SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Facebook to Prioritize 'Trustworthy' News Sources
Facebook Inc will begin to prioritize "trustworthy" news outlets on its stream of social media posts as it works to combat "sensationalism" and "misinformation," Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg said on Friday.
The company, which has more than 2 billion monthly users, said it will use surveys to determine rankings on how trustworthy news outlets are.
Zuckerberg outlined the shakeup in a post on Facebook, saying that starting next week the News Feed, the company's centerpiece product, would prioritize "high quality news" over less trusted sources.
"There's too much sensationalism, misinformation and polarization in the world today," Zuckerberg wrote.
"Social media enables people to spread information faster than ever before, and if we don't specifically tackle these problems, then we end up amplifying them," he wrote.
At the same time, Zuckerberg said the amount of news overall on Facebook would shrink to roughly 4 percent of the content on the News Feed from 5 percent currently.
Source: Reuters
The new Facebook echochamber where users decide what is trustworthy
https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2018/01/trusted-sources/
Facebook is going to let its user rate what is a trustworthy news source. Could be great (One would think they assume the pure number of people will try and do a good and honest job), or it will undoubtedly enforce the echo chamber / bubble mentality (where people think that their news source are all trustworthy and the opposing sources are all fake news) or it will end hilariously (like when Microsoft let the public train its AI chatbot Tay and it went all Hitler on them in record time).
(Score: 5, Insightful) by physicsmajor on Monday January 22 2018, @06:48AM (27 children)
Claims:
People can't determine fake news from real news.
People can determine credible sources of news.
One of these is almost certainly incorrect. My money is on the second, particularly with the research done lately showing that when shown direct evidence against their viewpoints, they actually strengthen their factually incorrect positions. In seriousness, just about every mainstream/popular news source should be disallowed and untrusted given the grim state of anything approaching 'journalism' being done today.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by anubi on Monday January 22 2018, @07:00AM (2 children)
I claim neither.
I cite religions as prime examples. Same in politics.
Skillfully presented shit is received as a delicacy.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 22 2018, @04:58PM (1 child)
https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/04/01/521685923/literal-farm-to-table-heres-the-dirt-on-chefs-cooking-with-dirt [npr.org]
(Score: 1) by anubi on Tuesday January 23 2018, @08:47AM
Thanks! I would love to use this as another citation of the observation.
Over my lifetime, I have seen way too much artfully presented technoshit sold for top dollar to the investor class, and try as I might, I would simply be ignored, classified by the presenter as one who is too technically obsolete to see the possibilities... All I could do was watch the inevitable unfold, and find myself in the unpaid position of a post-humously uttered "I told you so!"
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 22 2018, @07:19AM
Which means you are proving your own point? Bravo. (slow clap)
(Score: 2) by canopic jug on Monday January 22 2018, @07:22AM (5 children)
Facebook is deliberately choosing the wrong focus in this question. If they were in any way serious they would concentrate on how to find accurate sources. Trust has nothing to do with accuracy. That is most of the reason we have the mess we have. By deliberately avoiding pursuit of accuracy they appear to intentionally making the disinformation problem worse and worse.
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 22 2018, @07:40AM (2 children)
Rigggght! Trust has to do with being Fair and Balanced, and entering the No-spin Zone! Pro-tip, if the sources you trust to be accurate, turn out to not be accurate? Stop trusting them? But the ones that are accurate? Trust them, unless they are playing the long con on you.
(Score: 5, Informative) by hemocyanin on Monday January 22 2018, @08:04AM (1 child)
It isn't like the NYT refrained from cheerleading for the Iraq war either.
https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2014/07/01/how-the-iraq-war-still-haunts-new-york-times/199946 [mediamatters.org]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Monday January 22 2018, @01:29PM
NPR did, too. That was the day I knew we were in deep trouble as a country.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Thexalon on Monday January 22 2018, @04:07PM (1 child)
Here's what's really going on:
When you hear the phrase "fake news", what you probably think, and what you're meant to think, is "stories that are inaccurate, leave out critical information, or are outright lies." However, the anti-fake news efforts aren't about this at all, because the only thing that actually solves this problem is the widespread distribution of skepticism and critical thinking among the masses, which is both difficult and something the Powers That Be definitely don't want.
