The Washington Post and even the NYT publish comments that are often blatantly inaccurate. The NYT pre-checks comments; the WaPO does not, unless it has a quick-scan algorithm. The real problems with Facebook and the troll-infested WaPo are their users. We can expect trolling, but in a country that has put men on the moon, why do we find so many people who can't tell what is news and what is not? Blaming Facebook is like blaming Mexico for American drug habits. (I don't use Facebook or Twitter).
I am glad to hear Facebook will be hiring editors to fact check all news articles. There are too many gullible people out there who don't check for themselves. A friend of mine was continually posting lies, made to look like news articles, about Hillary Clinton. I knew they were lies because I looked those accusations up in reputable newspapers.
1
While facts are integral to an educated society, I think the removal or the withholding of vital information is just as big an issue. It's become more commonplace, especially on sites that rely on user input (like Reddit). Moderators now shut down discussions because they apparently don't like users' subjective opinions. That's wrong.
Doesn't everyone have a responsibility for determining what is true? So why let Facebook off the hook?
There are good ways and bad ways for Facebook to carry out its responsibility, just as there are good and bad ways for you and I to carry out this responsibility. But that doesn't relieve any of us of responsibility.
There are good ways and bad ways for Facebook to carry out its responsibility, just as there are good and bad ways for you and I to carry out this responsibility. But that doesn't relieve any of us of responsibility.
14
Facebook may not want the responsibility of being a news publisher, but it certainly wants the revenue that comes with it. I don't see a solution where Facebook won't have human intervention. For example, say they decide not to fact check but go with a solution where they heavily promote verified sources. They will still need people to decide that, say, New York Times is a valid news source, but "thenytimes.com.in" is not. What if a verified publisher occasionally publishes fake news (*cough*Brietbart*cough*)? Will they eventually lose their badge? Or will Facebook just set it and forget it?
Sorry, Zuck, you built it, you own it now. Fake news may or may not have influenced the US election, but the model that it presents to third parties is real. What's to prevent a group of people from proliferating fake news about Angela Merkel during her re-election campaign? Or for a local government in, say, Punjab to spread a rumor about a regional election? Are you going to fact check both equally? Can you?
This is a big problem for Facebook, particularly if their users begin to feel that they are being manipulated. Or if they are being inundated by particularly hateful fake news stories on a regular basis. Will governments not accept Facebook's stance as solely a technology company and consider its content libelous? Requiring some regulation? Or simply limit access? Or request Facebook to build for them what they built for China? Scary stuff.
Sorry, Zuck, you built it, you own it now. Fake news may or may not have influenced the US election, but the model that it presents to third parties is real. What's to prevent a group of people from proliferating fake news about Angela Merkel during her re-election campaign? Or for a local government in, say, Punjab to spread a rumor about a regional election? Are you going to fact check both equally? Can you?
This is a big problem for Facebook, particularly if their users begin to feel that they are being manipulated. Or if they are being inundated by particularly hateful fake news stories on a regular basis. Will governments not accept Facebook's stance as solely a technology company and consider its content libelous? Requiring some regulation? Or simply limit access? Or request Facebook to build for them what they built for China? Scary stuff.
6
It is ironic that the NY Times faces the same sort of problem in its comment sections every day.
I'll dispense with the issue that the moderators have a troubled relationship with the Times's own standard, and address the factual errors and misinformation that the Times allows on its pages on a daily basis.
Most glaring of these concern the nature of our governance and how our nation actually works:
Look to the number of occasions when commenters claim as bases for their arguments that we are a democracy. We are not. We are a REPUBLIC based on democratic principles since 1787.
Look to the occasions where commenters claim the president can make laws. He cannot, That is the sole and exclusive right of the Congress.
Occasions where people say the Senate MUST vote on a nominee of the president. They are not so required. The Senate alone dictates its rules and the rules say no such thing.
Occasions where people say that the Executive can impose its will by regulation. They cannot. Making law is the preserve of the Congress. Obama has lost in court every time that he has tried to make law by regulation.
Occasions where people say that gerrymandering affects the Electoral College. Only in Maine does it do so, but with only two districts, it's hard to gerrymander the state. States vote for electors on a statewide basis.
The examples of the clueless are endless in these comments.
And the Times does nothing about it.
Why?
I'll dispense with the issue that the moderators have a troubled relationship with the Times's own standard, and address the factual errors and misinformation that the Times allows on its pages on a daily basis.
