How Fake News Is Still Fooling Facebook's Fact-Checking Systems (medium.com) 80
Slashdot reader peterthegreat321 shared an article from Medium's technology blog OneZero revealing the "cracks, loopholes, and limitations in Facebook's systems that bad actors are busily exploiting."
Facebook says it's proud of the progress it has made, though it acknowledges there's more to be done. "Multiple independent studies have found that we've cut the amount of fake news on Facebook by more than half since the 2016 election," the company said in a statement to OneZero. "That still means plenty of people see fake news, which is why we now have more visible warning labels flagging this type of content, and prominent notifications when someone tries to share it or already has...."
The most glaring shortcoming in Facebook's systems might also be the one that's hardest to fix. Even when everything goes right with its fact-checking partners, their human editorial resources pale in comparison to the scope of misinformation on the platform, and they can only vet a fraction of it... In most cases, a story only rises to the top of fact-checkers' priority list once it has already gone viral. And it continues going viral during the fact-checking process. By the time it's marked as debunked on Facebook, its reach may have already peaked.
The discouraging reality is that Facebook's fact-checking efforts, however sincere, appear to be overmatched by the dynamics of its platform. To make the News Feed a less misleading information source would require far more than belated debunkings and warning labels. It would require altering the basic structure of a network designed to rapidly disseminate the posts that generate the greatest quantity of quick-twitch reactions. It would require differentiating between more and less reliable information sources -- something Facebook has attempted in only the most halfhearted ways, and upon which Zuckerberg recently indicated he has little appetite to expand... [T]he progress the platform has made appears to be reaching its limits under a CEO who sees his platform as a bulwark of free speech more than of human rights, democracy, or truth.
Last week, Facebook's only Dutch fact-checking partner quit the program in protest of the company's refusal to fact-check politicians.
The most glaring shortcoming in Facebook's systems might also be the one that's hardest to fix. Even when everything goes right with its fact-checking partners, their human editorial resources pale in comparison to the scope of misinformation on the platform, and they can only vet a fraction of it... In most cases, a story only rises to the top of fact-checkers' priority list once it has already gone viral. And it continues going viral during the fact-checking process. By the time it's marked as debunked on Facebook, its reach may have already peaked.
The discouraging reality is that Facebook's fact-checking efforts, however sincere, appear to be overmatched by the dynamics of its platform. To make the News Feed a less misleading information source would require far more than belated debunkings and warning labels. It would require altering the basic structure of a network designed to rapidly disseminate the posts that generate the greatest quantity of quick-twitch reactions. It would require differentiating between more and less reliable information sources -- something Facebook has attempted in only the most halfhearted ways, and upon which Zuckerberg recently indicated he has little appetite to expand... [T]he progress the platform has made appears to be reaching its limits under a CEO who sees his platform as a bulwark of free speech more than of human rights, democracy, or truth.
Last week, Facebook's only Dutch fact-checking partner quit the program in protest of the company's refusal to fact-check politicians.
Facebook won't fix it (Score:5, Insightful)
Facebook makes money from clicks and ad impressions.
Fake news drives those numbers up.
Facebook will never do anything to get rid of the fake news. It's just too profitable for them.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Facebook won't fix it
Good.
It's not Facecrook's job to determine what is truth and what is not as they are a platform and not a publisher...right? That is the job of each individual person to judge for themselves what is and what is not true & accurate.
If it disturbs you to read and see things not approved by the corporate-media-government complex then move somewhere like China or N. Korea where they love that shit, the US is not for you.
Freedom and an open society are messy and involve risks. You can have individual freed
Re: Facebook won't fix it (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Hypothetically speaking, would you change your mind if a foreign government were using said platform to manipulate our free and open society in a negative way? FFS our own government propagandizing us is bad enough...
It's not the fact that there are, have been, and always will be those who seek to spread lies and propaganda, as long as opposing voices are allowed to speak freely (other than calls for violence/criminal acts, etc) the problem is on average largely self-correcting. It's only when people are not allowed to speak freely and openly do the lies and propaganda become truly dangerous.
