
Facebook's Zuckerberg discloses steps to fight fake news - mnmlsm
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-facebook-idUSKBN13E0QN
======
mirekrusin
I wonder how labelling would work with news like saddam hussain's weapons of
mass destruction - reported by cia, backed by the goverment as truth, but
turns out it was all fake.

Labels will probably have to change retrospectively. Maybe they should also
include "according to ..." reference? I can imagine that some statements will
be flagged as truth by one side and as fake by the other.

If you play this game further with creating graph of dependencies and recorded
switches from truth to fake you can even get "accuracy score" for source
reference - I wonder how CIA as source ref would score in this game -
hopefully not somewhere in the area of "compulsive liar"?

~~~
TulliusCicero
> I wonder how labelling would work with news like saddam hussain's weapons of
> mass destruction - reported by cia, backed by the goverment as truth, but
> turns out it was all fake.

That has nothing to do with the kind of 'fake news' being discussed. There's
nothing 'fake' about reporting "Government claims WMDs in Iraq" while
elaborating on what evidence the government has or claims to have, even if it
turns out there were no WMDs.

The fake news is question comes from sites that just make up random crap to
get page views, not websites that are making a good faith effort to report on
what is real.

~~~
dilemma
The Iraq war was preceded and enabled by a massive propaganda campaign where
close to 100% of American outlets went along with the WMD claim and were for
an invasion (FAIR.org).

You don't get to say a propaganda campaign that ruined a country and killed
hundreds of thousands wasn't fake news. It was - complete and utter
fabrication on an industrial scale, and it had devastating effects.

~~~
TulliusCicero
You seem to be confused about the difference between real/fake news vs
correct/wrong news. The claims by the Bush administration about WMDs were real
news. That the claims turned out _false_ is another matter entirely.

Your problem is that you're interpreting it in terms of "is wrong/is right"
instead of "deliberately lying/trying to be accurate". Perhaps news
publications should've been more skeptical, but they themselves weren't trying
to make things up.

~~~
dilemma
No, they supported a narrative that was false by refusing to investigating
claims by officials - that's planted fake news, and that news was created at
publication. News don't exist if it isn't published, that is its definition.

Officials supplied the false information which served as the raw material the
media's fake news was produced with.

~~~
75j
I tend to agree with you. I'm looking at the NYT archives right now and
finding examples both of uncritical quoting of official sources and straight
up assertions about WMDs in Iraq.

This is a famous quote from Judith Miller and Michael Gordon, from an article
that includes many hawkish quotes from anonymous sources.

" _Mr. Hussein 's dogged insistence on pursuing his nuclear ambitions, along
with what defectors described in interviews as Iraq's push to improve and
expand Baghdad's chemical and biological arsenals, have brought Iraq and the
United States to the brink of war._"

[http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/08/world/threats-responses-
ir...](http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/08/world/threats-responses-iraqis-us-
says-hussein-intensifies-quest-for-bomb-parts.html)

Here's a quote from an opinion piece by William Safire:

" _Two terrorist-sponsoring nations are racing to acquire nuclear weapons. One
is Iraq, whose scientists already have the know-how..._ "

[http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/10/opinion/arafat-s-
implausib...](http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/10/opinion/arafat-s-implausible-
denials.html)

Is this fake news? I'd say so. But, I have an even lesser criterion for fake
news -- I think the most insidious type of fake news doesn't necessarily tell
a single lie, but rather selectively reports the truth.

I am also 100% certain that it's impossible to filter out "fake news",
whatever your definition is, without suppressing some true but fringe
information.

------
krige
Can't help but feel that this sudden 'fake news' push seems more like a
movement to enforce mainstream media control versus alternative/grassroots in
light of the recent U.S. election, rather than any actual concern.

After all, the CNN, Huffington et al. had their own share of misrepresentation
and outright lies[1] - but will those be targeted by this new effort?

[1] for example, [http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/cnn-caught-rigging-its-
meth...](http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/cnn-caught-rigging-its-methodology-
to-produce-phony-poll-claiming-donald-trump-is-winning/25981/)

~~~
fil_a_del_fee_a
This ^ is the beginning of the end of free press.

------
sparkzilla
The fake news meme has been cooked up by the mainstream media to shift blame
for Clinton's loss on new media. Nobody cared about fake news on Facebook.
Meanwhile the mainstream media lied and manipulated the truth to suit their
narrative _constantly_. These trusted publications took advantage of their
reader's trust to lie to them, causing far greater damage than any fake
Facebook article. A great example is how the New York Times and the "fact
checkers" used a reporter's disability to lie to their readers. As a liberal,
Zuckerberg is particularly vulnerable to criticism from the liberal media. He
should "do a Trump" and tell them to f off.

[1][http://newslines.org/blog/lets-talk-about-fake-
news/](http://newslines.org/blog/lets-talk-about-fake-news/)

~~~
TorKlingberg
This seems like relativism. Regular media isn't perfect, so therefore blatant
lies are fine. Is this embracing the "post-truth society"? It no longer
matters what is true, only what gets the most likes/shares/upvotes.

~~~
cthor
I think the point being made is that Facebook, NYT, et al. are not in a
position to moralise about journalistic ethics.

I would go further and say that the half-truths being peddled by these outlets
are far more dangerous than obvious non-truths peddled by "fake news" outlets,
because seeing through their lies is much harder.