Most glaring of these concern the nature of our governance and how our nation actually works:
Look to the number of occasions when commenters claim as bases for their arguments that we are a democracy. We are not. We are a REPUBLIC based on democratic principles since 1787.
Look to the occasions where commenters claim the president can make laws. He cannot, That is the sole and exclusive right of the Congress.
Occasions where people say the Senate MUST vote on a nominee of the president. They are not so required. The Senate alone dictates its rules and the rules say no such thing.
Occasions where people say that the Executive can impose its will by regulation. They cannot. Making law is the preserve of the Congress. Obama has lost in court every time that he has tried to make law by regulation.
Occasions where people say that gerrymandering affects the Electoral College. Only in Maine does it do so, but with only two districts, it's hard to gerrymander the state. States vote for electors on a statewide basis.
The examples of the clueless are endless in these comments.
And the Times does nothing about it.
Why?
5
We have finally gotten to the George Costanza standard for journalism in America:
"Its not a lie, if you believe its true"
They should put that on CNN headquarters in Atlanta. You have to love how "neo-Nazi racist" is now "alt-right". Thanks CNN!
"Its not a lie, if you believe its true"
They should put that on CNN headquarters in Atlanta. You have to love how "neo-Nazi racist" is now "alt-right". Thanks CNN!
8
News - what is it?
Any company has the right to control what appears on it's site(s), this happens all of the time and people cry CENSORSHIP ... FREEDOM of SPEECH ... blah, blah, blah.
My Letter to the Editor wasn't published ... wah, wah. wah.
In your Op-piece you say:
Did the pope endorse Mr. Trump? He did not.
But did the F.B.I. reopen the Hillary Clinton email investigation? That’s a little tougher.
Why is it a little tougher?
Although major news outlets like CNN said that it had, the agency did not in fact reopen the inquiry, which would have been a far more significant move than what it did do (which was to take a look at newly discovered emails to see if it should reconsider its decision to close the case).
That wasn't so tough was it? CNN said the FBI did, the FBI said it didn't. Do you question the source or the media outlet erroneous report? Not great journalism Leslie, even though you correctly report what has already been fact checked.
BTW, the NYT is clean on this report.
If Facebook makes the statement that it only allows the truth, I might agree with your assessment, but I do disagree.
Google recently announced a Fact Check label on search results:
https://blog.google/topics/journalism-news/labeling-fact-check-articles-...
I haven't seen it yet and maybe it will take you to an independent fact check source, not Google editors doing the fact checking - not sure.
Anyway, there is an issue that needs to be resolved - the question is how.
Any company has the right to control what appears on it's site(s), this happens all of the time and people cry CENSORSHIP ... FREEDOM of SPEECH ... blah, blah, blah.
My Letter to the Editor wasn't published ... wah, wah. wah.
In your Op-piece you say:
Did the pope endorse Mr. Trump? He did not.
But did the F.B.I. reopen the Hillary Clinton email investigation? That’s a little tougher.
Why is it a little tougher?
Although major news outlets like CNN said that it had, the agency did not in fact reopen the inquiry, which would have been a far more significant move than what it did do (which was to take a look at newly discovered emails to see if it should reconsider its decision to close the case).
That wasn't so tough was it? CNN said the FBI did, the FBI said it didn't. Do you question the source or the media outlet erroneous report? Not great journalism Leslie, even though you correctly report what has already been fact checked.
BTW, the NYT is clean on this report.
If Facebook makes the statement that it only allows the truth, I might agree with your assessment, but I do disagree.
Google recently announced a Fact Check label on search results:
https://blog.google/topics/journalism-news/labeling-fact-check-articles-...
I haven't seen it yet and maybe it will take you to an independent fact check source, not Google editors doing the fact checking - not sure.
Anyway, there is an issue that needs to be resolved - the question is how.
2
Facebook should not fact check. But humans should - Ms. Lessin's suggestion that Facebook could flag content as suspicious based on users flagging it is naive. Users will flag what they disagree with - and they don't know what's true anyway.
Humans can be involved without being Facebook employees. A third party non-profit could do it, for instance, and Facebook could display their findings next to the article. This third party would not be motivated by profit, and could be much more transparent than Facebook itself.
Humans can be involved without being Facebook employees. A third party non-profit could do it, for instance, and Facebook could display their findings next to the article. This third party would not be motivated by profit, and could be much more transparent than Facebook itself.
