Snopes pulls out of fact-checking partnership with Facebook

[Bubbajim]

In brief: Previously hailed as a key part of Facebook's strategy to combat fake news, fact-checking website Snopes says it has ended its partnership with the social media platform.

Since the 2016 US Presidential election, Facebook has faced numerous accusations of helping spread misinformation and ‘fake news’. In December 2016 they announced their plans to address hoaxes and fake news, and one part of that strategy involved using third-party fact-checking organizations to help them combat the spread of dodgy claims and shady articles. One such organization was Snopes, which has now said in a statement that it is ending its partnership with Facebook.

Citing concerns around costs, David Mikkelson, founder of the site, said that Snopes wants to ‘determine with certainty that our efforts to aid any particular platform are a net positive for our online community, publication and staff.’

Reporting on the news, Poynter, who run PolitiFact and the International Fact-Checking Network, said that one major concern was that the process was overly laborious as ‘fact-checkers have to manually enter each false report they flag into a dashboard’ rather than being able to simply mark posts or report whole websites.

Users of Facebook will still see the occasional notice of ‘Disputed by 3rd Party Fact-Checkers’ when sharing an article, as Snopes’ departure doesn’t affect the rest of the program. Indeed, Snopes even said they “have not ruled out working with Facebook or any other platform in the future”, which could mean they re-join the partnership when time and money constraints are less of an issue.

While the news will be a minor blow to Facebook and its campaign to regain public trust, Snopes’ departure is unlikely to have much of an impact. In spite of more major controversies like the Cambridge Analytica debacle last year, earlier this week we reported that Facebook’s profit for Q4 2018 was a record $6.9 billion.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/78551-snopes-pulls-out-fact-checking-partnership-facebook.html

 

[Uncle Al]

LOL ..... another nail in the coffin of Fakebook ......

 

[khha4113]

Snopes is not better than FB!

 

[m4a4]

I mean, Snopes can be good for non-political fact checking. But otherwise, ha! not even worth my time.

And FB should never have tried to limit human stupidity so much in the first place. People that want to share [fake] news will still find a way in the interconnected age...

 

[loki1944]

That way they can lie independently.

 

[Misagt]

This is the pot calling the kettle black.

 

[psycros]

Every one of these so-called fact checking services that the MSM likes to quote were started by the same elite circle of liberal activists. It actually takes very little research to figure this out.

 

[cliffordcooley]

Sources within a closed door policy will always feed both sides to create confusion. It is part of their strategy to prevent being undermined. Fake news is the only thing you are going to get from politics, until they open their doors.

 

[JaredTheDragon]

Every one of these so-called fact checking services that the MSM likes to quote were started by the same elite circle of liberal activists. It actually takes very little research to figure this out.

I said roughly the same thing earlier, Psycros, but the TS staff deleted or censored my comment. Same circle, no matter where you go.

 

[Lew Zealand]

Every one of these so-called fact checking services that the MSM likes to quote were started by the same elite circle of liberal activists. It actually takes very little research to figure this out.

I said roughly the same thing earlier, Psycros, but the TS staff deleted or censored my comment. Same circle, no matter where you go.

Are you implying that conservatives don’t do fact checking on anybody? Which sites are run by conservatives?

 

[JaredTheDragon]

Are you implying that conservatives don’t do fact checking on anybody? Which sites are run by conservatives?

No. I wasn't implying anything of the sort, nor am I a "conservative". Any more questions? I'll be here all week.

 

[Lew Zealand]

Ah, I interpreted "elite circle of liberal activists" as an accusation of bias towards those fact checking sites and was wondering if there were any similar sites with less/no/opposing bias.

 

[JaredTheDragon]

Ah, I interpreted "elite circle of liberal activists" as an accusation of bias towards those fact checking sites and was wondering if there were any similar sites with less/no/opposing bias.

There are no major news sites without bias. All mainstream media has been subverted since the 1950s, if not before. That doesn't mean there aren't shreds of fact and truth to be found, but there is always a spin and tons of fakery in any major media source. Washington Post for example has an admitted $800M contract with Langley directly, but every other paper or site is also their tool. This site is no different, painted obvious by their censorship and extensive coverage of other Langley projects such as SpaceX or Apple. You will find plenty with opposing bias of course, because both sides are a manufactured controversy. Conservatives are just as dumb as liberals and most people will believe anything.

 

[Lew Zealand]

Washington Post for example has an admitted $800M contract with Langley directly, but every other paper or site is also their tool. This site is no different, painted obvious by their censorship and extensive coverage of other Langley projects such as SpaceX or Apple.

Too complicated. Slow "news" day? Put Apple or Musk in a headline. Ad dollars start rolling in from the fanboys and haters.

And everyone and their mom has a fat contract with AWS because they're cheaper. That doesn't make everyone their stooge. Again, too complicated.

 

[JaredTheDragon]

Too complicated. Slow "news" day? Put Apple or Musk in a headline. Ad dollars start rolling in from the fanboys and haters.

And everyone and their mom has a fat contract with AWS because they're cheaper. That doesn't make everyone their stooge. Again, too complicated.

Well I'm sorry it sounded too complicated. I really tried to break it down and simplify it for you, but if you're still having trouble parsing the concepts just look up the Church Committee Hearings in the 1970s. It's not conspiracy theory, it's Congressional Record. Perhaps it was before your time.

Out of curiosity, where did Amazon come into this discussion? We were talking about the media and Langley, not some e-store and their adbots. Since SpaceX and Apple and all the major tech companies are owned by the same people that own Langley's boys-in-black, we see them over and over in the media not because it sells ads, but because they pay sites like this directly to promote their toy projects. If your assessment were correct they would be pushing things that actually sell, not SpaceX or Tesla. We'd see articles about Tide Pods being superior tech to Downy or whatever instead of rants about Elan Mask's latest screw-up publicity stunts.