New: What happens when you try to post fake news on Facebook now - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE=TurtleeyFP;51985748]Facebook only sources fact-checkers signed up with [URL="http://www.poynter.org/fact-checkers-code-of-principles/"]Poynter's Non-Partisan Code of Principles[/URL], whose single job is to remain nonpartisan and transparent. If someone fucks up at that, there's a global committee who can & will boot them off that list.[/QUOTE] That school owns the Tampa Bay times, which owns Politifact. So you basically have the owners of one fact checking site as the arbiter of what constitutes good fact checking... Seems like a bit of a conflict of interest, no?

[QUOTE=sgman91;51985695]Come on now, we should all be able to agree that there's no such thing as keeping an eye on bias, to any reasonable degree.[/QUOTE] That really depends on the country. Over here it tends to work pretty well (but our legal system means we can actually sue news organisations over false reporting if it damages anyone).

Snopes and AP are failing FAKE NEWS with (((Liberal))) bias. This new Facebook feature is an ATTACK on the AMERICAN PEOPLE! Sad!

[QUOTE=TestECull;51984369]Idunno, if they dedicate enough server racks to it they can have it screen every news post that shows up as a hyperlink, and that would have a drastic cooling effect on the echo chambers that form almost universally on Facebook.[/QUOTE]I don't think it's a matter of lacking server power to screen articles, but not enough of those articles having been reviewed by reliable sources and determined to be bollocks. Dunno if they have some algorithm to determine whether an article is repeating the same debunked claim made by another, or whether it's based on a specific article being disputed by other sources.

Thank lord this feature come out. I hope this can reduce ammount of fake news that flooded my timelines

[QUOTE=RocketSnail;51984433]Lol what a joke [editline]19th March 2017[/editline] Finally deleted my facebook. This is fucking bullshit[/QUOTE] please come back and explain yourself, I honestly can't tell if you're joking.

[QUOTE=Laserbeams;51985697][B]There's no keeping an eye on shit like this. [/B] If we have biased users keeping an eye on biased fact checking sites keeping an eye on biased news, then we have a lot of layers of bias going on. I'd rather stick to one layer please.[/QUOTE] Dude if they wanted to censor or filter content for personal reasons then they certainly wouldn't announce it, they'd just do it silently behind the scenes and nobody would ever know.

-They miss really bullshit videos, or don't check them in time. Everyone assumes something's good cause it was good when they first watched -They use outdated information in fact checking -They discredit good videos -Radical left or right wing pieces are censored. Honestly, the far left gets more sabotage than the right. -They don't pick up on a satire. -They don't present their stuff as facts, only opinions, but it's still censored anyway At least they might free the market up?

[QUOTE=certified;51985885]Snopes and AP are failing FAKE NEWS with (((Liberal))) bias. This new Facebook feature is an ATTACK on the AMERICAN PEOPLE! Sad![/QUOTE] [img]https://s.faketrumptweet.com/j0i9ao8n_zvvyrd_1chl6zf.png[/img] It is sad that it is impossible to distinguish between a real Trump tweet and a fake one.

[QUOTE=Laserbeams;51985651]"Combating fake news" is exactly what Trump has been doing. Do you not see the irony? This will go from "stopping fake news" to "filtering out content that doesn't fit in with our fact-checkers' agenda" before you even notice something is wrong. Especially if you have similar beliefs to those of the fact checkers[/QUOTE] There's a difference between independent, non-partisan, fact checkers and Trump just calling everything that doesn't put a positive spin on his actions fake news. So again, If the guy I quoted is so worried about what some independent, non-partisan, fact checkers might think about his favourite sources (just guessing what his problem is, considering we aren't going to hear from him again) then isn't it safe to assume those sources are probably shit?

[QUOTE=Laserbeams;51985651]"Combating fake news" is exactly what Trump has been doing. Do you not see the irony? This will go from "stopping fake news" to "filtering out content that doesn't fit in with our fact-checkers' agenda" before you even notice something is wrong. Especially if you have similar beliefs to those of the fact checkers[/QUOTE] How is trump combating fake news when he is fake news

Well this will create whinning mostly from Alt-right until they need accepted it. I personally ok about it, But agree LoneWolf_Recon this will be abused by many people including extreme centrists in while.

but does it detect fake celebrity deaths?

[QUOTE=EddieLTU;51995380]but does it detect fake celebrity deaths?[/QUOTE] They probably can just annotate that one site that auto-generates those. Something along the lines of 'we don't know whether this person is alive, but x website doesn't either' :v: [editline]23rd March 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=ChadMcGoatMan;51994052]Well this will create whinning mostly from Alt-right until they need accepted it. I personally ok about it, But agree LoneWolf_Recon this will be abused by many people including extreme centrists in while.[/QUOTE] Whom do you mean by 'extreme centrists'?

[QUOTE=Tamschi;51998581]They probably can just annotate that one site that auto-generates those. Something along the lines of 'we don't know whether this person is alive, but x website doesn't either' :v: [editline]23rd March 2017[/editline] Whom do you mean by 'extreme centrists'?[/QUOTE] People who calling themselves ideologically liberal (in modern day sense)/centrist or any political ideology who line in center of political spectrum and push authoritarian or ironic narcissistic/arrogant thinking to both left and right ideologies that they're more special than two like SJWs or Alt-right (Injustice Social Warriors).

[QUOTE=Anti Christ;51984543]Do you have a problem with snopes?[/QUOTE] You mean besides the fact that for years and years they were the ones propagating urban legends so as to drive traffic to their own website to verify? [url]http://www.johnon.com/526/free-411.html[/url]

Apart from the conflict of interest mentioned earlier... Snopes has twisted the truth before. Bad move on Facebook's part. Snopes wasn't like that before, that's why mostly everyone is under the illusion it isn't. [url]https://www.quora.com/Is-Snopes-biased-Why-do-some-people-believe-Snopes-is-biased[/url] Snopes, and Politifact are biased as hell. I don't think this is the way to tackle the issue and they should take it down or use better fact-checkers. Just my opinion. At the end of the day, everyone believes what they want to believe. [editline]23rd March 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=TurtleeyFP;51985748]Facebook only sources fact-checkers signed up with [url=http://www.poynter.org/fact-checkers-code-of-principles/]Poynter's Non-Partisan Code of Principles[/url], whose single job is to remain nonpartisan and transparent. If someone fucks up at that, there's a global committee who can & will boot them off that list.[/QUOTE] I'd also like to mention Snopes is on the "Unverified signatories list" on that page. So is Politifact, so is AP. [quote]Being an unverified signatory in no way implies an endorsement from Poynter's IFCN or any of its members.[/quote] Think we can close the book on this?