3
There is a confluence of developments in American society and culture that do not bode well for the future of our liberal democracy. And, our political elites are not articulating these developments well at all. To start, the NY Times just published a survey showing only a small fraction of millennial voters (25%-ish) believed that democracy was a necessity and that "democracy only serves the interests of the few." I don't think it's an accident that many of these voters grew up at a time when rightist corporate oligarchy has been at its strongest and government power at its weakest during any time since before World War II. At the same time, many millennial voters are either first generation immigrants or children of first generation immigrants to the US, often from countries with no history of participatory democracy, at least in the same way as it has been practiced in the United States. To top it all off, in response to this crisis, a small plurality of voters has decided the best solution to our problems is to have a de-regulated strongman form of government, a system, for better or worse, that many millennialist and/or parents of millennials are familiar (even comfortable) with. What is the solution to this situation?
4
People fail to recognize their power with a business who generate income from ad revenue. Don't purchae products who advertise on fake or propaganda or racist or anti woman websites. Write the companies and tell them why you don't purchase their products. If enough people boycott, they will cave. Fake news generators will lose their revenue. Report propaganda websites that are of foreign origin . I'm not saying my idea will solve the problem or that I 'm right, just a suggestion for people to think about
I don't see or use Facebook 99.9% of the time possibly due to an excess of Neanderthal DNA. Nevertheless, I recognize its omnipresence. Something like the "Blob" of really old scifi movies or the "Borg" from the old Star Trek.
Facebook could create and promulgate a self-defined and self-regulated credible news source. Create a Facebook Verified or some such label and post screened content to that segregated feed. If wanted, It could be an additional income source.
Facebook could create and promulgate a self-defined and self-regulated credible news source. Create a Facebook Verified or some such label and post screened content to that segregated feed. If wanted, It could be an additional income source.
I don't know who ultimately wins the "fact wars", but I hope real news wins out over fake. Sadly, I am not certain of the outcome yet, as the Trump side seemingly win arguments that appear so simple to overturn on "facts". Once a political side steps over the barrier of upholding truth, as a common decorum, we are need to step up the fight. The problem is that people believe whatever they want. Fake news is a symptom of polarization, as much as it is a cause. A vicious cycle if you will. People pick sides, and then facts, not the other way around.
Now, can news media, as the author suggests, stop this process by fact checking? I am not convinced. They were HORRID during the election. CNN anchors would bring on multiple talking heads who put simple facts through a meat grinder. Just yesterday, they grinded up a straightforward "fixed election" meme/lie into a meaningless goo of double and triple negatives and propaganda. Other mainstream channels like CBS like their money, and the anchors get turned into befuddled adolescents when they confront "fact bullies" who bring viewers, only to find out over and over that the lies stand while TV time gets usurped for partisan purposes.
The print media is no better. No one has the guts to come out fighting. Even this paper has no grip on the alt-right or how a nonsense meme like "CA and AZ cheated" is really right-driven racism, meaning those states have aliens.
I am not sure the facts matter as much as exposing the liars.
Now, can news media, as the author suggests, stop this process by fact checking? I am not convinced. They were HORRID during the election. CNN anchors would bring on multiple talking heads who put simple facts through a meat grinder. Just yesterday, they grinded up a straightforward "fixed election" meme/lie into a meaningless goo of double and triple negatives and propaganda. Other mainstream channels like CBS like their money, and the anchors get turned into befuddled adolescents when they confront "fact bullies" who bring viewers, only to find out over and over that the lies stand while TV time gets usurped for partisan purposes.
The print media is no better. No one has the guts to come out fighting. Even this paper has no grip on the alt-right or how a nonsense meme like "CA and AZ cheated" is really right-driven racism, meaning those states have aliens.
I am not sure the facts matter as much as exposing the liars.
3
I think it's hilarious that people even take FB seriously. It's a pet-rock with extra's. Only difference, it steals your data and uses it to make billions.
Better to bring back critical thinking as part of the education curriculum so people learn how to think for themselves.
Better to bring back critical thinking as part of the education curriculum so people learn how to think for themselves.
5
The road to fascism begins by destroying the fourth estate. A lot of work has been done already in that regard as news organizations now under profit pressures simply look to achieve higher ratings while competing with subsidized and politicized corporate media departments. Facebook is not immune to that threat. In order to weaken the public relative to plutocratic private interests, the public must first be starved of all credible news and investigative capacities of well intentioned news organizations or at least become convinced that "media" outside of them are biased. One way to do that is with "channel stuffing" news sources with so much "Faux News" that any objective and respected organization's news feeds are mostly drowned out in a sea of misinformation and propaganda. The entire right wing of our political world has been taken over by such organizations because it serves the purpose of maintaining a polarized status quo that maintains the profit streams of these corporations run by Murdock, Bannon (Mercer) and Romney, and others. As one of the primary information and communication channels across the globe, we had better understand the forces at work here because our democracy depends on it. That is reason enough for Facebook to do all it can to preserve the truth. History has shown the consequences of those who would subvert the truth for their own benefit or for those who fail to fight for it. Unless we want the rise of the Fourth Reich, we must do all we can.
