Facebook Will Start Fact-Checking Pictures, Videos (cnbc.com) 116
Facebook said Thursday that it will start fact-checking images and videos. "People share millions of photos and videos on Facebook every day. We know that this kind of sharing is particularly compelling because it's visual. That said, it also creates an easy opportunity for manipulation by bad actors," Facebook said in a blog post. CNBC reports: Edited photos and strong visuals were common among the posts by Russian agents attempting to interfere with the 2016 U.S. presidential election and other global elections, according to examples released by members of Congress. Facebook has been ramping up fact-checking efforts and third-party human reviewers in recent months in an effort to protect future elections from foreign interference. The company has already detected what it called "coordinated inauthentic behavior" ahead of the midterm elections in November.
"Many of our third-party fact-checking partners have expertise evaluating photos and videos and are trained in visual verification techniques, such as reverse image searching and analyzing image metadata, like when and where the photo or video was taken," Facebook said. "Fact-checkers are able to assess the truth or falsity of a photo or video by combining these skills with other journalistic practices, like using research from experts, academics or government agencies."
"Many of our third-party fact-checking partners have expertise evaluating photos and videos and are trained in visual verification techniques, such as reverse image searching and analyzing image metadata, like when and where the photo or video was taken," Facebook said. "Fact-checkers are able to assess the truth or falsity of a photo or video by combining these skills with other journalistic practices, like using research from experts, academics or government agencies."
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Satire (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Satire (Score:5, Insightful)
The current era, sadly, cannot be parodied.
Goodbye common carrier status. (Score:1)
Since FB want to now be a censor, they are now responsible for EVERY piece of content. Enjoy the numerous lawsuits and criminal charges incoming, Zuck.
Re:Satire (Score:5, Insightful)
Only if it pokes no fun at people for religious reasons. Or gender. Or racial. Or physical appearance. Or talent. Or nationality. Or dress. Or economic status. Or sports preference. Or dental hygiene. Or car they drive. Or phone preference. Or body piercings. Or tattoos. Or educational background. Or language spoken. Or relationship status.
But political preference is still acceptable. As long as it does not make fun of those on the political left. Or center. Or center left. All others are fine, though!
Re: (Score:3)
Bah! We can still make fun of fat white conservative dudes! Do we REALLY need anyone else to mock?!? :P
Re: (Score:2)
Of course not. When king becomes tyrannical, the first one to get the noose is the court jester.
Facts Considered Harmful (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
As for harmful to Democrats during election, that's even harder to tell. Lots of stuff that seems good from a liberal perspective actually triggers moderates and conservatives, like the whole transgender bathroom fiasco or shaming people for saying Merry Christmas. Do you allow news about those things or not?
Re: (Score:1)
Which brings up satire. You change a picture just to be funny. Will it get rejected?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Most photos uploaded will have the geo location in the meta data. ...
Wow that was easy again
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Weekly Standard, headed by Bill Kristol, trust fund baby who has been full of shit on pretty much every subject he's ever spoke on.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and the fascist Atlantic Council, headed by rabidly ant-Russian ideologues who have ties to CrowdStrike, the same firm that 'decided" that Russia hacked the DNC servers, based on shitty or no evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
That and the FBI never bothering to examine the DNC servers. I keep having to point out to Russiagaters that this should bother them most of all, as the old telnet handle from Vlad Pootie Poot himself could be right there, hanging out in an exploit buried in firmware, if only Mueller could get off his incompetent ass and subpoena them...
"unauthorized facts"? (Score:2)
Any unauthorized facts will be checked
Is that the new name of alternative facts? [wikipedia.org]
If you post factual information then people will be interested in knowing. If you posts a meme claiming some crazy conspiracy shit with absolute no factual backing then it's going to get taken down. Infowars isn't a news source.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Actually they have a right wing bias against liberal sites that are more favourable to the Democrats.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-p... [arstechnica.com]
TL;DR they have five organisations doing fact checking, four neutral and one (Weekly Standard) overtly and unashamedly biased to the right.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL. You think the Weekly Standard is biased to the right? There's a reason why it has the name the Neocon Standard among conservatives, and it's articles and founder are heavily given happy treatment by democrats in the US. Because the owner of the site, and many of the authors are never-trumpers and neocons. Those same neocons that were driven out by the Tea Party groups, and were welcomed with open arms by democrats and progressives.
