Facebook's 'Independent' Fact Checks Face Quiet Political, Financial Pressures (fastcompany.com) 106
tedlistens writes: Facing questions about a mysterious series of changes to some fact-check labels, Facebook recently wrote to a group of senators with an assurance: its fact checkers can and do label "opinion" content if it crosses the line into falsehood. What Facebook didn't tell the senators: the company draws that line, and can pressure changes to fact checks & misinformation penalties. And it does. Facebook acknowledged to me that it may ask fact checkers to change their ratings, and that it exercises control over pages' internal misinformation strikes.
In one case -- a video containing misinformation about climate change published by PragerU -- Facebook downgraded a fact-check label from "false" to "partly false," and removed the page's misinformation strikes. Was the change warranted? "Let me put it this way," says Scott Johnson, an editor at Climate Feedback, one of Facebook's third-party fact checking organizations. "Our reviewers gave it a -2 rating on our +2 to -2 scale and our summary describes it as 'incorrect and misleading to viewers,' so we had selected the 'false' label accordingly."
In some cases the video now carries no apparent label at all. After an update that Facebook announced last week, the company is using what it calls a "lighter-weight warning label" for "partly false" content in the U.S.: an unobtrusive box below the video under "related articles" that says "fact check," with a link. Meanwhile, older versions of the video appeared to evade labels completely: A handful of other PragerU posts containing the video appear without any labeling, a review by Fast Company found. Versions of the labeled and unlabeled video have now racked up millions of views since April 2016, when it was first published.
In one case -- a video containing misinformation about climate change published by PragerU -- Facebook downgraded a fact-check label from "false" to "partly false," and removed the page's misinformation strikes. Was the change warranted? "Let me put it this way," says Scott Johnson, an editor at Climate Feedback, one of Facebook's third-party fact checking organizations. "Our reviewers gave it a -2 rating on our +2 to -2 scale and our summary describes it as 'incorrect and misleading to viewers,' so we had selected the 'false' label accordingly."
In some cases the video now carries no apparent label at all. After an update that Facebook announced last week, the company is using what it calls a "lighter-weight warning label" for "partly false" content in the U.S.: an unobtrusive box below the video under "related articles" that says "fact check," with a link. Meanwhile, older versions of the video appeared to evade labels completely: A handful of other PragerU posts containing the video appear without any labeling, a review by Fast Company found. Versions of the labeled and unlabeled video have now racked up millions of views since April 2016, when it was first published.
Climate Feedback, one of Facebook's fact-checkers (Score:3, Insightful)
--
Climate Feedback, one of Facebook's third-party fact checking organizations. "Our reviewers gave it a -2 rating on our +2 to -2 scale
--
An organization called "Climate Feedback" sure sounds like a neutral, objective, reliable judge to me.
That's who Facebook has doing their "fact" checks.
Which they now acknowledge aren't fact checks, but opinion checks. Nice.
That's just double-plus good.
Re: (Score:1)
I don't see a problem with the name. What name do you suggest for them?
Re: Climate Feedback, one of Facebook's fact-check (Score:2, Troll)
Perhaps, âoeAgree with us or we will say bad things about you.â
Thatâ(TM)s about where intellect and reason are currently positioned.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's the list of Climate Feedback's reviewers. Seems to be well over 250 people (I gave up counting at 120 and wasn't halfway through).
https://climatefeedback.org/co... [climatefeedback.org]
Not a single black face. I'm guessing over 90% male too.
If this were a conservative org they would've already been canceled, or worse.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, and Climate Feedback claims to be an arm of the non-profit org Science Feedback. Only problem there is that no such non-profit named Science Feedback exists: https://projects.propublica.or... [propublica.org]
Sure would be nice to know where all the money from their donations goes.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably here? https://sciencefeedback.co/ [sciencefeedback.co]
wow, that was so hard to find....
Re: Climate Feedback, one of Facebook's fact-check (Score:4, Insightful)
I didn't say they didn't have a website, just that they weren't registered as a non-profit. Your link does helpfully say they're registered in France though, which still seems odd considering their donation platform Donorbox is based in the US.