2
Let us face it, Facebook and its likes, are just gossiping outlets and should not be considered as anything else. They are just the latest, wide ranging versions, of old people gatherings in hot summer nights. Nobody should take them seriously.
1
The year 2016 is the year we said goodbye to such icons as Prince, Bowie, Florence Henderson and Arnold Palmer to name a few. Oh and lest we forget, Muhammad Ali! Add to that the deaths of critical thinking, journalism, propriety and common decency. 2017 can't come soon enough!
2
With the current president-elect, 2017 is sure to speed up the demise of critical thinking and common decency.
I can wait.
I can wait.
OK! Take FaceBook, et al. off the hook. But then, as we forced big tobacco to do, let's force big media to post a warning message on every post or tweet. In BIG letters preface every social media document with the words: "WARNING: This material has NOT been FACT-CHECKED." Make sure you do your own fact-checking before you accept ANY statements herein as truth!"
2
I was becoming absolutely unhinged before the election, spending time trying to inform my "friends" that stories they were posting were untrue. I made lots of enemies, but no headway. These people WANTED to believe their stories were true. They fit their narrative, and no matter how ridiculous or incredible, they clung to their falsities like the fanatical lunatics I started believing they were, spreading these stories around like they were the Gospel itself and doing so without even a hint of embarrassment. In the end, what was the most disturbing to me was not the stories themselves, but what I learned about the people who were spreading them. People who lack the skepticism and ability to ferret out false news stories are probably not the sharpest tools in the shed to begin with and, sadly, many of the "friends" on my page also outed themselves as bigots, racists, and maybe even worse. After the election, I put my FB account on hold and have not been back. Reading FB before the election was like reading The National Enquirer with a comment thread where people were divulging information about themselves in ways they apparently couldn't imagine or understand. Adamantly and vehemently insisting that the alien abduction yesterday and the cloned President replacement of last week were true, and that Hillary was killing people faster than we could say Jack Sprat, became too much and too boring for me. I need better fake stories if I am going to stay involved and connected.
5
Hillary was up 8 points when Facebook inexplicably cowed to conservative demands to stop vetting their feeds. The rest is history.
4
A private enterprise has no obligation to permit free speech, and private enterprises censor free speech all the time.
For instance, I don't even know if my comment will get posted, but somehow Jessica Lessin got her opinion out there with no problem.
For instance, I don't even know if my comment will get posted, but somehow Jessica Lessin got her opinion out there with no problem.
1
Facebook should absolutely prevent fake news from showing up on its site. Good Lord, I don't even know why we are having this discussion. Real journalism with a provocative view is not that hard to discern from a complete fabrication. Facebook owes some duty to its subscribers not to purposefully (or through negligence) mislead them ....
3
Let's face it. Not all people have the capacity to process and analyze information. Especially in this age with vast amount of information available at our fingertips, each individual has more choice than ever. People use social media to filter those information to get news that interest them. Normal people wouldn't pay subscription fees to multiple news sources just to make sure they're getting the reputable sources. Many people don't even know how to read at college level, or the real news level of writing. If people just switched to online from paper subscription, the news organizations should still be okay. But average people simply don't have time to care about real news anymore. Facebook and Twitter is all the people know, besides tv sound bites. Most people wouldn't or couldn't read the whole articles posted on Facebook if the story is high quality and dense with information. If Facebook became a high quality, educational, news media provider, it would probably need to charge a fee from the users. I believe nothing good ever comes free.
1
At one time- news was a "utility", just reporting on who said what, who did what, who went where, etc. After this election year, I am recognizing that my wistful view of news as a neutral conduit is incorrect. Having said that, whom do you trust? Mainstream media has lost my trust. I am not on Facebook but the idea of an algorithm crowdsourcing based on my "friends" sounds like the potential for mis-information is very high. By the way, there was some good clickbait re Sarah Palin wardrobe malfunction that came thru on Yahoo News earlier today, but it was just that...bait.
1
Facebook should require all "news" organizations to register and identify themselves as such and then disallow ANY advertising on those pages, or advertising on those items that are shared. All other pages should be labeled what they are -- entertainment, nothing more. In their chase of the buck, Facebook has endangered us all.
