Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Thursday February 13 2020, @09:08AM   Printer-friendly
from the truth dept.

Facebook starts fact-checking partnership with Reuters:

A newly created unit at Reuters will fact-check user-generated photos, videos, headlines and other content for Facebook's U.S. audience in both English and Spanish, the news agency said in a statement. Financial terms were not disclosed.

Facebook works with seven other fact-checking partners in the United States, including Associated Press and Agence France-Presse.

Back in the day when Facebook had six fact-check partners, The Hill wrote:

Together, Facebook's six partners have 26 full-time staff and fact-checked roughly 200 pieces of content per month.

Experts who spoke to The Hill said those changes were insufficient to make a serious dent in the fake accounts and disinformation they say are rampant on Facebook.

[...] "Just the scale of the company itself makes responsible fact-checking pretty difficult, even if they were invested in doing it," Sarah Miller, co-chairwoman of Freedom from Facebook, a coalition of progressive groups calling for breaking up the company.

Facebook has also been criticized for not subjecting posts from political figures to fact-checks.

[...] Miller told The Hill that fact-checking is a distraction from the problem of microtargeting ads, which allow "any bad actor" to "target users with propaganda or scam content."

Traditional journalism has been struggling financially. Perhaps the role of social-media fact-checker will be profitable.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by bradley13 on Thursday February 13 2020, @10:54AM (18 children)

    by bradley13 (3053) on Thursday February 13 2020, @10:54AM (#957670) Homepage Journal

    ...but not entirely for the reasons they think.

    It's good to debug conspiracy theories, and deliberately false news. When working with objective facts like the Apollo moon landing, this is easy. However, as soon as they veer into the territory of opinions, this becomes impossible: whose opinion is right, and whose is wrong. Three examples to consider:

    - Every Trump supporter knows that Hillary is corrupt. Every Hillary supporter knows the same thing about Trump. Which of these shall we declare to be the objective truth, with the other being "fake news"? If you leave it to Reuters, part of the left-wing media, it is entirely likely that right-wing political opinions will be far more affected than left-wing opinions.

    - Transgender people: Ask anyone active in (or just cares about) women's sports, and you will almost certainly hear that M-to-F athletes have no place in women's competitions. Anyone who went through puberty as a male has an unfair advantage that is not eliminated by subsequent hormone treatments. However, people are very shy about expressing this opinion, because it is non-PC to criticize anything related to transgenderism. If the fact-checkers are LGBT fans, it is entirely likely that this discussion will not take place.

    - Finally, at the risk of godwinning my own comment, consider the Holocaust. Here, in Europe, it is illegal (as in: you can land in jail) to deny the Holocaust. Objective fact: the Holocaust happened, and millions of people were killed. However, the laws go so far as to prevent any questioning of what's in the history books. If you want to question exactly what happened, discuss how many people of what ethnic extraction were killed? Even if this is a scientific investigation using modern forensics? Forget it. What was once written is sacrosanct.

    tl;dr: Fact-checking and censorship are very nearly the same thing. Anyone who believes in free speech should and must object to fact-checking. Anti-vaxxers show how it should go: without any suppression at all, they have become a laughing stock. These problems solve themselves over time, without censorship.

    --
    Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Troll=2, Redundant=1, Insightful=4, Total=7
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by VLM on Thursday February 13 2020, @11:54AM

    by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 13 2020, @11:54AM (#957678)

    I would agree with the more extreme political problems and extend the problem to more trivial situations they'll probably screw up.

    Anyone who's read any journalism about technical topics, knows they're not qualified to report on those topics. They can't understand the simplest engineering nor number of sig fig issues. They're going to screw up as usual while labeling true technical commentary as "russian interference fake news" which will be comical, at least comical for us.

    They're not going to understand the scientific method, so expect lots of hilarity about "evolution is merely a theory" and plenty of sci fi fantasy crossover about physics string theory and multiverses. Is making fun of fantasy multiverse commentary factual physics or a fake news hate crime? Well, physicists can't agree at this time so ...