When people with real power hear the phrase "fake news", what they mean is "stories that come from a propaganda outlet not aligned with my goals." And while there are some propaganda outlets in the US who are "fake" or not by this definition depending on one's political party affiliation (e.g. MSNBC and Fox News), there are some reporting organizations that are seen as "fake" by this definition by both major political parties who they would love to censor completely. Some examples of what they're trying to get rid of:
Wikileaks [wikileaks.org] There's been a bipartisan effort trying to cut this off for over a decade now.
The Intercept [theintercept.com] This outlet founded by Glen Greenwald has made no friends among politicians for routinely writing about their stupidity and corruption.
The Independent Media Center [indymedia.org] This one is interesting for its detailed reporting of police suppression of protests which rarely make it into the "mainstream" news, even in cases where such protests are completely legal and the police efforts are not.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 22 2018, @11:17PM
Here's a brief list of sites that are being demonetized: [wsws.org] World Socialist Web Site, Truthdig, Common Dreams, Alternet... basically any leftist website that is not owned by the rich and powerful Democratic Party backers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 22 2018, @10:05AM (7 children)
when government can't tell the difference between their methods and content of propaganda and 'fake news' they worry that their 'message' will be undermined when everyone else spots the similarities.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday January 22 2018, @11:41AM (6 children)
You're close to correct but it's not so much the government as "the establishment". The Internet giving everyone a voice really has their knickers in a massive twist because it means they simply do not have enough of a voice to shout down, ignore, or assassinate the character of anyone who speaks outside the narrative anymore.
Witness: Bernie almost got the nomination and Trump did get the presidency. No matter which one you like or if you hate both of them, they sure as fuck weren't either backed by "the establishment".
Their power structure is starting to come apart at the seams and this is simply a last grasp at straws to go back to being able to utterly control the narrative.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Monday January 22 2018, @05:31PM (5 children)
Kinda.
Trump is the bad boy of the establishment, but he's part of the establishment, for the simple reason that he's always at least appeared to be rich, and that's all it takes for politicians to be fawning all over you. Also, when you look at what he's actually doing policy-wise, it's exactly the same things as the business-focused Republicans have been advocating for decades, like big tax cuts for the rich and (as of last weekend) almost completely shutting down the civilian agencies of the federal government. About the only thing he's done that wasn't something the establishment wanted all along was scrapping the TPP, which while certainly not what the establishment wanted also did not undo the basic paradigm of how they're in charge of everything.
I've always been amazed at how some people successfully portray themselves as "outsiders" when they're anything but. For example, George W Bush managed to convince a lot of people that he was the outsider candidate, despite being the son of the guy who had been president just 8 years earlier with wide support from Wall Street. And Hillary Clinton even tried to make the case that compared to Bernie Sanders, she, the wife of a former president and former senator and cabinet secretary, trunning with the full backing of Wall Street and many media organizations, was the outsider, solely because she was female. And in the case of Trump, he was a major Clinton backer throughout the 1990's and 2000's, and was happy to glad-hand Democrats and Republicans alike until it became clear Obama might become president.
If you really wanted to back an anti-establishment candidate, then you should have gotten behind Vermin Supreme - he had no Wall Street support whatsoever, no political experience, no political party backing, radical proposals (free ponies for everybody!), and by all accounts is a genuinely good guy. Next-best would have been to back candidates from one of the political parties that don't have establishment approval and backing, like the Greens or Libertarians.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday January 22 2018, @08:12PM (4 children)
You're misunderstanding what all makes up "the establishment". It's not remotely just Republicans. It's not even mostly Republicans; they're a very small part. Here're the major players that go into "the establishment":
With minor league appearances by every other company or industry that pays a lobbying firm.
This is why I laugh so hard at the regressive shitheads who think they're fighting the establishment. They're not fighting the establishment, they're its tools. They're just too fucking stupid to see it.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Monday January 22 2018, @08:42PM (3 children)
Really? Your use of universal statements seems a bit overly sweeping, assuming your definition of "establishment" means something along the lines of "an entrenched group of rich and/or powerful people who control the rest of society".