1
I have to disagree with the author of this Op-ed piece.....Facebook should indeed fact-check their sources and all information they "publish" if only for the one simple fact: they are actually "promoting" news stories and sites by "suggesting" pages.....that means that if they are serious about their reputation, then they should try and ensure that legitimate information is being "promoted"....
4
I finally deleted my Facebook account on the day before Thanksgiving. It was surprisingly difficult. After so many years it felt a bit like cutting myself off from the world to take that drastic step. But I can no longer patronize a social media outlet that cares so little for the truth that it allowed a veritable avalanche of fake news stories to sway the presidential election. Nor can I continue to support a company that has blithely agreed to work on censorship software for the Chinese government so it can sign up over a million new subscribers. Beyond those specific complaints I feel like pushing back against any company that makes a profit selling phony news reports of any kind. It will cause severe long lasting damage to our country if we can no longer find common ground regarding what is true or false.
Unfortunately I fear that ship has already sailed. We have enough problems when half the country feels that FOX is the only trust worthy purveyor of truth & half our citizens refuse to believe anything they hear from the "lame stream media". From now on I am only reading trusted news sources and I am not re-posting or re-tweeting anything. From now on I am going strictly old school and lame stream.
While I agree Facebook shouldn't hold itself up as the ultimate arbiter of truth they really ought to do something to quell the relentless flow of disinformation they are helping to propagate.
Unfortunately I fear that ship has already sailed. We have enough problems when half the country feels that FOX is the only trust worthy purveyor of truth & half our citizens refuse to believe anything they hear from the "lame stream media". From now on I am only reading trusted news sources and I am not re-posting or re-tweeting anything. From now on I am going strictly old school and lame stream.
While I agree Facebook shouldn't hold itself up as the ultimate arbiter of truth they really ought to do something to quell the relentless flow of disinformation they are helping to propagate.
2
People have pointed out that the New York Times also has a fiduciary duty to increase advertising revenue. That is true, and it is a problem—note, for example, recent advertisements designed by the "Times Brand Studio" for advertisers, including some for Big Oil.
But Facebook is worse. It's worse because Facebook runs on a self-serving ideology of "engagement"—that is, the more we use Facebook, the more we share and click and like, the better for the world! It's worse because they base decisions on how to increase engagement on amoral machine-learning algorithms. The automated approach means that information that exploits human tendencies—to share cute pictures of kittens, yes, but also to share strident, hateful speech—get amplified. If a catchy, hate-filled lie drives ten times as much "engagement" as an insightful analysis piece, the algorithms value the hate-filled lie ten times as much as the analysis.
Adding a layer of truth-checking may mitigate the problem, but it won't change the fact that the Facebook model of information sharing is fundamentally corrosive.
But Facebook is worse. It's worse because Facebook runs on a self-serving ideology of "engagement"—that is, the more we use Facebook, the more we share and click and like, the better for the world! It's worse because they base decisions on how to increase engagement on amoral machine-learning algorithms. The automated approach means that information that exploits human tendencies—to share cute pictures of kittens, yes, but also to share strident, hateful speech—get amplified. If a catchy, hate-filled lie drives ten times as much "engagement" as an insightful analysis piece, the algorithms value the hate-filled lie ten times as much as the analysis.
Adding a layer of truth-checking may mitigate the problem, but it won't change the fact that the Facebook model of information sharing is fundamentally corrosive.
4
these online fbks and googles are like the old game of telephone: misinformation is rife and should be taken as a given on any number of subjects the further they are from the source. people seeking information that is cogent and reliable, as opposed to clicking 'just around' will rely on proven accounts from proven publications discounting the nyt election pre- and post babble.
1
Bull. It's not that hard to fact check; use Snopes as an example. And once checked, you have it to use. Also, eliminate hate speech. That's not that hard either, use the Germany response as an example. Most of these problems have solutions that have been tried and tested somewhere else. It seems the hard part is wanting to do something about it.
2
I concur with the premise that Facebook, or any other non-news social space (twitter, et. al.) should be in the news editing business. However, there is a need to provide readers of news with assurances that news is presented in a manner that is conducive to an informed democracy. The reason this is an issue is that 'standard' news organizations have issues defining 'news' from 'reporting' from 'editing'. There are no verifiable standards. So a reader is left to their own devices to determine what is fact and what is not. Few can afford the luxury of time and expense to access various news sources and have the educational or experiential background to filter out the incorrect mistakes from the intentional yellow journalism, many do not have the luxury or the ability. We thus reach our own conclusions which are just as fragile an interpretation of the truth as anything.