However, there aren't any non-profits named "Science Feedback" registered [i]on the planet[/i] listed in the only global database I could find: https://www.chnet.com/index3.p... [chnet.com]
I'd just like to see how much the officers pay themselves and what they spend their money on. Disclosing that is legally required in the US.
Re: (Score:3)
They're not registered in the U.S., as has already been pointed out to you.
It seems odd that someone would use a US platform? Just because they're registered in a different country? What French donation platform should
Re: Climate Feedback, one of Facebook's fact-check (Score:4, Insightful)
It seems odd that a company would tout being a non-profit directly accepting US dollars yet not follow US non-profit transparency laws. You wouldn't find it odd if I claimed to be a non-profit soliciting donations, but when confronted I just say "Oh yeah, only registered in France!"?
Reminds of the fat kid in high-school with a hot girlfriend who just unfortunately lives in Canada so no you can't meet her.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
U.S non-profit transparency laws only apply to U.S.-registered non-profits. Again, answer the questions "What French donation platform should they be using, and why?" to find your answer.
No, not really, because there's no requir
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"The thing is, there's a comprehensive registry of French non-profits available on the internet. You're just too much of an idiot to locate it, and I'm not going to help you."
Right, just like your girlfriend in Canada...
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, you're cute. But I'm still not giving you the link. Your problem is that people more competent than you can Google it to find it too... nobody has to take my word for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, you're cute. But I'm still not giving you the link. Your problem is that people more competent than you can Google it to find it too... nobody has to take my word for it.
P.S. Screw you, moderator.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not a single black face. I'm guessing over 90% male too.
The thing I find disturbing about this is that you insist on judging people's qualifications based on their apparent race and sex.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh I'm not, just playing by their fun new rules.
Here's what they should do (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't see a problem with the name. What name do you suggest for them?
I suggest that facebook maintain their opinion about posts as a separate list or filter that people can opt into. Do whatever they want on that list with Trump's tweets, conservative bloggers, and whatnot - just make it local to their list and invite people to use the list via opt-in.
That would solve all the censorship/unfairness complaints, allow them to do whatever editing and banning they want to do, and also show them how much of the interest in fact-checking lies in their users versus their own ego.
The
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
They can even open the API up to others to maintain lists/filters for other reasons, such as deep Christians who don't like to see profanity and sacrilege, islamics who don't want to see criticism, or leftists who don't want to see politically incorrect speech.
Killing it! 100% funny while being embarrassingly factual as well.
It's always nice to start the morning with a giggle. Thank you.
Re: (Score:1)
What name do you suggest for them?
Honest Eddies used cars and climate science.
Re: (Score:1)
I like it!
Re: (Score:2)
I said:
--
An organization called "Climate Feedback" sure sounds like a neutral, objective, reliable judge to me.
--
YOU realized that the only time anyone would say they seem reliable would if they said so sarcastically.
I guess after that your fandom kicked in, waiting to root for your favorite politiball team, so you wanted to pretend they do sound like an reliable, objective source?
Is that why you've asked me to explain to you how you knew that "they sound reliable" MUST be sarcastic, since it's so c
Re: (Score:2)
I plead confused here.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A little triggered this morning? Run out of weed to chill you out?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
conservatives are delicate little snowflakes who can't take the harsh light of criticism without screaming about teh oppressionz by teh durty libz
You know this is true from the fact were now in day 1 billion of open rioting in the streets by mobs of conservatives smashing windows, attacking people, and looting stores.
If Trump, or conservatives, or anybody else you hate who's to the right of Che were half as bad as your fevered dreams imagined them to be, you'd be in a gulag. You're not. Major, multi-national corporations, the entire Democrat party, half the Republican party, and the entire media apparatus of this country all bend over backward to acc
PragerU=ViolenceU (Score:2, Interesting)
Rabbit hole, Phase 1 (Score:1)
There are too many grey areas in the politics & news accuracy ranking business. I applaud FaceBook for trying, but this has a good chance of ending on sour notes.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it true, false, or undecideable? Those are labels that can be applied accurately if you so choose. It sounds like Facebook is living up the to old Zuckerberg quote about trusting him.