For example, "random blogger who manages to make enough money from it to survive" is part of the "professional media". You really think that person's part of the establishment?
How about the people in your local bar band? They're part of the entertainment industry.
How about all the teachers you had, the adjunct faculty and community college instructors, and the grad students living on a generous $10K a year. They're all part of the educational industry, but I'd be hard-pressed to consider them part of the "establishment".
Not even the government bureaucrats necessarily qualify. For example, I'm acquainted with a guy whose civil service job was testing gold shipments to the US mint for impurities - he certainly wasn't getting rich or powerful from that. Same for the people at the FAA whose job it is to issue aircraft repair directives on a daily basis.
Also, a lot of the players you put in the "minor league" don't seem minor to me. The financial industry, who can commit crimes with impunity and crash the world economy and get rewarded for it isn't part of the establishment? The oil industry, who can and frequently does decide whether the US or its allies are going to war? Military contractors, who go absurdly over budget on the taxpayer dime for boondoggle projects like the F-35 and are never penalized for it in any way?
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 23 2018, @05:12PM (2 children)
Yes, really. The ability to kill or inconvenience a lot of people is inconsequential compared to the ability to control what people believe.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Tuesday January 23 2018, @05:31PM (1 child)
Wow. That's odd logic. "If you're dead, but can believe whatever you like, that's freedom!" Got it.
Plus you're casually ignoring the many entities that I mentioned that rob people to such a degree that a 5% tax hike would be pleasant by comparison.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 23 2018, @05:53PM
What part of "give me liberty or give me death" is it that really escapes you? Is it honestly your opinion that it's better to live as a slave than die as a free man?
Yes, they weren't worth mentioning. Material possessions are of less consequence than life and life of less consequence than liberty.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Monday January 22 2018, @10:15AM (5 children)
If I had to choose, I'd probably go with your first choice. People can't even determine the truth accurately when there are issues within their own families, schools, towns, or workplaces. There you are, you live right there - you're part of things. And, you can't determine for sure which side is lying. You're a parent, and one of your kids is generally more trustworthy than the other. So, there is a new dispute, and you believe the more trustworthy kid, only to discover days, weeks, months, even years later that you were WRONG!
In the wider world, same thing applies. That news source which you believe, is exposed as publishing outright lies. And, the new source that you never believe actually had the facts in that case.
Actually, there are no "trustworthy" news sources. The best thing that could happen would be that people discover that there are no news sources that they can trust.
This past election has already been cited elsewhere in this discussion. We had not one, but TWO candidates who were unworthy of the office of president. Yet - we had multiple news sites hailing one of those candidates as the greatest person since Jesus Christ - and multiple other sources putting the other candidate forward.
Trust any of them? Not a chance in hell. The last vestige of trust that I placed in any news source, was CNN in it's early days. But, they screwed the pooch several times, even before they crawled into bed with the progressive crowd. What - I should trust Fox, because they are opposite CNN? That's pretty damned stupid, too. We have opposing gangs of theives and liars - I should pick one, and trust them?
There are no credible sources for news, despite the fact that they all get things right sometimes, and they all get things wrong other times. None of them are to be trusted, because you can't determine for sure which source is right (if any of them) on any given story or issue. Unless, of course, you are the story. THEN you'll have a very good idea how accurate the reporting is!
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday January 22 2018, @10:18AM
To be fair nothing actually exists.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 22 2018, @11:45AM
You should read Robert Anton Wilson's description of strange loops in the Schrödinger's Cat Trilogy. (IMO the 3 greatest novels ever written).
If you believe the information you are given, you are wrong. If you disbelieve it you are still wrong.
Actually you should just read the whole trilogy. Find the individual books if you can, the 3 in 1 current edition cuts a lot to make it fit. It's nearly 40 years old and it's still one of the most insightful descriptions of Unistat, and one of the most simultaneously hilarious, depressive and mind-expanding books ever.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aiwarrior on Monday January 22 2018, @04:17PM
I cannot understand how any group of people can exist if there is mistrust all around. I remember reviewing a paper where there was a correlation between societies' implicit trust and their efficiency and GDP.