There should be clear standards that are independently verified. Call it consumer label for news. Providing a reader with an understanding of the process that was used that resulted in the article, broadcast, or webcast, is what is missing. How is a news consumer to determine if the article was based on informed facts, that were verified, vetted, and edited; or was it an opinion added because the reporter or producer or editor thought the 'other side' of the issue should be included for 'balance'. Those sources without the label can then be filtered out by the consumer and not Facebook et.al.
There should be clear standards that are independently verified. Call it consumer label for news. Providing a reader with an understanding of the process that was used that resulted in the article, broadcast, or webcast, is what is missing. How is a news consumer to determine if the article was based on informed facts, that were verified, vetted, and edited; or was it an opinion added because the reporter or producer or editor thought the 'other side' of the issue should be included for 'balance'. Those sources without the label can then be filtered out by the consumer and not Facebook et.al.
2
During the primaries and general election more money was spent on advertising against Donald Trump than probably any other candidate in history. It is not that voters were not aware of his weaknesses. Fixing 'fake news' would not help in a similar scenario in the future.
1
All sorts of news aggregators fact-check to an extent. When you google something an algorithm decides and separates the "Web" results from the "News" results. Determining that something is "news" is a huge value judgment.
Facebook is not the government; it has customers and users. The users are the product that Facebook sells the customers (content providers). Those content providers want the traffic from Facebook users but if the users start to distrust Facebook that traffic will plummet. So Facebook has a responsibility to its stakeholders to fix the problem.
Yes, some fact-checking involves close calls, and mistakes will be made. But many of the fake news sites are grossly fake and there won't be any mistakes there. Plus, Facebook could contract with certain organizations to white-list them provided that they follow certain agreed-upon guidelines on penalty of being black-listed for gross deviations and some sort of sliding scale penalty for grayer areas.
When a user links a new site, Facebook can simply warn that the site has not applied for trust status and its content should be fact-checked for accuracy. It can give that warning to the poster as well as a check before posting. That could take care of many problems. It could also show the poster what other trusted sites are saying about anything related (as it does now when a user views a linked article).
It's neither difficult, nor too much to ask. Facebook is not a utility. People can always leave it.
Facebook is not the government; it has customers and users. The users are the product that Facebook sells the customers (content providers). Those content providers want the traffic from Facebook users but if the users start to distrust Facebook that traffic will plummet. So Facebook has a responsibility to its stakeholders to fix the problem.
Yes, some fact-checking involves close calls, and mistakes will be made. But many of the fake news sites are grossly fake and there won't be any mistakes there. Plus, Facebook could contract with certain organizations to white-list them provided that they follow certain agreed-upon guidelines on penalty of being black-listed for gross deviations and some sort of sliding scale penalty for grayer areas.
When a user links a new site, Facebook can simply warn that the site has not applied for trust status and its content should be fact-checked for accuracy. It can give that warning to the poster as well as a check before posting. That could take care of many problems. It could also show the poster what other trusted sites are saying about anything related (as it does now when a user views a linked article).
It's neither difficult, nor too much to ask. Facebook is not a utility. People can always leave it.
(RESEND)
I previously could have agreed with a laissez-faire approach on principle until I considered the following:
* The reliance of many (including my own family members) on Facebook as their primary source of news
* The uncanny ability of Fake News to credibly mimic journalism
* The probability that Fake News actually shifted the results of the presidential election
* Economic incentives to the generators of Fake News based on links, ad pennies, etc.
* The rise of "weaponized disinformation" to shift (or cloud) public sentiment as practiced by state actors such as Russia.
* The provincial and balkanizing tendency of humanity, now made clear by our behavior on the web, to occupy echo chambers which reinforce our viewpoints.
--
Given Facebook's central role in the promulgation of news and media it has at the very least a responsibility to flag suspect news sources. Failing to do so opens the door to a vast maw of disinformation sprayed upon a meek electorate. Given the risks, being agnostic about the content on a "tech platform" is no longer a credible option.
I previously could have agreed with a laissez-faire approach on principle until I considered the following:
* The reliance of many (including my own family members) on Facebook as their primary source of news
* The uncanny ability of Fake News to credibly mimic journalism
* The probability that Fake News actually shifted the results of the presidential election
* Economic incentives to the generators of Fake News based on links, ad pennies, etc.
* The rise of "weaponized disinformation" to shift (or cloud) public sentiment as practiced by state actors such as Russia.