That said, any sentence starting with "I think" is almost guaranteed to be undecideable. True and false can be measured by instruments. (Well, at least in principle, if not always in practice.) And then there are predictions which should usually be rated "undecideable so far". So if it's actually not statements of fact
tldr (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
facebook - politics and tyranny (Score:3, Insightful)
Facebook is merely one of the big players today.
George Carlin had it totally when he said,
"It's big club and you ain't in it"
Just Report the Obvious Bias (Score:2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I get the feeling the bias is mostly from doing a half-a**ed job, just like everything else Facebook does.
For example, one of my friends posted a meme that shows a box full of puppies with the caption, "The antidepressants I ordered online just arrived." Facebook's algorithm somehow matched the photo against a news story from Le Monde about a fake puppy giveaway, and blocked out the meme, rating it as false.
This is, not to put too fine a point on it, just spectacularly absurd.
Censorship (Score:2)
At least we aren't to totally binary / true-false / black-white / truth-lie censorship.... yet. We're still in the fuzzy logic spectrum of censorship at the moment. Easier to start sliding down that slippery slope when it isn't so steep at first.
Re: (Score:2)
Not only that, but they're redefining true and false (veracity of facts), as well as "opinion". Folks, an opinion can't be true or false. That's what distinguishes it from a fact.
The statement, "I am of the opinion that sheep have wings," is a statement of fact, not an opinion, even though the word opinion is stuck in there. It's a statement of fact, and it references an untrue factual assertion.
This is not complex, unless someone deliberately muddies the waters.
Fact checkers? Bear in mind... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot:
- There really was a pedophile ring operating under Comet Ping Pong run by Hillary Clinton...
Re: (Score:2)
While many of his claims are borderline/open to disagreement, 4, 5 are completely factual. 7 and 8 appear to be as well, though I'm not up on the latest information on those. Dismissing all claims with the crazy pizza thing (which I agree is pretty fucking crazy) makes you appear less than interested in truth, and more interested in selling an agenda (and for what it's worth, the guy you're replying to is definitely more interested in selling an agenda than truth, but stopped clocks are sometimes correct)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
- FBI lawyer Clinesmith, detailed to the Mueller investigation, admitted to falsifying evidence to get a warrant.
It's worse than that, they managed to out Carter Page, one of our own spies against Russia. Of course he had lots of contacts with the Russians... he was working for us! Clinesmith edited an email from the CIA so they could pretend they didn't know why he was contacting the Russians and the FISA warrant nonsensically claims both that he *is* a Russian agent and that they're trying to "recruit"
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
-The report found Trump's campaign welcomed and received help, then obstructed justice. Hardly a hoax.
-Agreed, coverage here was indeed terrible.
-George Floyd had fentanyl and meth in his system, making an overdose from respiratory depression exceedingly unlikely. In law, there's something called the Eggshell Skull Rule; that a healthier person would not have died from what you did is not an accepted defense to murder.
-Not familiar enou
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
-The report found Trump's campaign welcomed and received help, then obstructed justice. Hardly a hoax.
Had they found that, they would have charged someone for it. Not one charge for electoral fraud, campaign finance violations, treason, or other related crimes was charged against anybody. The DOJ position about not charging a sitting president does not apply to anyone under the president (except, perhaps the VP?).
The "potential obstruction" stuff is such a joke that only a comedian can address it [youtube.com]. Again, if it were real obstruction, they certainly could have charged out any underlings that were complicit
Re: (Score:2)
Had they found that, they would have charged someone for it
Who's "they"? The Republicans who spent July 4 in Moscow?
Re: (Score:2)
You realize that the country has laws and all that, right?
Just because you found that most likely there is collusion, doesn't mean ther eis enough evidence to bring it to trial, especially criminal trial where it's "beyond a reasonable doubt".