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
Hypothetically speaking, would you change your mind if a foreign government were using said platform to manipulate our free and open society in a negative way? FFS our own government propagandizing us is bad enough...
Hypothetically, are you comfortable with being on the receiving end of information (right or wrong, true or false) that you deliberately choose to accept without doing anything to verify? If you read something startling on social media, and you choose to accept it as fact and you don't take personal responsibility to even make the most weak-assed attempt to cross-check, then you deserve to get played.
That's not Facebook's job or the job of any social media outlet. When even true news organizations can't be
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know what post you were responding to, but whatever.
FB is a publisher. They are paid to publish things (like ads). FB itself says that it DOES prohibit ads with falsehoods, except for political ads. Think for a moment -- why would they make that distinction?
Enjoy your fantasy corporatocracy.
Fact Checking is Biased (Score:5, Insightful)
I reviewed one of the "fact checking" sites. It is just as biased as the sort of news it claims to check.
Realizing that a self-proclaimed fact checking site cannot be more biased, it became clear that NO ONE in power should be doing ANY fact checking. Rather, all fact checking should be on the part of the reader. You want to create tools to help readers obtain information, great. But, don't prevent us from reading things based on some biased "fact checking" that is anything but unbiased.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
ANSWER: Entropy.
-Gowachin riddle (Frank Herbert)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry but I'm not going to rely on a quote from a Science Fiction writer in a work of fiction. At best, that's an opinion and even then I'm granting it more gravitas then it deserves.
-----------------------
Question: Who Governs the Governors?
Answer: We do, those that consent to be governed.
Unless you live in a totalitarian state or one of the few remaining Monarchies.
-Atrox Canis, 2019
-----------------------
Re: Fact Checking is Biased (Score:1)
I noticed right away that the main article these comments are about presented no examples to illustrate anything.
Citation please (Score:5, Insightful)
You criticize a fact-checking site for supposed insufficient citation and non-falsifiability. Yet how are we going to examine your claims if you won't tell us which site it is?
Even allowing that your claims might be true, you would commit the falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus fallacy.
Re:Citation please (Score:4, Interesting)
This is a standard tactic in internet forums these days. No source, or just post a link that you hope no one will look at. As long as the message is what people want to hear (everything else is fake, and look at how smart you are for being one of the woke ones who figured it out) it works more often than not.
Glad to see that Slashdot is a little better than average.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Who defines whether a source is reliable? Other sources that have previously been grandfathered in as reliable?
Re: (Score:2)
You have just answered your own question.
Let's ask it a different way: Who defines what is true? Can truth ever be established? Does truth even exist?
The answer to your original question is "reputation". It's the best we have to go on. It's like trial-by-jury. Do juries always come to the right decision? No, but is there a better way to decide truth?
These are important questions these days.
Re: (Score:2)
Who defines whether a source is reliable? Other sources that have previously been grandfathered in as reliable?
A source, like a business or a person, earns a reputation for being reliable or otherwise. A fact-checking website is exposed to enough scrutiny (including other fact-checking websites) that any misbehavior could be identified, and the website's reputation would be damaged.
Much of society relies on building trust, and having it withdrawn when warranted. And perhaps even earning it back again. Except for people like Lucy, who keeps yanking the football away before Charlie Brown can kick it.
Re: (Score:2)
A fact-checking website is exposed to enough scrutiny (including other fact-checking websites) that any misbehavior could be identified, and the website's reputation would be damaged.
How does this scrutiny work? Where can we see the Facebook articles that have been removed by fact checkers ?
How to build trust for the first time (Score:2)
A source, like a business or a person, earns a reputation for being reliable or otherwise. [...] Much of society relies on building trust, and having it withdrawn when warranted.
Then my question becomes how a newly established fact-checking organization can build a reputation in the first place, as opposed to just being "someone's blog." [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, the Washington Post's Glenn Kessler has lied so often I think nobody understands why he still has a job.
Who decided that Glenn Kessler would give out the Pinocchios and not ABC News, whose parent company published the best known film adaptation of The Adventures of Pinocchio nearly eighty years ago?
Good fact checkers build positive reputations, just like good news outlets and everything else.
