
Facebook to Exempt Opinion and Satire from Fact-Checking - spirosrap
https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-to-create-fact-checking-exemptions-for-opinion-and-satire-11569875314?mod=rsswn
======
paxys
Most of the misinformation and propaganda out there is presented as "opinion"
on all networks. The very little actual news on Fox, for example, is always
accurate (and actually pretty good), so not being able to call them out on
that takes away from the entire effort.

~~~
AmericanChopper
Most reporting is based on opinions, or is at least misleading in the sense
that it tends to be reported from well defined perspective. The editorial
decisions about what to report, what to not report, what to report as
important or credible, and what to report as irrelevant or non-credible, can
all be used to mislead the audience and misrepresent events. I can’t think of
one mainstream news outlet that doesn’t do this, and I think all of them do it
quite excessively.

The problem with trying to moderate this is that you can only do so from what
your idea of which is the orthodox truth, and “propaganda” simply becomes any
political speech that you disagree with.

We’ve seen plenty of attempts to regulate the truth throughout history. It was
one of the most corrupt elements of the soviet system, and it quite literally
Orwellian. The only person who can discern the truth is the individual, and
any attempt to take that responsibility away from them can only ever end
disastrously. This isn’t something we should be happy with Facebook doing.

~~~
catacombs
> Most reporting is based on opinions, or is at least misleading in the sense
> that it tends to be reported from well defined perspective.

What do you mean by this? Most new organizations have a separate, opinion
section.

Does your statement include the news department, too?

~~~
paulddraper
Even beyond editorializing as the sibling comments point out, there is
considerable opinion in what is reported vs brushed aside.

On August 3, 46 people were shot in El Paso, Texas. [1]

That same weekend, 51 people were shot in Chicago, Illinois. [2] [3]

One statistic gets hours and hours of national press cycles, Wikipedia page,
etc.

The other statistic gets a passing mention in local channel and papers.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_El_Paso_shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_El_Paso_shooting)

[2] [https://abc7chicago.com/49-shot-6-fatally-in-chicago-
weekend...](https://abc7chicago.com/49-shot-6-fatally-in-chicago-weekend-
shootings/5443785/)

[3] Later updated to 68, if you read Breibart
[https://www.breitbart.com/crime/2019/08/05/many-el-pasos-
day...](https://www.breitbart.com/crime/2019/08/05/many-el-pasos-daytons-
chicago-every-weekend-50-shot-6-killed-windy-city/)

~~~
catacombs
> On August 3, 46 people were shot in El Paso, Texas. > That same weekend, 51
> people were shot in Chicago, Illinois.

One is not like the other.

The El Paso shooting was the result of one person, armed with semi-assault
weapon, going into a Walmart and killing more than 20 people within a couple
minutes.

The Chicago shootings resulted in seven deaths but were spread out among
multiple cases and days.

Both are tragic obviously.

But the El Paso got wall-to-wall coverage because, in essence, it was a
domestic terrorist attack.

~~~
paulddraper
> semi-assault

?

> The Chicago shootings resulted in seven deaths but were spread out among
> multiple cases and days.

Naturally, smaller events have less coverage. But even totaling up the
coverages for each Chicago event in less coverage than El Paso.

Most new outlets bias their reporting disproportionately. IDK what the
relationship is. Cubic, probably. An event that is 2 as big gets 8 times the
coverage. Three times as big gets 27 times the coverage.

\---

In any case, media frequently shows an unrepresentative perspective on
reality. It is very easy -- indeed expected -- to change report reality based
on the opinion of what should and should not be reported.

~~~
catacombs
> ?

The El Paso shooter used a semi-automatic rifle:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WASR-
series_rifles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WASR-series_rifles)

> Naturally, smaller events have less coverage. But even totaling up the
> coverages for each Chicago event in less coverage than El Paso.

Huh? The El Paso shooting was a big deal. Hence, the wall-to-wall coverage.