You can murder someone, but as long as you can raise reasonable doubt, you can get off. If there isn't enough evidence, some prosecutors won't be even bother wasting time on a case that will fail.
You don't lau
The Covington Catholic weren't the good guys (Score:2)
Now, where the Black Hebrew Israelites in the wrong too? Yeah, but in their defense those guys are nut jobs. You do not hassle nut jobs for kicks. That's fucked up.
What shocks me is that this is supposed to be a nerd site and I'm always amazed how few
Is it cause they're black? (Score:2)
Also like I said, ignore main stream media coverage of the incident. The boy's rich and his parents hired an ex-CNN executive to fix his image. You won't see anything bad about him in the press after that. That's how this works.
Yes, the Black Israelites started it. They're nuts. As in legitimately mentally ill. If a crazy homeless guy on the street is yelling at you then you do not have the right to go get a bunch of you buddies and start trying to get them to throw a
Re: (Score:2)
First you entirely ignored the bad reporting that started this mess.
Then you mixed some lies and projection-based mind-reading to justify violence.
And now you're down to stoking class hatred, randomly accusing others of racism, and telling people not to listen to the mainstream news when they correct themselves.
Just be an adult for once and take the L.
It's not (Score:1)
Ideally there should have been adults there to stop the little punk as kids from doing that. And in fact there was. That Native American guy should be a national hero, it pissed me off that because those kids could afford a media consultant he's not. Fuck t
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry you didn't have friends in high school and you were picked on, even by the weaker kids.
No you aren't. You're proud. You're proud because you're one of the kids who picked on kids, and you're here seeking validation.
Re: (Score:1)
Self-proclaimed "fact checkers", such as The Washington Post, the failing New York Times, Snopes, Politifact, and numerous others have gotten most things wrong over the past 3-4 years.
No, they really haven't.
- Russian collusion was a hoax.
Absence of proof is not proof of absence, particularly when the executive deliberately invokes executive privilege to hide from the subpoenas intended to uncover said evidence. This is like shooting someone in broad daylight, hiding the gun, and saying, "I didn't kill him, because you can't find the gun."
- There was no mythical "quid pro quo" between Trump and Ukraine, just normal diplomacy. While Biden bragged about using US tax dollars to strongarm the removal of a prosecutor threatening his son's do-nothing job.
See above. And no, that prosecutor was not threatening his son's job. Biden pushed to get the prosecutor removed for being incompetent and refusing to pursue corruption cases. Th
We have our standards for a reason. (Score:2, Informative)
Absence of proof is not proof of absence, particularly when the executive deliberately invokes executive privilege to hide from the subpoenas intended to uncover said evidence. This is like shooting someone in broad daylight, hiding the gun, and saying, "I didn't kill him, because you can't find the gun."
I have it on good authority that you fuck kids. Some Afghans said you were partying with them, cornholing 10 year old boys like a freight train.
Now, prove your innocence.
In the meantime, let me go through all your possessions, communications, and personal spaces to look for evidence of anything else I can accuse you of doing wrong. Oh, and I get to go through the communications of your associates too, because those same Afghans made [redacted] claims, so it's a national security matter. Don't worry ab
Re: (Score:2)
Absence of proof is not proof of absence, particularly when the executive deliberately invokes executive privilege to hide from the subpoenas intended to uncover said evidence. This is like shooting someone in broad daylight, hiding the gun, and saying, "I didn't kill him, because you can't find the gun."
I have it on good authority that you fuck kids. Some Afghans said you were partying with them, cornholing 10 year old boys like a freight train.
Now, prove your innocence.
In the meantime, let me go through all your possessions, communications, and personal spaces to look for evidence of anything else I can accuse you of doing wrong. Oh, and I get to go through the communications of your associates too, because those same Afghans made [redacted] claims, so it's a national security matter. Don't worry about the fact that I disagree with you politically, that doesn't affect any of this.
That's the way an investigation works. Sure, there's a requirement that there be due process, i.e. there has to be some evidence just to get a warrant to find more evidence, but once there's enough to get a search warrant, if I go trying to block them from gaining access to my property to search it, I would go to jail for a very long time. Why should he be treated differently simply because he is the President?