* The provincial and balkanizing tendency of humanity, now made clear by our behavior on the web, to occupy echo chambers which reinforce our viewpoints.
--
Given Facebook's central role in the promulgation of news and media it has at the very least a responsibility to flag suspect news sources. Failing to do so opens the door to a vast maw of disinformation sprayed upon a meek electorate. Given the risks, being agnostic about the content on a "tech platform" is no longer a credible option.
2
Screening individual stories to separate out fake news is a fool's errand whether done by individual consumers of "news" or prohibition enforcers. The demand for fake news from final consumers & click merchants too great. But pretty much everyone can develop and maintain a short list of news sources which fit their needs and avoid the rest. So what's the problem?
It has now come out that Macedonian teenagers were paid money to write fake news stories against HRC and pro- Trump.
Samantha Bee interviewed Russian trolls a few weeks ago who comment pro-Trump sentiments to newspapers like the NYT, Washington Post, LA Times. These people are also paid to write these fake comments.
When people see information like the Pope endorses Trump- most of us know this is a fake headline because we don't just immerse ourselves in news from Facebook, BuzzFeed and numerous other sites that do no fact checking.
BUT- amazingly, there are many people who rely solely on these sites for all their news so they believe whatever they see on the internet- just like Trump says he does. Trump of course is the chief perpetrator of lies- so as long as the lies are in is favor, he's fine with them.
In any case, this trend is dangerous and big media outlets like Facebook do have some responsibility in ensuring what is on their website is not just fake propaganda. If they cannot do that responsibly- they should get out of the news posting business altogether.
Samantha Bee interviewed Russian trolls a few weeks ago who comment pro-Trump sentiments to newspapers like the NYT, Washington Post, LA Times. These people are also paid to write these fake comments.
When people see information like the Pope endorses Trump- most of us know this is a fake headline because we don't just immerse ourselves in news from Facebook, BuzzFeed and numerous other sites that do no fact checking.
BUT- amazingly, there are many people who rely solely on these sites for all their news so they believe whatever they see on the internet- just like Trump says he does. Trump of course is the chief perpetrator of lies- so as long as the lies are in is favor, he's fine with them.
In any case, this trend is dangerous and big media outlets like Facebook do have some responsibility in ensuring what is on their website is not just fake propaganda. If they cannot do that responsibly- they should get out of the news posting business altogether.
3
The idea that websites have no responsibility for what they host has no analog in the world prior to the advent of the web and only contributes to the information anarchy which besets us today.
14
Actually there is a tremendous analogue in the pre internet world. For hundreds of years people have stood on street corners crying out opinions an "news." Nobody held the people who laid out the streets responsible for what people said on them. Most people understood the source was questionable and looked for more reliable places to turn, although in certain emotionally charged situations, many a riot and pogrom were started in this way. These days, MSM has become itself very biased and often careless and the lines of reliable and unreliable sources have become twisted.
One of the roles of the institutions of society is to protect humans from our weaknesses. Examples of weaknesses include addictive drugs, the desire for revenge, the impulse to escalate conflicts, fear of "the other", and so on. The rise of social media has magnified (and exploits) another weakness: We love to gossip. The spread of rumors has always been dangerous, but now it can occur in minutes rather than weeks. The fake news purveyors exploit this for profit via the click markets that Facebook and Twitter provide. Putin exploits this to achieve strategic goals. We need our institutions to help us protect ourselves from this weakness. Perhaps the most obvious way to do this would be for Facebook to slow down the propagation of rumors by delaying posts that are suspected of being false. This would not censor them, as they would eventually be posted, but it would slow down the "disease spread" so that people could exercise better self control.
Some other ideas: Facebook could provide an API so that third party tools could monitor the spread of rumors and do fact checking. It could flag items as suspect, as other commenters have suggested.
Some other ideas: Facebook could provide an API so that third party tools could monitor the spread of rumors and do fact checking. It could flag items as suspect, as other commenters have suggested.
2
I don't remember how long ago, perhaps a few years, but Paul Krugman once said that he didn't think the Internet's bad information was any worse than the bad information and conspiracy theories in the past. I disagreed at the time and still do. Ever since I began commenting at The Times, I've railed against the ridiculous tripe on the Internet and its impact on voters, particularly the conservative base.
We cannot be petrified by postmodernist garbage. Let's be careful of censorship and about "truth," by all means, but when something is blatantly false and tens of millions of our citizens are blatantly stupid, both the false information and the stupidity of the citizenry must be addressed. It is not sufficient to rail against one or the other.