    Finally consider controversial nonscientific topics like diet and athletic bro-science.

  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday February 13 2020, @02:16PM

    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday February 13 2020, @02:16PM (#957711) Homepage Journal

    Yeah, there's plenty of fuckedupedness still around but at least it's gotta be better than the "We're going to fact-check known satire sites. Repeatedly." dipshits at Snopes.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by c0lo on Thursday February 13 2020, @02:46PM (2 children)

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 13 2020, @02:46PM (#957721) Journal

    Every Trump supporter knows that Hillary is corrupt. Every Hillary supporter knows the same thing about Trump. Which of these shall we declare to be the objective truth

    Both. That's the objective truth.

    Ask anyone active in (or just cares about) women's sports, and you will almost certainly hear that M-to-F athletes have no place in women's competitions.

    Why is this even relevant? Sport competitions should be a mean of getting one better, not the end of winning a medal.
    Remember? Is "Citius, Altius, Fortius" not "the fastest, the highest, the strongest".

    Objective fact: the Holocaust happened, and millions of people were killed. However, the laws go so far as to prevent any questioning of what's in the history books. If you want to question exactly what happened, discuss how many people of what ethnic extraction were killed? Even if this is a scientific investigation using modern forensics? Forget it. What was once written is sacrosanct.

    [Citation needed]
    No, seriously, the smell of bullshit is too strong. A google search [google.com] reveals quite a large number of hits, even in Germany [soylentnews.org]" rel="url2html-15709">https://www.dw.com/en/germany-establishes-its-first-holocaust-studies-professorship/a-38885174">Germany
    The fact that you may not agree with their findings doesn't make them censorship.

    tl;dr: Fact-checking and censorship are very nearly the same thing.

    Oh, fuck off. Not only everything above has absolutely no logical relation with the so-called conclusion, but saying that looking into the objective reality to get as close as possible to the truth is censorship?
    Like what? You're gonna tell me next that ignorance is as valid as the science and saying gravity keeps the solar system together censors the flat-earthers?

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday February 13 2020, @10:15PM (1 child)

      by DeathMonkey (1380) on Thursday February 13 2020, @10:15PM (#957877) Journal

      You're gonna tell me next that ignorance is as valid as the science and saying gravity keeps the solar system together censors the flat-earthers?

      Why yes, that's EXACTLY what they will tell you.

      New Ohio Law Lets Students Give Wrong Answers on Tests for Religious Reasons [newsweek.com]

      • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday February 13 2020, @10:23PM

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 13 2020, @10:23PM (#957881) Journal

        They are free to speak, I'm free to shut my ears down to their speech.

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 13 2020, @04:44PM (5 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 13 2020, @04:44PM (#957752)

    Fact checking == censorship?

    Did I really read that correctly? All the examples given are typically conservative issues, is this just a symptom of snowflake blindness?

    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday February 13 2020, @04:50PM

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 13 2020, @04:50PM (#957757) Journal

      is this just a symptom of snowflake blindness?

      It is called cognitive dissonance.
      In normal humans it causes quite a large amount of "psychological pain", but some people have a large threshold for this. I guess such people are just differently able, but I sure like hell don't envy them.

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    • (Score: 4, Touché) by Coward, Anonymous on Thursday February 13 2020, @10:47PM (3 children)

      by Coward, Anonymous (7017) on Thursday February 13 2020, @10:47PM (#957895) Journal

      Censorship [wikipedia.org] is always made palatable by saying that lies will be prevented.

      No unit or individual may use the Internet to create, replicate, retrieve, or transmit the following kinds of information:
      [...]
      5. Fabricating or distorting the truth, spreading rumors, destroying the order of society;
      7. Publicly insulting or distorting the truth to slander other people;

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 14 2020, @12:44AM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 14 2020, @12:44AM (#957951)

        Sure sure, you do realize that your reply is barely even tangential to the point right? Someone fact checking someone else is not censorship.