An example could be how completely useless it is the notary. Where resources are spent for nothing else than adding a trustworthy third-party, which in a "trustless" society could also not be trusted.
I would go so far as saying that bureaucracy is a consequence of the lack of trust in society: see ex-soviet block countries.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Thexalon on Monday January 22 2018, @06:42PM (1 child)
What's really in order: Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit applies to news as much as any other claim of a nugget of objective truth. Sagan's rules in bold, my commentary on how it applies in regular type:
1. Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the "facts." If a bunch of different news outlets not connected with each other or ideally not even in the same country report that the same thing happened, yeah, it probably happened.
2. Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view. In this case, it's likely that those knowledgeable proponents of all points of view won't be on the same media outlet and certainly not in a debate (where it will simply degenerate into people talking over each other). So you'll want to read multiple outlets that disagree with each other, regularly.
3. Arguments from authority carry little weight. Just because somebody wrote it down in a newspaper or said it on TV or the radio does not make it true.
4. Spin more than one hypothesis. This comes up mostly when trying to interpret what happened, rather than describe what happened. For instance, when a Syrian passport was found at the scene of a mass shooting in France, a lot of people immediately jumped to the conclusion that a Syrian refugee was responsible for the attack, when in fact the people responsible for the attack were from Belgium.
5. Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it’s yours. The news-related corollary usually is "Don't assume that the representative of the party you usually vote for in this debate is correct and/or honest."
6. Quantify. Demand statistics and number-crunching for articles claiming to describe some kind of social or economic pattern. Ideally with publicly accessible sources for those stats so you can do the number-crunching yourself or look at those same numbers in a different way if you so choose. Without quantifying, what you may be dealing with is argument from anecdote.
7. If there’s a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work (including the premise). Glenn Beck, Rachel Maddow, and other public figures prone to putting partial observable facts together into conspiratorial garbage tend to really fail on this point. If you're going to claim some sort of grander point or effort, you need to show how the events you're describing are connected, and how they serve the purpose you claim they serve.
8. Occam’s Razor. Choosing the simpler explanation usually leads to truth. I'm also a big fan of Hanlon's Razor, which basically argues that when in doubt assume incompetence, because that's often the only explanation required.
9. Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified. Non-falsifiable claims in news stories should always be suspect. For instance, an anonymous source told a reporter something that's supposed to be a closely guarded secret. Which might be true, but might not be. Even the famous reporting from Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward regarding the Watergate scandal, which was on the whole accurate, managed to libel several people due to screwing this one up.
Because of the power of statistics and a much larger group of people able to observe, we actually have a better chance of accurately learning about important larger trends or major events than knowing for sure which of your kids stole a cookie.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1) by therainingmonkey on Thursday January 25 2018, @11:34AM
While these points are great, independent confirmation of the facts is not so easy when all outlets get their stories from news agencies.
If a bunch of different news outlets not connected with each other ... report that the same thing happened then maybe it happened, or maybe they all subscribe to the same Reuters feed.
Independent investigative journalism is expensive, and less likely to earn ad revenue than clickbait and Reuters reposts.
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Monday January 22 2018, @10:56AM
Are they actually shown real evidence, or just lectured at by the opposing "consensus"?
Because if you just stridently yell epithets and duckspeak at me without any logic or checkable facts, then I will assume that you don't have any valid arguments for your position and that you are therefore even more likely to be wrong than I initially assumed.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bobthecimmerian on Monday January 22 2018, @01:41PM
Facebook's financial interest is served by keeping people on the site as much as possible. So that fundamentally puts Facebook into conflict with honest reporting - if they show a liberal rational, objectively presented evidence that supports a conservative position the person is liable to be bored and take their attention elsewhere. Showing liberal-friendly news they want to comment on and share or inflammatory conservative rhetoric they want to attack and react upon will keep them at the site. And of course the same is true in reverse.
Once I became conscious of how much they were manipulating me, and the hours and hours I spent every damn day in 2016 and early 2017 on the site, I stopped cold. I deleted everything on my Facebook account except one post. It links to an article on the research and effort social media sites put into sucking in users as long as possible for the purpose of maximum ad revenue.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 22 2018, @04:56PM
I have determined that facebook is not a credible news source. Am I Russian to judgement?