Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Advertising Google Communications Facebook Network Networking Software The Almighty Buck The Internet United States Technology News

Google To Prohibit Fake News Websites From Using Its Ad-Selling Software (reuters.com) 294

According to The Wall Street Journal, Google is working on a policy update that will prohibit fake news websites from using its ad-selling software. The move would ultimately make it more challenging for those fake news sites to earn revenue. Reuters reports: The policy change is imminent, Google spokeswoman Andrea Faville told Reuters. "Moving forward, we will restrict ad serving on pages that misrepresent, misstate, or conceal information about the publisher, the publisher's content, or the primary purpose of the web property," she said in a statement. The policy change comes amid an intensifying debate over how much responsibility technology companies bear for monitoring the accuracy of content as more and more people access news through sites such as Facebook rather than traditional media companies. Facebook, in particular, has been criticized over the spread of inaccurate articles promoting U.S. president-elect Donald Trump on the site. Facebook Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg has denied that the site influenced the outcome of the election. Google's AdSense advertising network is a key financial driver for many publishers. The company places various restrictions on where its ads may be placed, including bans on pornographic and violent content. Work on the policy update began before the election, Faville said.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google To Prohibit Fake News Websites From Using Its Ad-Selling Software

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 14, 2016 @10:36PM (#53286845)

    There's been a shit ton of these stories on the front page already. Isn't there anything better to talk about? This is a big part of why Slashdot sucks now. It used to be a mix of lots of stories that would appeal to nerds, but now we get a barrage of stories about topics like this. Slashdot used to be a site where nerds and people working in IT could get practical ideas and keep up date on trends in hardware and software. Those days are long gone, and Slashdot pretty much sucks now. And no, I'm not saying this isn't relevant, just that we don't need more stories about it.

  • Do they even make a profit?
  • Oh great.. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 14, 2016 @10:46PM (#53286879)

    Just what we need... Google deciding what is and isn't real news. What could possibly go wrong?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 14, 2016 @10:47PM (#53286889)

    The goal is to eliminate "fake" news, but the problem isn't even who defines what is real, what is opinion, and what is factually untrue. The real problem is google has stated its intention is to starve sites they dislike into nonexistance.

    Are sites with news about "Ancient Aliens" banned? Easy to show as fake news, but as history channel shows - hugely popular and what many in the public enjoy. Real? Fake? Who cares, the public wants it.

    News stories about Clinton Foundation "pay to play" corruption. "Someone" will decide if this is misleading fake news. No convictions yet, must be fake. Ban them and bury the story.

    News story about Trump being racist? No proof he isn't, must be legit. Pay the website.

    This is how the internet will die, in a flood of corporate decided and approved facts and filters.
    Why buy the politicians anymore, when they can own and control what is considered worthy of being "legit"

    • by Lisandro ( 799651 ) on Monday November 14, 2016 @10:57PM (#53286927)

      Jesus H Christ, are we on such a low point that "sites will starve" unless Google gives your money?

      PS: What's with this shit about "no proof" on Trump being racist? He's on record making racists remarks during his own campaing, for fucks sake.

      • Many of us have been asking (for close to a year and a half now!) for a verbatim racist quote and a video of the words coming out of his mouth. No takers so far.

        Are you up to the challenge? Should be easy, since you claim that he is "on record making racists [sic] remarks".

    • If I were in charge, I would ban only the most obvious cases, and leave the uncertain areas untouched. Easiest way to avoid controversy.
    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      It's actually fairly easy to determine with a very high degree of probability if news is fake or not. If it's some random blog site or Breitbart publishing it, and none of the other mainstream news outlets pick it up, it's probably fake. If it's not fake, other journalists will look at it and pick the story up.

      For example, story about Trump being racist. Did many web sites with a reputation for at least basic fact checking use the same quote? Does his Twitter feed contain that quote? Then yes, opinion of if

      • It's just alt-right fantasies that have been proven to be bullshit,

        It's #7 (obsession with plot) on Umberto Eco's tests of ur-facism [nybooks.com]. Trump actually fits all 14 tests remarkably well.