No, you probably don't know that. Why don't you go look up people l
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What you mean is that reality has a left wing bias and any site that reflects that is therefore also biased.
Give us an example of bias from any of these left leaning orgs.
Re: (Score:2)
Cough, cough, the corporate democrats, the big business stooges, the multi-national whores, the slimy rotten pieces of shit best exemplified by Uncle Tom Obama, the Choom Gang Coward.
Lets be honest, corporate Republicans are also not banned. The list of the actively shunned, The Greens, The Libertarians, Progressive Democrats, Independent Republicans, Peace Activists, well anyone who is anti corporate establishment and is not down with the rape and pillaging of the planet earth in this generation and basic
Re: (Score:2)
Who's vetting these 3rd party fact checkers? Is there a 3rd party for that? Having 3rd party "fact checkers" is not as straightforward as say, trusting a CA to vouch for a server certificate. Humans have biases.
Too late (Score:2)
More than three-quarters of all 18-34 yo FB users have removed FB from their cell phones.
Day late.
Dollar short.
Competent audience required (Score:1)
I suppose some lies are rather sophisticated, and it takes a concerted effort to dig through the facts to discover the truth. But a significant number of posts I see go b
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently many of the "average Joe" are apparently unable to discern between fact and fiction.
Things like, "12:30 Aug 27th you will see two moons in the sky, but only one will be the moon. The other will be Mars. It won't happen again until 2287. No one alive today has ever witnessed this happening."
How do you know people actually believe that? A lot of that sharing could be for humor. I know at least one troll that makes flat earth posts just for laughs.
Besides, how do you know it's wrong? I'm going to guess that you trusted someone or something that told you Mars is much further away than the Moon, that they're set in their orbits and thus will never* become as bright as the Moon. Of course, you think the people you trust is trustworthy, but can you verify that?
Now replace something that most p
Re: (Score:2)
Well, ... ... what do I know?
if you are old enough you should have watched Mars often enough
However if you live in a city like NYC, you probably never have seen a planet or a star in the sky
Oh $hit... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Fact-checkers are able to assess the truth or falsity of a photo or video by combining these skills with other journalistic practices, like using research from experts, academics or government agencies."
We are so fucked...
Re: (Score:3)
We are so fucked...
If by "We" you mean QAnon followers and their Infowars buddies, then yes, you are fucked.
Re: (Score:3)
Here's the list of fact checking organisations:
Associated Press
Factcheck.org (Please use 'appeal' in subject line)
PolitiFact
Snopes.com
The Weekly Standard
Four neutral, and the Weekly Standard on the right. If one of them decides the content is fake there is no appeal. The Standard has already started abusing its power to censor left leaning publications.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm also going to point out to you, that Media Matters, the organization in question has a very long history of quote mining, and making fabrications in order to attempt "gotcha moments." Here's an example from the other day. Rush Limbaugh(like or hate him), says "And in this article, people are claiming that sharks were being dropped on land by hurricane Florence." Media Matters then reports this tongue-in-cheek moment where he's laughing his ass off, as "Rush Limbaugh reports, that sharks were falling
Re: (Score:2)
Well considering (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Most people I know(liberal/conservative) only post pictures of friends and families, pets, social events, vacations, or just personal shit.
Then they are very unlikely to be fact checked.
WHAT THE FUCK IS THE POINT of the Fact check.
To stop idiots from posting and reposting memes with misleading information and flat out lies that are nothing more than propaganda.
Re: (Score:2)
To stop idiots from posting and reposting memes with misleading information and flat out lies that are nothing more than propaganda.
As long as doing so doesn't hurt the politics FB supports. Those misleading memes and lies will sail right by the fact checkers who get paid by them.