> Most new outlets bias their reporting disproportionately. IDK what the
> relationship is. Cubic, probably. An event that is 2 as big gets 8 times the
> coverage. Three times as big gets 27 times the coverage.

You don't seem to understand how reporting works. Journalists reporting on
breaking news situations do not inject their opinions into the situation. They
report what happened in a digestible and comprehensive way. Go and read the
first coverage of the El Paso shooting and let me know if you see any opinions
injected into the pieces.

> In any case, media frequently shows an unrepresentative perspective on
> reality. It is very easy -- indeed expected -- to change report reality
> based on the opinion of what should and should not be reported.

Again. You don't seem to understand how reporting works. I'd love for you to
message the Texas reporters who covered the El Paso shooting your statement
above and see how they'd response to your accusation that they, as well as
other people who on the ground when shit hits the fans, shape their coverage
based on opinion.

------
stareatgoats
Interesting times, and a slippery slope. These fairly square rules will surely
cause other uproars as it invites back the alt-right with their tongue-in-
cheek fascism. And the Facebook algorithms seem embarrassingly incapable of
nuance, like this Tommy Robinson debacle: the mere mention of the name "Tommy
Robinson" in a post (in Sweden) renders your profile inactive for several days
or indefinitely. In other countries the post is simply deleted. In other
words, any other person called Tommy Robinson would not be able to have a FB
presence.

I'm no fan of Tommy Robinson but this is worrying as FB has become more of a
utility for online discussion and publishing. The problem is partly technical,
but ultimately it is caused by the fact that Facebook doesn't have a value
system of it's own. They need to follow the bidding of the powers that squeeze
them the most.

~~~
efa
What is tongue-in-cheek fascism? Example.

~~~
stareatgoats
Sure. [https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/23/alt-
right...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/23/alt-right-online-
humor-as-a-weapon-facism)

------
the_watcher
An exemption for satire makes sense. There's even an existing legal framework
for it, as it's an exception to defamation. Opinion, however, seems much more
difficult. How do you handle an opinion that relies substantially on a
provably false assertion?

The example in the article seems like it could be handled:

> That op-ed argued that global-warming climate models have been inaccurate
> and that the risks of climate change is overblown.

Included in that sentence are an assertion of fact (yes, climate models have
been inaccurate. This is not controversial, and it's also not really as useful
to the argument as the author thinks it is) and an opinion that, while I
disagree with it, is still an opinion. For purposes of discussion, assume the
article contains no other information. There shouldn't be any kind of "false"
designation assigned to it, because nothing in it is provably false.

However, imagine the article said something like "Atmospheric CO2 has declined
since 1978, global-warming climate models have been inaccurate, and the risks
of climate change is overblown." The first statement in that sentence is
_provably false_ , yet the article would still constitute an opinion piece. Is
there a framework for handling that?

~~~
the_watcher
The way things have been trending, I'd anticipate something like a label for
satire and a label for "opinion, was not not fact checked" (which would apply
to any piece that could be considered an op-ed), and fact checks applying to
anything purporting to be news.

To be honest, setting a rule that anything that purports to be "BREAKING" will
be fact checked at least to the extent of "the contents of this article cannot
be proven entirely factually correct" would be a pretty big step forward and
potentially reduce the virality of outright disinformation.

------
raxxorrax
Fact checkers would have me believe that we are constantly victims of Russian
disinformation campaigns. I think the worth of fact checkers has already been
concluded.

The truth is that you should be aware of the general bias a publication has.
Also how they can be linked together via parent companies. If you have
multiple sources with different bias, you should be fine.

The WSJ for example belongs to the Murdoch conglomerate. There are a lot more
of those. Of course it is unknown how much influence there is on their
editorial board. But still important to keep that in mind.