        The list of tests was written in 1995 when Trump was an unsuccessful business man, burning through daddy's money with a succession of bankruptcies.

        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          It's hard to know how dangerous he really is, because he acts like a child but does actually have all that power. When things aren't going his way it's all rigged and a giant conspiracy against him, when he wins it's all fine.

          • It's hard to know how dangerous he really is, because he acts like a child but does actually have all that power.

            Indeed. One cause for concern is how easily goaded he is, for example the whole "small hands" thing and getting into 3am twitter fights with former models. Who knows what he'll be goaded into by experienced politicians.

    • "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts" These sites have allowed this to happen.
    • by johanw ( 1001493 )

      I think the goal is more to prevent wasting investments, like the investment they did in Hillary which is now worthless.

  • Tough times ahead (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Kohath ( 38547 ) on Monday November 14, 2016 @10:59PM (#53286935)

    For NBC then. Now we need Google to ban:
    - sites that intentionally withhold news stories from the public for partisan reasons
    - news sites that feed pre-selected questions to a candidate before a debate
    - sites that frame Hillary getting investigated by the FBI as "Republicans pounce on Hillary allegations"
    - Upworthy
    - IPCC predictions
    - political polling
    - Twitter
    - and the rest of everyone trying to troll and clickbait and hyperbolize current events

    • by ThatsMyNick ( 2004126 ) on Tuesday November 15, 2016 @12:33AM (#53287265)

      Google is drawing the line at fake news, there is nothing wrong with that. You are drawing the line at news not made in the best spirit, that is fine too. Just not where google chose the line.

      • Google is drawing the line at fake news, there is nothing wrong with that. You are drawing the line at news not made in the best spirit, that is fine too. Just not where google chose the line.

        I think you need to sit down in a darkened room for a while and work out why that is incredibly stupid. Neither you, nor Google or anyone else, are capable of judging 'fake news'. One person's opinion is another person's fake news. The world just cannot work like that.

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      sites that frame Hillary getting investigated by the FBI as "Republicans pounce on Hillary allegations"

      It's sad that people can't even tell the difference between news, i.e. reporting of the facts, and opinion/editorial these days.

      • by Kohath ( 38547 )

        The main difference is that "news" stories in the US are almost all editorializing. For facts, we need to learn to pick through the subtext. Or read foreign news sources.

        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          Try Reuters or AP, they do simple factual statement style releases that the other news outlets then pick up and editorialize. The BBC has a more readable style and makes a genuine effort to stay neutral, if those two are too dry for you.

  • by Lisandro ( 799651 ) on Monday November 14, 2016 @10:59PM (#53286937)

    "Moving forward, we will restrict ad serving on pages that misrepresent, misstate, or conceal information about the publisher, the publisher's content, or the primary purpose of the web property".

    This is straightforward. Why is everyone acting like Google is trying to control news?

    • People are no longer able to distinguish between biased news and fake news, conflate the two, and consider their favored made up stories to be morally equal to any bias in the opposing ideology's mainstream media. It's sick. Personally, as a liberal, I have no problem with the existence of the likes of FOX News -- they're biased, but they're just putting their slant on stories that are at least connected to reality and open to evidence. All news sources do that because everyone has some bias as a result of

    • Maybe because Google has already been caught biasing search?

      The first "media" to point this out is anything but conservative. It was SourceFed [youtube.com]

      "Google has been actively altering search recommendations in factor of Hillary's campaign."

      Of course, if you lean Democrat then thats not a problem... funny how bias works.
  • Finally... I hope (Score:4, Interesting)

    by imidan ( 559239 ) on Monday November 14, 2016 @11:12PM (#53286973)

    Does this mean I can stop getting stories on my Google News page from 'Ecumenical News' and 'Christian Daily', two religious news web sites that apparently went belly-up some years ago, had their domains purchased by scammers, and now serve clickbait bullshit constantly? All they ever do is somehow zero in on some search term I used recently and then feed me fake headlines about that thing.