About how many articles, or how many years, or what other metric, does it take for a fact checker, news outlet, or anything else to build a positive reputation?
Re: (Score:1)
Important life lesson I learned in high school
Every person has biases. Learn to recognize your own first.
1) Learn to recognize the biases others you interact with.
2) Every organization has biases. Learn to recognize them.
3) Check multiple sources. Know their biases. Know their qualifications.
4) Rank your sources. If you are ill, your doctor's advise should carry more weight
than your mailperson's.
5)
Re: (Score:2)
Congratulations for learning something in high school.
That reminded me of an old joke...
Army guy goes to the latrine. As he's heading out, a Marine says "In the Marines, they teach us to wash our hands after we finish taking a piss." The Army guys says, "In the Army, they teach us not to piss on our hands."
Congratulations on responding to your instincts. Casting aspersions is easy. Refraining from such, well even I can't resist at times.
Re: (Score:2)
FB has no fix (Score:1)
They won't hire enough humans (Score:3)
Impossible. Can't be done. (Score:4, Insightful)
Fact checking is newspeak for censorship (Score:5, Informative)
Once you start fact checking, you can block pretty much any opinion you don't agree with. Extend that to political messages such as political ads and you can block any party or politician you don't like. The problem is that fact checkers only lean one way due to the nature of that political viewpoint requiring ultimate control and censorship.
Re: (Score:1)
You have described bias reinforcement, not fact checking.
Fact checking requires reviewing as many different versions of the same event/plan/policy or whatever, from as many different sources, as possible. The facts are found in the commonality, not the differences.
Fact checking includes weighing the sources. A pronouncement from the flat earth society cannot carry the same weight as a pronouncement from the recognized scientific community on the same subject.
Fact checking has to start with the recognition
Re: Fact checking is newspeak for censorship (Score:1)
The Bible says the earth is flat, therefore my fact checking says Galileo is spreading Fake News.
Re: Fact checking is newspeak for censorship (Score:2)
Politics is simply the interpretation and extrapolation of the same facts. The fact is the economy is doing good, the left says it's because of Obama, the right says it's because of Trump and both sides have evidence that both presidents have had some influence over the recovery of the recession. The question is really whether slowing growth by increasing taxes is better than spurring fast growth (and potentially a bubble) through tax cuts, which isn't an established fact yet (that will take at least anothe
Um... no you can't actually (Score:2)
Amazingly good talking point though. You've managed to discredit facts. Did you come up with that yourself or get it from somewhere else? It's basically an unfunny version of this [youtube.com]. Then again we did elect Trump P
Re: Um... no you can't actually (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
It's Facebook, a private company. They can block whatever they like for any or no reason. They do already, e.g. porn.
No need for a conspiracy.
Re: Fact checking is newspeak for censorship (Score:2)
This is about third parties being used as a source of "fact checking" across multiple platforms so the platforms can just toss the hot potato to someone else when it obviously leads to censoring.
Re: (Score:2)
It's Facebook, a private company. They can block whatever they like for any or no reason. They do already, e.g. porn.
No need for a conspiracy.
You are correct but that statement doesn't go far enough. Question, should private companies (social media platforms) that are publishers or distributors of information on an international level be required to adhere to anti-censorship rules that are legally put in place? Second question, should those rules be put in place? Third question, can an argument be made that the current social media complex be considered the modern version of the town square?
My opinion is that if the third and most important quest
Re: (Score:2)
I think you have to look at the ramifications of what you are suggesting. If you made social media companies the new town square and subject to strict anti-censorship rules it would likely destroy much of their ability to make money.
They would probably have to get some public subsidy or even go into public ownership, but that tends not to be very censorship resistant because prudish politicians always want to do something about it.
You can't eliminate fake news (Score:1, Troll)
Basically, it was found that while both sides of the isle are susceptible to fake news it only really spreads with the right wing [theguardian.com].
We actually knew this before the Oxford Study because one of the major purveyors of the stuff came right out and said he tried left wing fake news and couldn't make any money because the left would debunk it too quickly for it to spread.