~~~
pjc50
This is the thing - while there does appear to be a foreign covert
disinformation campaign, it's dwarfed by the domestic "legitimate"
disinformation put out by Murdoch and other press outlets. Or people like Alex
Jones.

~~~
raxxorrax
True. I am not disputing there aren't any efforts to manipulate voters. I
would be surprised if there were not. But the relevancy that the media tried
to transport just wasn't adequate.

I genuinely believe that many just have been played, but that could have been
mitigated by providing at least a somewhat believable perspective.

------
vijaybritto
In India lots of fascist facebook groups post under the cover of satire to
escape scrutiny. They'll be like "kill all muslims :D" \- the smiley at the
end supposedly means its 'satire'. This is gonna be a godsend for them!

------
gadders
I can't help wondering if this was triggered by the whole Babylon Bee vs
Snopes situation:

[https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/03/us/snopes-babylon-
bee.htm...](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/03/us/snopes-babylon-bee.html)

[https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-fact-checker-declares-war-
on-...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-fact-checker-declares-war-on-
satire-11566428259)

~~~
croon
Speaking of opinion pieces, that second one could really use some scrutiny.

~~~
gadders
Well, it's written by the boss of the Babylon Bee so it's not likely to be
impartial...

------
kelnos
Welp, that's a shame. That will make their fact-checking stuff completely
useless, as the majority of "news" shared that tends to get people riled up
seem to be opinion pieces.

------
Communitivity
And here we go.. Funfortunately, most of the misinformation I hear is
presented as entertainment. I am fine with it, if like SNL it is clearly
labelled as satire, and not done as if it was news (as one network it seems to
me often does). Sadly, there are many who watch that network, and shows like
its shows, who believe what they are hearing to be the gospel truth. This is
to the point of a man arming himself with an assault rifle (another problem,
but I won't digress more than that) and shooting up an innocent pizza parlor
that the entertainment show in question accused of some of the most heinous
crimes in our judicial system.

We put labels at the bottom of cigarettes to warn people. Why can't we put a
header at the bottom of such programs: "Satire, Not News, Not Factual".

Btw, I would love to see that banner on the bottom of The Daily Show as much
as I would on The Rush Limbaugh Show, as both sides of the Red/Blue divide are
guilty of this to some extent.

~~~
tru3_power
Doesn’t the responsibility ultimately lay on consumer of said entertainment to
ascertain this? Seems like the bigger problem we’re facing here is a mental
health problem.

~~~
Bartweiss
I'd find that more reasonable if Facebook said "we're not fact-checking
anything, work it out yourselves", or tagged these articles as "exempted from
fact-checking". Offering to flag false stories creates an expectation which is
violated when you fail to distinguish "true" from "unchecked".

Separately I don't think we should equate mental health with mental hygiene
here. Mental health might make the difference between "believing untrue
things" and "showing up somewhere with a gun and no particular plan", but it's
hardly a precondition for accepting wildly improbable and untrue claims.

------
cm2187
Scott Adams claims that about 30% of people in a society just do not get
humour / satire and take things at the first degree, particularly if it
reinforces their convictions.

If it is true, and I think he may have a point, there would be some value in
labelling humour or satire as such. It sounds ridiculous, but like it is
ridiculous to have a label “not suitable for your pets” on a microwave!

~~~
chrisseaton
> Scott Adams claims that about 30% of people in a society just do not get
> humour / satire

Satire, snark, and sarcasm have to be least effective way you could possibly
choose to communicate. You are absolutely _begging_ to be misunderstood and
misquoted, either genuinely or maliciously, and then it's nigh on impossible
to explain yourself as all your excuses just sound like like _it-was-a-prank-
bro_.

Another huge problem is that satire is often used as cover for telling not-
quite-truths. I listen to satirical radio programmes (we have a lot of those
in the UK) and sometimes I think they're really bending the truth quite a bit
to get the joke and their criticism isn't really fair. That'd be fine if these
people weren't simultaneously actual political activists who the next night
are saying they're making genuine political arguments, and if people didn't
think it's-funny-because-it's-true. I'm pretty sure some of them do satire
just to get away with attacking without having to back any of it up, and so
they can absolve themselves from responsibility when challenged.

Quite often, I think really I'm just listening to some nasty bullies.