Besides, this isn't about "going through all his possessions, communications, and personal space
Re: (Score:2)
Because some things are privileged. Just like spousal and attorney-client privilege, executive privilege allows members of the executive branch to keep certain information private even if it is subpoenaed. If the legislature wants to get past that, they have to go through the courts, just like if the cops wanted your lawyer's notes on your case.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with executive privilege is that it can literally be summed up as "we don't want to tell you". Attorney-client privilege is very narrowly defined. Exec
Re: (Score:2)
The Supreme Court had clearly stated that it's not all-encompassing, but given that there's not a lot of precedent the details aren't all spelled out. Yet another reason to go to the court system if you think privilege is being abused.
That's not
Re: (Score:1)
once there's enough to get a search warrant
The evidence was fake [thegatewaypundit.com]. The FBI lied to get the warrant [cbsnews.com].
Besides, this isn't about "going through all his possessions, communications, and personal spaces". This is a routine subpoena requesting documents on a specific subject.
You may not care about civil liberties, but others do. In case you didn't know, Watergate was about Nixon's goons illegally tapping the phones of his opponent's campaign. Obama's people tapped Trump's phones, acccessed his emails, and had every other means of electronic surveillance available. It applied to anyone within 2 hops of Carter Page and was retroactive.
Are you saying that President Trump has something to hide? Of course. He probable says things to Melania he doesn't want broadcast. Should Barr be able to go through all the communications of every one associated with the Biden campaign? Did Hillary have anything to hide in the 30,000 emails that she deleted while they were under subpeona? Let me guess, your double standards are kicking in right about now.
but let's believe it because... why?
I am not 100% sure what is true. The fact that one (Shokin) is making the claims under penalty of perjury and one refuses to comment further (Biden) definitely lends credibility to it being corruption. There are also the obvious motivations to consider, there was a lot of money on the line for the Biden family. Why do you automatically believe one side of the story? Follow the money.
I've read or at least skimmed pretty much all the research on this (the actual studies, not news reports about it). I'm guessing you haven't.
You haven't read much. Did you read the retracted Lancet study? Did you look into why it was retracted? I read it, prior to the retraction and was shocked it got published, it was so clearly full of junk data. That's the case with most of the hysteria-induced, Trump-deranged, anti-hydroxychloroquine papers. I've read them, and I know you haven't. Did you read this [sciencedirect.com]? Since you aren't very scientifically literate, did you read Risch's article in Newsweek (linked in your quote)?
Re: (Score:2)
Partisan statements sometimes are right, sometimes are wrong. The problem is in the mechanism.
Russia collusion was already dropped by the Mueller report. If such a serious claim leads to an investigation over several years and in the end nothing is proven, then there is not even any justification for starting the investigation against an incumbent president at all. You can't say yeah prove me wrong because what was your certainty based on in the first place?
The Mueller report kept confirming russian interfe
Re: (Score:2)
I probably know the available data better than you. Whether HCQ works cannot be reduced to a propaganda conflict between the powerful supporters of expensive Remdesivir and the powerless supporters of cheap HCQ.
Re: (Score:3)
Donald Trump is that you? Because I have some bad news, the NYT isn't failing, it's actually going from strength to strength: https://fortune.com/2019/02/06... [fortune.com]
Trump/Russia collusion was found, Senate report [senate.gov] page 493:
The Committee's bipartisan Report unambiguously shows that members of the Trump Campaign cooperated _with Russian efforts to get Trump elected. It recounts efforts by Trump and his team to obtain dirt on their opponent from operatives acting on behalf of the Russian government. It reveals the extraordinary lengths by which Trump and his associates actively_sought to enable the Russian interference operation by amplifying its electoral impact and rewarding its perpetrators - even after being warned of its Russian origins. And it presents, for the first time, concerning evidence that the head of the Trump Campaign was directly connected to the Russian meddling through his communications with an individual found to be a Russian intelligence officer.
