Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Facebook Social Networks Twitter

Protesting Mark Zuckerberg Comments About Fact-Checking, Fake News About Mark Zuckerberg Goes Viral (vice.com) 172

"I don't think that Facebook or internet platforms in general should be arbiters of truth," CEO Mark Zuckerberg said Thursday.

Since then, Vice reports, "Fake news about Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg is being shared widely on the internet, including on his own social network..." Zuckerberg's quote is particularly confusing because Facebook does fact-check some news posts, and uses a byzantine, third-party system to do so. Nonetheless, Donald Trump later quoted Zuckerberg's favorable response in a tweet. Now, two satirical articles by websites with Australian domain names are going viral on Facebook, spreading misinformation about Zuckerberg and calling attention to his stance against fact checking by social media companies.

The first article, posted on Thursday by a site called The Chaser, is titled "'Social media should not fact check posts,' says child molester Mark Zuckerberg," which also baselessly alleges that the CEO likes black jellybeans. It has more than 200,000 interactions on Facebook, according to the Facebook-owned analytics platform Crowdtangle. This article has also gone viral on Twitter, where The Chaser's tweet has amassed more than 4,000 retweets.

Another article, also posted on Thursday from a site called The Shovel, is titled "Mark Zuckerberg — Dead at 36 — Says Social Media Should Not Fact Check Posts." This post has nearly 50,000 interactions on Facebook and is also viral on Twitter.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Protesting Mark Zuckerberg Comments About Fact-Checking, Fake News About Mark Zuckerberg Goes Viral

Comments Filter:
  • Chase Website (Score:4, Informative)

    by Vomitgod ( 6659552 ) on Sunday May 31, 2020 @03:48PM (#60128874)
    The Chaser doing what they do.... hasn't just started now https://chaser.com.au/ [chaser.com.au] Much like The Onion
  • by The New Guy 2.0 ( 3497907 ) on Sunday May 31, 2020 @03:52PM (#60128882)

    The Shovel [theshovel.com.au] labels itself as satire. It has the mentioned story on the front page at the moment...

    This story is a joke. Next slashdot item please.

    • by alvinrod ( 889928 ) on Sunday May 31, 2020 @04:10PM (#60128910)
      I agree. Anyone who reads the actual article [theshovel.com.au] from that site (which you should considering it's short and should make you chuckle) is almost certainly going to be able to tell it's satire given how over the top (it includes nuggets like Zuck idolizing Hitler among other horrible "facts" about him) the article is. It's doubtful that anyone actually believes it and that everyone sharing it is in on that joke.

      People who try to use this as an example as to why Facebook should include fact checking are clearly missing the point. Also anyone who trusts Facebook to do their fact checking for them is an intellectually lazy git. It's dangerous to let someone else do your thinking for you.
      • It's a journalism foul to 1. Mention that site without saying it's funny/joking/satire, and 2. Not give a link to the article quoted so the site can get its ad view.

      • The problem is that almost everything posted on the internet lately seems subject to Poe's Law. The world has become a surreal place full of exaggerated personalities that are desperate for attention and validation. I imagine this is what it's like for someone suffering from Asperger's.
      • The best quote is this IMO : "He is survived by his eight children and three wives. Authorities say the incest charges against him will now be dropped. ". on my side I think the family will finally be happy to see the necro-zoophilia charges dropped.

        The problem is NOT that people are intellectually lazy. It is that they are never really taught to do proper research, or do intellectual skepticism. They become downright surprised when you show them how to dig up facts and showing them they were scammed/lied
        • I think another problem is that most people are probably generally rather trusting. I've certainly caught myself before, because who would go on the internet and tell lies, right? So I can follow a story or argument and find myself agreeing with (parts) of it, until I do run into something that finally triggers the BS detector and I go WAIT A MINUTE, they've been just making shit up this whole time.

          What I found helps is that a tweet or a comment calls out the inaccuracy. Specific example: yesterday there wa

    • The Shovel labels itself as satire. It has the mentioned story on the front page at the moment...

      It is also mentioned in the article and the summary that it and The Chaser are satirical websites, so what's your point? In fact, it is in the very first paragraph of the quote in the summary. I am surprised that you didn't point out the revelation that Mark Zuckerberg is the CEO of Facebook.

      These satirical stories, and more importantly the fact that they have gone viral, highlights how easy it is for fake news to be disseminated on social media platforms. If you don't think that this is important, then why

  • Facebook fact checks are often fake. They are playing the role of editor whether they want to admit it or not. Their review board is extremely liberal biased (you can easily look up their backgrounds - their are websites that have already researched them). The preselected the bias and therefore they have pre-rigged the court only to try to tell the public that they are independent. Nobody who isn't a very partisan liberal or progressive is buying it.

    They boil down to liberal political viewpoint checks. I've

  • The truth has had a bad run as of late so if they won't be part of the solution then they are going to become enmeshed in the problem.

  • I've heard from someone that some statement was true because they read it on Kim Kardashian's instagram

  • It is called Fact Checking.
    Newspapers did it, Radio did it, TV did. The Internet has to do it also.

    Facebook may desire to be exclusively social media company, in which case the answer is simple - block ANY 'news'. If they make a factual claim, block it with a notice that Facebook does not distribute anything beyond the personal opinions of others unsupported by facts.

    You want to let your 'product' (because people are the product in Facebook's model) spread news? Then you should be required to fact che

  • ... is or is not true,it is simply explicitly giving the viewer a ready ability to more easily discern the difference for themselves than they otherwise might.

    If factual context makes an otherwise false statement more obvious about its lack of veracity, that isn't because the person or company who might have provided that context has decided to arbitrate on what is true or not.

  • by ytene ( 4376651 ) on Monday June 01, 2020 @01:46AM (#60130168)
    Maybe Zuck is looking on the recent social media uproar as an opportunity for him to strike a blow against Twitter?

    Imagine a scenario in which Trump began to migrate off Twitter and on to Facebook - think about what that would do to FB's ad revenue.

    Or maybe it's because Zuck has longer-term political ambitions and is simply keen on ensuring that when he does run for office, the law won't prevent him from using his own platform to promote his own agenda.

    Either way Trump and Zuck have at least one thing in common: it's all about them.
  • It's Twitter, for crying out loud. Every post on there should come with a fact-check label. End of problem.

  • It used to be that 90% of a population couldn't read and were governed by rich people who could, now everyone can read, but 90% of what you read online is rubbish and we're "ruled" by rich corporations that ensure that no one interferes with their ability to make money.

    This argument about fact checking is not the most important point to me: what is disturbing is that state actors have the resources to manipulate the opinion of large segments of any society (both within and without their own borders) via soc

    • The most protected speech is speech about the composition and policies of government. This is what's in the first amendment.

      Do you really want corporations censoring-by-proxy? Especially at the hands of politicians threatening changes to laws if they do not?

      Oh it feels good, I suppose, because "your side" is doing it. But some day it won't be. Nobody behind the gun telling others what to do ever feels they're doing wrong.

  • This is a "straw man" argument. His statement is perfectly fine in the context of politicians blabbering and not wanting to give the appearance of bias.

An authority is a person who can tell you more about something than you really care to know.

Working...