For example, Trump just had some sort of medical mishap he awkwardly covered up. The left should have
Re: You can't eliminate fake news (Score:2)
So, fake news is 'Hunter Biden collected $50k/mo with no expertise to offer because something something' and the truth is that somebody has third part rumors about something bad orange man may have said on the phone? I notice you omitted particularly sleazy slime generators like The Atlantic in your list of preferred "news" sites. Noo, you don't have one of the more strident biases of anybody on Slashdot. And you have scientific studies that show it!
Nope, that's real (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: You can't eliminate fake news (Score:3)
That WAS news, in 2014 or 2015.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/1... [nytimes.com]
Read it. Prosecutors in Ukraine protected the owner of Burisma, a Ukrainian politician. Joe Biden, not secretly, and supported by the state department, got those prosecutors fired.
It's not news in 2019 unless you've got something to add to that story, and I personally have not seen anything new that isn't completed bullshit manufactured this year.
Did the younger Biden make some money? Yup. Did that benefit Burisma somehow other than whateve
Re: (Score:2)
It could rope major figures in the Obama administration into a lot of legal issues. Why wouldn't we want to investigate it further?
It was quite a spell after the Watergate burglary, and after Nixon had been elected, that the issue became hot enough to go after Nixon. Why shouldn't crooks be identified and dealt with after the fact?
I think the complaint is that Hunter Biden (Score:2)
As for why, there are laws on the books about American companies giving jobs out in exchange for political influence. There are no such laws for foreign companies. Ever wonder why these scandals always involve some corrupt eastern European company? That's why.
Hell, Politico did a Story about the Bidens cashing in [politico.com] back before they though Joe was gonna run. Biden's corrupti
Re: (Score:2)
That Politico story emphasizes over and over again that while Biden's son and brother sought to cash in on his political fame, there has never been any evidence of him backing them up or assisting them.
The fact that "Joe Biden's corruption is well known and out in the open" is a story manufactured by Rudy Guilliani, Donald Trump, and a bunch of Ukrainians who are upset that he helped unseat a corrupt prosecutor.
Joe Biden has a stellar record of public service and just because you don't want him to be presid
Re: I think the complaint is that Hunter Biden (Score:2)
No, we give Biden a pass (Score:2)
That last one would end Biden's political career if the media wasn't covering for him.
Please note that Peter Buttigieg is the same as Biden. Bought and paid for. Always, Always, Always follow the money.
Re: No, we give Biden a pass (Score:2)
Re: I think the complaint is that Hunter Biden (Score:2)
"we don't do guilt by association yet Trump is associated with a bunch of guys doing time and we don't give him a pass on those associations who aren't even his family."
Right, they're not family, they're only his campaign manager, foreign policy adviser, national security adviser, whatever Stone was, his personal lawyer, his OTHER personal lawyer...
Wait, are we counting Giuliani in yet or taking a wait n see approach? It doesn't really matter to my point.
Anywho, that all aside, Trump's associations are the
Re: I think the complaint is that Hunter Biden (Score:2)
So what (Score:2)
Biden's record is terrible. School Busing, NAFTA, Clarence Thomas, vote after vote in favor of corporations at the expense of working Americans. You can google this stuff if you want. All true. But if he gets the nom you won't have to. It'll be everywhere. It's why Obama didn't want him to run. Biden will lose. Badly. He'll give the House and Senate to the
Re: I think the complaint is that Hunter Biden (Score:2)
I think profiteering is a better word than corruption.
I'm not defending what Hunter did, it was unethical. Or if he really thought it wasn't, he should have known it looks extremely so, and given a very good public explanation for it, back when he did it.
What political influence was yielded though? We have people leaving office and going straight to work for lobbyists, again I would call this unethical, but it's not illegal. Jobs offered to family members? Again it comes down to what influence was given
It's the same thing (Score:2)
Re: You can't eliminate fake news (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think this is because right wing voters are stupid. Rather I think the right wing survives on an enclosed propaganda machine.