        I guess Facebook using such fact checkers to remove your posts would be censorship, but from the typical conservative/libertarian standpoint I do believe "private corporations can do what they want" is the response to corporate fuckery. Suddenly private corporations have to bend to your will?

        I'm all for regulating internet services as public utilities, like ISPs, hosting providers, and payment portals; but a private entity can implement whatever rules it wants and doesn't have to give two shits whether you like it or not. For an easy to understand example, a social media company that bills itself as family friendly will censor foul language and offensive content. I think that is a great idea for those who would want such a curated experience to protect their children. Like AOL/Prodigy of the future because managing net access is beyond many people's abilities / energy level.

        • (Score: 2) by Coward, Anonymous on Friday February 14 2020, @08:47AM (1 child)

          by Coward, Anonymous (7017) on Friday February 14 2020, @08:47AM (#958131) Journal

          I guess Facebook using such fact checkers to remove your posts would be censorship, but [reasons why some people think that's ok].

          Then we agree that fact-checking by Facebook is censorship. But you wrote earlier:

          Someone fact checking someone else is not censorship.

          Make up your mind. Or maybe deplatforming and shadow-bans are not censorship, because you can still see the posts yourself?

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 14 2020, @06:30PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 14 2020, @06:30PM (#958231)

            I hesitate to even file this under "critical thinking needed" since it is more like basic reading comprehension, but OK let's try and sort this out.

            "Someone fact checking someone else is not censorship."
            Completely accurate.

            "Facebook using such fact checkers to remove your posts would be censorship"
            Also completely accurate.

            The difference being that the censorship is done by Facebook not the fact checkers.

            Analogy time!

            You are driving down the road and your vehicle informs you via a handy dashboard light that you are low on oil. You pull over and add more oil.

            Question: Did the car change the oil? Have I been doing the work of my machine all these years like a sucker?

  • (Score: 3, Touché) by fadrian on Thursday February 13 2020, @06:22PM (6 children)

    by fadrian (3194) on Thursday February 13 2020, @06:22PM (#957789) Homepage

    Who is this Hillary that conservatives keep harping on about? Wasn't she in the government about 50 billion years ago or something? Why do they keep hollering about someone who's so irrelevant?

    --
    That is all.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 14 2020, @12:47AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 14 2020, @12:47AM (#957955)

      Because Hillary gots electrolemails.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3boy_tLWeqA [youtube.com]

    • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday February 14 2020, @01:43AM (4 children)

      by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Friday February 14 2020, @01:43AM (#957987) Journal

      Yeah...it's weird how the same people who keep going "she lost, get over it" just can't seem to get over it. Then again, a fair number of them fly the Confederate battle flag, i.e., the 160-year-old Traitors' Cum Sock On a Stick, so... :D

      --
      I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 14 2020, @08:20AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 14 2020, @08:20AM (#958124)

        You obviously haven't been paying attention to her urges.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 14 2020, @08:27PM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 14 2020, @08:27PM (#958294)

        I'm honestly a little worried about how emotionally compromised these d00ds are, their need to "win" seems to trump everything else. Argue a point where they think they are right and logic, decency, and basic common sense just disappear in the most unironic way.

        I do believe this is the precursor to fascist takeovers, the ends justify the means with no limits. Buzzy boy just whinged on about immigrants in detention camps and how it is a voluntary situation of "don't break the law and don't go to jail." No need to consider basic human rights, the actual illegal detainments, or the morally defunct imprisonment and abuse of children. Nope, just "ILLEGAL!"

        • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 15 2020, @12:44AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 15 2020, @12:44AM (#958363)

          Yes, here comes the National Socilaist Bernie Sherts to make your dreams come true.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday February 15 2020, @01:15AM

          by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Saturday February 15 2020, @01:15AM (#958376) Journal

          Eeeeeyup. GOP, as others have said, stands for "gaslight, obfuscate, project." Their central motor is that they are entirely emotion-driven, while at the same time are conditioned to believe that everyone *else* is and that they and they alone are logical and rational.

          --
          I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...