right?