Both of these things can be true. I mean, relying on enclosed propaganda machine for information is something someone stupid would do.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I will say that I think the emphasis the left has right now on fact-checking is generally a good thing, but there needs to be a realization that political bias can influence fact-checkers just the
Free speech IS human rights, democracy, and truth! (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, it's not surprising to see Medium take this position, as they want to be known as the arbiters of truth and correctness, standing firm against the degenerates and deplorables. Them and every other authoritarian, on the left and right -- it's a point of view with very broad bipartisan support, although of course the various parties and agendas differ in particulars.
The crowning irony is that Facebook isn't at all for "either" free speech "or" human rights, democracy, and truth itself. To the extent that they are a "bulwark" of anything, it is getting money to show ads and influence eyeballs, and viral content that makes people angry and divided is a great way to drive engagement metrics. The same goes for YouTube, Twitter, Medium, the various crowdfunding platforms, churches, newspapers, and traveling bards and town criers. "The only winning move is not to play" -- #DeleteFacebook to be part of the solution.
Telling lies isn't free speech (Score:2)
I find myself in a bewilderment (Score:3)
This whole controversy seems to be based on a profoundly untrue assumption: namely, that news or alleged facts are always objectively true or false, and that their truth or falsity can be easily established.
Nowadays, even what some public figure said or did in a public appearance is hard to be certain about. What if the video, or the audio, or both, have been tampered with? It's especially easy to do when the changes are relatively small: removing a "not" from a sentence, or even removing a person from a picture.
There are some facts on which most people can agree. The value of 3 x 3, or pi, or Planck's constant - although note that pi can only be specified to a given number of digits (or as the ratio of circumference to diameter).
But did Russia annexe Crimea in 2014? Who shot down MH17? How many Native Americans lived in North America before the coming of the European settlers? Was King John a good king, a bad king, or something in between? Do such qualities as goodness, beauty, truth, etc. exist in their own right, or are they only noises that people make to connote things they like, things they admire, and things they want others to agree upon?
Is Brexit a dastardly plot backed by the sinister group of your preference, or is it a last-ditch attempt to rescue Britain's independence, culture and legal system from the evil EU?
Is Mr Trump an evil monster, a bumbling fool, or a clever man carefully hiding his intentions behind a cunning disguise? (Or none of the above).
Re: (Score:2)
Moreover, even deciding whether a given proposition is a fact or an opinion is a matter of opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be confused about the fundamental issues facing epistemology. The value of pi, for example, is known objectively because it's premised on a tautology (the ratio of a circumference to diameter = pi). All empirical knowledge is vulnerable to the problem of induction, but that doesn't warrant such an extreme skepticism of reality that we have to accept that the world is essentially unknowable.
You are conflating the idea that some knowledge can be confirmed (or, more aptly put, enough evidence exist
Re: (Score:2)
>You are conflating the idea that some knowledge can be confirmed (or, more aptly put, enough evidence exists for justified true belief) with the idea that all knowledge can be confirmed.
Perhaps I didn't explain clearly enough. What I wrote was the precise opposite of your paraphrase.
Re: (Score:2)
My understanding was that you were saying that we can't trust any news because it cannot be verified even in the case of direct video evidence because that evidence might be somehow tainted.
Perhaps what I failed to clarify is that I thought you post was placing knowledge into two categories: tautological, which can be trusted (pi), and empirical, which cannot be trusted (the news). My claim was that the latter category can be further subdivided into that which we are justified believing, that which we are j
Pass a law that news ... (Score:2)
... period cannot appear in the Facebook Timeline.
Facebook is a cat video platform. It's not goddam federally-mandated.
uh, wake up. (Score:1)
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)
Facebook... (Score:2)
To do that (Score:1)
Facebook wants viral-like behaviour: It provides revenue, making the problem the large amount of fake news. Fake news isn't a flaw of social networks, it's the product of a dystopian culture: Some of it is 'dollars for clicks', where stories that incite outrage are highly profitable. But most of it is US culture: The history of the USA is the history of 'I have more rights than you'. It's been shouted to the native Americans, kidnapped Negroes, women, Chinese, Mexicans, women again, black people again
Re: (Score:1)
Fact check CNN and the rest. (Score:1)
Let's fact check main stream media. That would be a whole lot more useful.