If we live in a world where "fake news" has been successfully censored, but
the merely partisan outlets remain, the only result is people being lulled
into a false sense of security: "It has to be true -- fake news is banned!"

~~~
EarthIsHome
> these outlets are far more dangerous than obvious non-truths peddled by
> "fake news" outlets

While apparently obvious to us, fake news articles are being shared by more
people than factual news. [0][1]

> If we live in a world where "fake news" has been successfully censored

There's a difference between fake news and partisan news: one is flat out lies
the other is factually true.

Fake news is more akin to false advertising than censorship is. No one says
that banning false advertising is censorship; banning false advertising is
keeping people from buying products based on lies.

[0]: [https://imgur.com/xJ7eDbs](https://imgur.com/xJ7eDbs)

[1]: [https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/viral-fake-
election-...](https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/viral-fake-election-
news-outperformed-real-news-on-facebook)

~~~
tomp
I'm not sure we can use "number of shares" as a reliable metrics for how many
people believe each piece of news. It's perfectly concievable that many people
share it as "look at this obviously fake lie". I mean, how many shares do
Onion articles get?

~~~
EarthIsHome
It's a reliable metric in describing the possible reach of fake news. There
will be a sizeable portion who believe what they read. This is straight up
fiction being spread masquerading as truth, which should deeply trouble
everyone who cares about what is correct and what is not.

Speaking anecdotally, I nor my friends would share news we believed was fake.
Would you share the fake source knowing it is fake news or would you share
links exposing and explaining a fake news article?

> I mean, how many shares do Onion articles get?

Go take a gander at The Onion's Facebook page and scroll trying to find a fake
article that has more than 10,000 shares.

------
myf01d
The "fake news" term is itself actually fake news (unless you're liberal). It
is synonymous with "we did everything we can to influence the election outcome
and yet we lost, now we should regulate the news media industry so only WE can
publish our agenda."

~~~
nyolfen
i realize there's a partisan bent to the fake news story, but the indisputable
fact of the matter is that there are a lot of sites that straight up fabricate
outrageous news to generate clicks that have a lot of circulation on facebook
now. the liberal side of the media is beating the drum about it right now, but
it's still a true claim.

[https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/how-macedonia-
became...](https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/how-macedonia-became-a-
global-hub-for-pro-trump-misinfo)

[https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/viral-fake-
election-...](https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/viral-fake-election-
news-outperformed-real-news-on-facebook)

also i may be wrong, but as far as i know buzzfeed isnt known for being
especially partisan towards liberal causes

~~~
douche
It's sort of ironic citing BuzzFeed here, as they were long a primary supplier
of bullshit news and questionable listicles, before they pivoted into actual
journalism.

~~~
nyolfen
to be fair, i think there's a pretty big difference between 'bullshit' (ie
inconsequential) and fabricated news. i remember when i still used facebook,
being intensely annoyed every time i saw news that seemed to have vaguely
plausible but clearly fake content -- the sites in question were 'satire', a
la the onion, though much less clever. in retrospect, now, it seems
predestined that at some point they would drop the pretense altogether,
though.

------
kriro
I don't think FB should be required to do this (I don't think they are but who
knows what people will demand) nor do I think that Google should be forced to
filter these stories out of their search results etc. Ultimately the
responsibility for judging news lies with the consumer of the news. It may
very well be in the interest of FB/Google to apply a filter to serve the users
the best possible results...but that's a potentially dangerous path.

I wonder how viable it would be to provide these filters as a service (seems
like large scale machine learning). There might even be a market for a
"confirmation filter" where I can elect to filter out everything that is
conservative/liberal if I so choose (since I hear a lot of people claiming
media is biased in favour of the other side anyway). Spam filter 2.0 (or is it
4.0 theses days?)

------
karmelapple
Every time we click Share, Post, or Like, we are being a journalist.

There's no journalism classes or ethics training before clicking those
buttons. Should there be?

~~~
return0
mainly there is no repercussion

~~~
csbrooks
There is some repercussion: if you have any sense at all, when someone on your
feed consistently keeps sharing this garbage, you stop paying any attention to
what they share.

~~~
karmelapple
If the "garbage" agrees with your views, will you stop paying attention to it?
We'd like to think we will, but not everyone will do that.

Over time, that constant drip of misinformation can significantly harden
someone's opinion on a topic.

------
dilemma
News don't just come into existence as the result of some law of nature. News
is created when someone publishes it.

Therefore, all news is fake based on these absurd criteria.

And now one side wants to make sure that only their fake news can be
published.

~~~
maxerickson
That's a false dilemma.

------
mindcrash
While the upper echelons in society are deciding what "fake news" and "real
news" is, and thus what you should consume or not, I would like everyone to
remember this particular quote:

"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the
spectrum of acceptable opinion, and allow very lively debate within that
spectrum"

Looks familiar?

This is Noam Chomsky talking, by the way.

------
fil_a_del_fee_a
Serious question, will all celebrity (aka tabloid) news be considered fake
news? For example, Pop star Jane Doe in relationship with Actor John Smith?
Stuff at the supermarket counters.

Side note.. what ever happened to bat-boy?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_Boy_(character)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_Boy_\(character\))

------
return0
Kudos move for Zuck to try to appease investors but i think he knows himself
this thing is not working, and i m glad he does.

------
akerro
I hope they are going to verify every single news to determine whether it's
fake and then fight it!