All-in-all, I think satire is a bit toxic for everyone involved.

~~~
notacoward
Were you intending to demonstrate self-satire, or was it an accident? _A
Modest Proposal_ alone should make the case for the effectiveness of satire,
which is closely related to the even more time-honored reductio ad absurdum.
The problem is that there's a lot of bad satire, and false satire, but that's
a problem with almost every form of speech/writing that's not completely dry,
flat, and colorless. It's true of analogy, allegory, metaphor, hyperbole (like
yours when you say "least effective way possible"), poetry, etc. They're all
abused. They're all prone to misunderstanding. Effective communication is
hard. Don't mistake personal preference for a general rule, or present it as
such.

~~~
chrisseaton
I think satire is different from just being ineffective, in that it actively
opens yourself up to malicious mis-interpretation. Its failure mode isn't just
your audience being confused or missing the point.

Like the comedian in the UK who said she wanted to throw battery acid at
politicians. It was (probably 90%) satire. But when challenged if she said she
thought you should throw battery acid all she can say is yes with a weak-
sounding defence of 'but it was just a prank.'

------
duxup
I see a lot of misinformation and disturbing amount of bigoted content posted
as humor, presumably to sort of normalize that bigotry by slipping it into
various online communities as humor.

------
tracker1
I have a domain "madeup.world" that I was thinking on putting up a fake news
site called "Real World News Today" given the domain, I was wanting to try to
make it obvious. However, there are times where even the Onion feels a bit
real, and I don't think I have any faith in actual media.

Maybe I'll put up genuine commentary, I just don't have the time or
inclination to deal with it.

------
consumer451
I wonder if a huge downside of achieving a monopoly position is the ability of
politicians to extort you with threat of anti-trust action?

------
timeimp
Not gonna lie, I read the title as

Facebook to Exempt The Onion and Satire from Fact-Checking

------
program_whiz
Add this to the disclaimers:

I'm not a doctor, this is not medical advice, just my opinion. Now onto how to
heal cancer with a crystal.

I'm not a financial advisor, this is not investment advice, just my opinion.
Now onto how to make millions with this one simple chart pattern.

------
zarro
Facebooks innocent mistake was the presupposition that its capable of defining
truth.

------
colorincorrect
Labeling satire as satire defeats the intention though. The critique lies in
its ambiguity, and the greater the ambiguity the stronger the critique.

And that's a fact! ;)

------
nradov
I like Snopes for fact checking but they lost a lot of credibility when they
tried to "fact check" a Babylon Bee article that was obviously satire.
(Babylon Bee is clearly labeled as satire and humor, sort of like The Onion or
Duffel Blog.) Later Snopes tried to partially walk it back, but unfortunately
the whole incident gave justification to those who claim that fact checkers
are biased and pushing a left-wing agenda on Facebook.

[https://www.snopes.com/news/2019/08/16/readers-think-
satire-...](https://www.snopes.com/news/2019/08/16/readers-think-satire-is-
real/)

------
ehutch79
yeeeaaaaahhhh. 'its just a joke' is already a thing...

------
tracker1
What happens when _I_ make a post with satirical content? (guessing: ban-
hammer)

------
2sk21
User created content is a toxic asset - this is a mess that has no resolution

------
papito
My opinion is that the Earth is flat. Prove me wrong.

~~~
tathougies
> Prove me wrong

Well, there's really nothing to prove. You didn't make the claim that 'the
earth is flat'. Instead you made the claim that 'My [papito's] opinion is that
the Earth is flat'. There is no reason to disbelieve the latter. It is clear
from your own statement that your opinion is that the Earth is flat. There is
no reason to counter that statement.

This is why facebook has no obligation to do anything. Facebook's entire
platform is to allow various entities to self-publish their opinions. If it is
clear that this is your opinion on hacker news (where the anonymous username
is actually relatively obscured compared to facebook's real name policy and
name placement), then it is extremely clear on Facebook.

------
jmkni
Aticle is paywalled (for me anyway)

------
rpmisms
As long as Snopes keeps fact-checking the Babylon Bee, I will be content.