The rest is just trolling. Floyd was murdered and you should be ashamed of yourself for suggesting otherwise.
What's more interesting is that this obvious fake news is at +5 informative. It looks like the Trump Trolls have mod points again.
Re: (Score:1)
Self-proclaimed "fact checkers", such as The Washington Post, the failing New York Times, Snopes, Politifact, and numerous others have gotten most things wrong over the past 3-4 years.
Wow, the Senate Republicans just said it wasn't as Manafort had a working relationship with a suspected Russian spy.
- Brett Kavanaugh was not a serial gang rapist.
More real than most on your list. He was probably just an -expletive- but it is odd that she told her husband / therapist, years before he was ever offered a Supreme Court seat. I mean that makes her prescient like Usul / Paul Atriedes.
- George Floyd died of an overdose.
Speaking as someone who knows an EMT trainer, you don't know jack about this one sweetie. When someone OD's, seriously OD's, they stop right there, nothing else
Re: (Score:1)
Wow, the Senate Republicans just said it wasn't as Manafort had a working relationship with a suspected Russian spy.
You mean Paul Manafort and Tony Podesta (brother of the chairman of Hillary's campaign), right?
Mueller knew about Konstantin Kilimnik and said there was no evidence his relationship to Manafort was tied to "election interference".
What about Oleg Deripaska directly employing Christopher Steele? What about US-based Igor Dachenko acting as Steele's primary subsource and the FBI stating they didn't be
I remember seeing an interview (Score:2, Insightful)
He was asked why he didn't do the same for the left wing, to which he replied (paraphrasing here): "We tried, the left wing p
I looked at it (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
And the left doesn't watch Maddow. MSBNC is the media arm of the DNC, e.g. the right wing of the party. If you're going to try and tell lies about us at least learn who are media figures are. Start with Robert Reich & Kyle Kulinsky. Then Beau of The Fifth Column.
Re: (Score:2)
You're leaving slashdot? Well, best of luck trolling elsewhere.
So Facebooks 3rd party (Score:3)
" editor at Climate Feedback, one of Facebook's third-party fact checking organizations"
Shouldn't fact checkers be neutral?
Ministry of Truth (Score:2)
Certain fact checkers are not intelligent (Score:2)
A free forum allows misinformation to be challenge (Score:2)
There is philosphical, pedagogical and practical value in letting "misinformation" stand.
Philosophically, freedom and openness is on the whole good, despite its well-documented shortcomings.
There is value in having the wrong way to do things in plain view. The smart man learns from his mistakes but the wise man learns from the mistakes of others.
Practically, your certainty in the truth is based on your training and your experience. So is that of experts. New
Re: (Score:2)
A free forum rapidly goes to shit, because of the tragedy of the commons.
The same is true of anything else "free" in the sense you meant it.
That's why you always need some kind of moderation. In life we call it "law".
Sometimes the moderation is done in ways that don't make things better. That doesn't negate the value of moderation. It only means you have to watch the watchmen.
Re: A free forum allows misinformation to be chall (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A dozen peers electing to ignore you works a lot better than one philosopher-king telling you to shut up.
The only way to deal with a dozen shitlords spamming their way across your forum is to nuke them before they turn the entire discourse to shit.
Re: A free forum allows misinformation to be chal (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are ways to discourage spamming and shitposting that do not involve top-down authority
If you don't want top-down authority, what are you doing on the web? By definition every site has some kind of centralized ownership and control.
declaring itself the ultimate arbiter of truth and lies.
Even facebook isn't doing that. They've declared themselves the arbiter of what content they want to carry on their platform. An ultimate arbiter would be claiming to make decisions for everyone, like a church.
Slashdot does this with reasonable success using peer moderation.
The Slashdot moderation system is broken AF. Moderation itself is used abusively.
Re: A free forum allows misinformation to be chal (Score:2)
Facebook is just a symptom. (Score:1)
Never say never (Score:1)
FazeBook or any entity like them was never going to be able to competently fact-check posts since they have executives and stockholders that like money. In the absence of impartial oversight ethics goes out the window.