Re: (Score:2)
To stop idiots from posting and reposting memes with misleading information and flat out lies that are nothing more than propaganda.
You mean, it's not to control the discourse and tell people what to think? It's a very easy line to cross as one can see with sites like snopes or politifact can go out of their way to claim something is false, when a meme for example uses a single different word.
Re: (Score:2)
WHAT THE FUCK IS THE POINT of the Fact check.
To stop idiots from posting and reposting memes with misleading information and flat out lies that are nothing more than propaganda.
Except it won't be done that way. Leftist propaganda will be happily still passed along, just as it is now.
Re: (Score:1)
A lot of my facebook friends repost any old political crap they've seen that happens to support their prejudices. I mean they're my friends and it's ultimately harmless, but it would be nice if they hadle a little more introspection here.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently there are people who get their news from Facebook. I also find this hard to believe, but that seems to be the worry.
Marking obviously false stories as false doesn't seem to harm. Although I guess in the end it doesn't matter, because the alternatives in the US also don't seem to briliant. If you get your news from TV channels in the US you're screwed anyway. Fox is not news and CNN & Co. is sensationalist fear mongering. You can get some news from them, but at the cost of having to endure ann
OK no more lying about (Score:2)
your penis size, or your income. /s
I guess BookFace wants to become Santa Claus
Hold up ... (Score:2)
... I'm a photographer and the EXIF Data [photographylife.com] is stripped when I upload a photo.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
No.
Because Facebook has to store the photos and they strip EXIF to make the files smaller.
Which is a good thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe.
I strip all EXIF from any photo that leaves any of my devices.
About the only time I turn on location data for photos is in the Spring, taking pictures of blackberry blossoms.
Later on, I can return to those spots, where the berries are extremely hard to find, once the bright white blossoms are gone.
Re: (Score:1)
A human is not always wise and knowledgeable, although some are. In mass, humans are a blob of meat that lacks any intelligence, dignity and self restraint. You can steer it, sometimes it works but that is it. There is a system reason why groups of people are usually not smart. In India which has huge groups of less educated people using communication technology, the calls for lynch spread throu
Glad they are taking care of us (Score:2)
It makes me feel so much better that a large corporation is going to determine truth vs falsehood of information.
Actually it would be OK if they had a purely technical measure of whether or not images or videos had been manipulated.
This is a great idea! (Score:1)
Yes! Yes! Yes! (Score:2)
I look forward to the day I stop seeing people share the picture that claims that if you punch your PIN in backwards at an ATM then it alerts the police to the fact that you're being coerced into taking out money.
Every single person who shares that picture clearly hasn't taken 5 seconds of brain time to consider what would happen if your PIN was, say, 1221.
Re: (Score:2)
I try to calmly explain this whenever I see this one. Or the many completely bogus astronomy ones that get passed around. It doesn't help much but it helps.
Besides we need to leave room for the real facts, like the fact that Hillary Clinton is clearly a lizard person. You can tell by the pixels.
ok (Score:2)
OK, as someone who normally despises conspiracy theories ... I give up.
The whole "oh noes Russia" things was a false flag operation, to give Facebook et al a blanket excuse to go hog wild with their bias. "What choice do we have?"
I didn't want to believe that ... I really didn't ...
This is great (Score:1)
crazy idea (Score:1)
Fact check? More like censorship (Score:1)
Pacifier (Score:1)
If Facebook is going after pics it thinks are posted by Russian hackers what about the ones posted by hackers from China, Vietnam, Israel, etc?
It was a nice way to slip in the Russian hacker thing. The DNC has been looking for Russian hackers since Hillary complained about them. One wonders why Hillary did this since she had a lot ob business dealings with Putin's Russia during here SOS stint so why would they want to hack her campaign?
One would think the Russian hackers would want Hillary and friends to w
Experts (Score:2)
"Many of our third-party fact-checking partners have expertise evaluating photos and videos and are trained in visual verification techniques..."
I've seen a few 'shops in my time...
Of all our ancient, crusty old memes, that one is suddenly and very literally relevant. Who'd have guessed?