    Like, for months now, I've constantly had a story on my news page about Rick and Morty (which I searched for one day in July, and these stories started the next day) from one or the other of those sites. Today, it's "'Rick and Morty' season 3 update: Release date revealed and other spoilers" from Ecumenical News. I don't click them; they're just a gibberish mishmash of rumors from elsewhere on the web. I 'Personalized' my Google News feed and set both of these news sources to the lowest they'll go, but unfortunately, it seems impossible to exclude them completely.

    Before that, it was a constant stream of rumor-mill bullshit about The Arrow and the drama between cast members. These sites are NOT NEWS, they're just algorithmicly generated clickbait. Preferably, they would both die a fiery death, but in the meantime, if I could just get them off of my news feed, I'd be mollified.

  • ... and why is Google doing the defining...?

  • Fire BeauHD (Score:4, Informative)

    by bongey ( 974911 ) on Monday November 14, 2016 @11:30PM (#53287041)

    F**king BeauHD cannot get over the butt hurt of the election. His twitter feed, "Trump is a saggy sack of shit. If any one of you is even remotely considering voting for him this November, please unfollow me. "
    "That sack of shit next to Hillary is attracting flies! #debate"
    "Clinton wiped the floor with Trump tonight. Say hello to your next president, America!"
    " It's only a story because it has the 'Trump' buzzword. Stupid media is stupid."
    "I bet Trump hired the climber for publicity."

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Where are all the Free Speech Warriors? Masahki? Come on, you defended Eich's "right" to say offensive stuff in public and keep his job, why aren't you leaping to the support of BeauHD now?

  • Seeing that mainstream media is mostly fake nowadays, news sites should worry. Especially liberal lapdogs like HuffPo, WaPo, CNN and so on.

  • Just have the prosecution put up a web site claiming that the accused is guilty and the defense put up one saying innocent, then the judge can check to see which Google accepts or rejects.

    Likewise good for hiring decisions, investment decisions, policy decisions etc. Kind of like a boolean Ouija board.

    Let's test it on whether we should go see the new Star Wars movie, which doesn't seem to be generating the usual hype.

  • A lot of small news sites use Google Adsense because the connections are small to non-existent. The resources to negotiate deals directly is virtually non-existent which is why some simply throw these ads on in the first place. Another reason is that it is a pretty good way to ensure journalistic independence. You aren't beholden necessarily to your advertisers in the same way some traditional news organizations (i.e. TV broadcasting) are beholden to theirs. These policies need to be very carefully weigh
  • That Was The Week That Was (UK)
    That Was The Week That Was (US)
    The Daily Show with *
    The Onion
    Fox News

    As long as we all can see the difference between satirical news coverage
    (which tends to bend the facts a bit (left/right it doesn't matter)) for the laugh
    and bs stories passed off as "hard news". We can't as a platform. We all just
    gotta pay more attention.

  • Oh man, Slashdot is screwed ;)
  • So many sites have ads that look like news items or download links.
    Let's do something about those, too!

  • I wonder if Google will be smart enough to distinguish parody and satire sites vs. ones that exist to libel and slander political foes. It will be a lot less fun to do my website if I have to beat it over people's heads with THIS IS A JOKE on every story I write.
  • Fake articles seems to be a new "approach" in Internet media that is becoming increasingly common. A title that is either favorable or unfavorable to a particular party with an article that says whose contents are the exact opposite with facts that are based on celebrity quotes or opinions rather than facts. This approach may have been used during the political process in 2016, but I have seen this style of writing growing. It seems to be turning Internet media into a supermarket tabloid across the board

Were there fewer fools, knaves would starve. - Anonymous

Working...