Your worries re Facebook are completely valid. I share them and probably agree with you. But we must address the subject. Doing nothing would be a mistake. It will likely take trial and error to get this precisely right. We are still in our youth in the Internet Age. We'll learn as we go. In the meantime, let's stigmatize stupidity in our country. It is not OK not to read books or newspapers, not to want to be informed. The dearth of critical thinking skills is amazing.
We cannot be petrified by postmodernist garbage. Let's be careful of censorship and about "truth," by all means, but when something is blatantly false and tens of millions of our citizens are blatantly stupid, both the false information and the stupidity of the citizenry must be addressed. It is not sufficient to rail against one or the other.
Your worries re Facebook are completely valid. I share them and probably agree with you. But we must address the subject. Doing nothing would be a mistake. It will likely take trial and error to get this precisely right. We are still in our youth in the Internet Age. We'll learn as we go. In the meantime, let's stigmatize stupidity in our country. It is not OK not to read books or newspapers, not to want to be informed. The dearth of critical thinking skills is amazing.
3
If Facebook doesn't plan to get serious about what it chooses to print, in terms of source and content, they might want to take into consideration that while they're able to get away with some things here in the U.S., they might find it increasingly difficult in other world markets, like Germany -- which is taking a very hard and active stance against hate speech these days.
And while the reasoning for this may largely be contributed to the rise in right-wing neo-Nazi activity, there has also been a constant rise in acts of cyber-bullying with sometimes fatal results.
We, on this side of the ocean may do well to take not of this -- in the long run, Facebook will most certainly have to.
And while the reasoning for this may largely be contributed to the rise in right-wing neo-Nazi activity, there has also been a constant rise in acts of cyber-bullying with sometimes fatal results.
We, on this side of the ocean may do well to take not of this -- in the long run, Facebook will most certainly have to.
2
Unfortunately, Facebook has to take responsibility for what gets posted on its site. Algorithms should be able to check the web address (URL) of any links added against a database of news sources rated from low to high credibility. This would result in color-coding the post (say Red, Yellow or Green) based on the credibility of the source.
Who rates media sources for credibility? Ideally, the media industry would maintain this site and have its members audited regularly by independent public accounting firms. We need a CBO or GAO for media.
Who rates media sources for credibility? Ideally, the media industry would maintain this site and have its members audited regularly by independent public accounting firms. We need a CBO or GAO for media.
7
Right, users should allow a cesspool of idiocy to be pumped into their brain day in and day out curated by a computer and sponsored by paying advertisers.
Most of us saw the no nothings interviewed on news shows. The author of this piece is I am sure in support of Americans being beyond misinformed but lied to and then basing their politics on complete fiction.
It goes on today, nothing has changed. And the best our journalist can do is run childish fact checks? Do your job, stop with the parroting, check your facts as you write. I am so sick of "Mitch McConnell said" and we know he is lying but the article blathers on brainlessly. Then we have the what is a lie, what is truth problem. Even here in the Times. Journalist unable to answer these questions emphatically should quit. this country is in trouble, we are all in grave danger. But no worries our multi medias can normalize anything.
Most of us saw the no nothings interviewed on news shows. The author of this piece is I am sure in support of Americans being beyond misinformed but lied to and then basing their politics on complete fiction.
It goes on today, nothing has changed. And the best our journalist can do is run childish fact checks? Do your job, stop with the parroting, check your facts as you write. I am so sick of "Mitch McConnell said" and we know he is lying but the article blathers on brainlessly. Then we have the what is a lie, what is truth problem. Even here in the Times. Journalist unable to answer these questions emphatically should quit. this country is in trouble, we are all in grave danger. But no worries our multi medias can normalize anything.
2
the longer i wait to have a facebook account, the more i feel i should wait.
1
Jessica Lessin thinks that Facebook should not be responsible for its content, it should not fact check. But the NY Times and every other responsible media organization does just that. Yes, it is challenging and can be difficult, but the very process stimulates discussion and improves understanding of the issues. Facebook could make a real contribution to our society by providing a platform for that discussion.
2
A very valuable contribution. I second the ethical concerns of FB functioning as a editorial organ, thereby in the eye of the user potentially gaining credibility as a serious news medium. We need education in schools, about the critical usage of social media, a course on sources of information. Furthermore, platforms designated to citizen journalism (in a way FB is one), to "professional" journalism, and those for both. I am an avid supported of making public different opinions from all parts of society, but one needs to distinguish between well informed and personal opinion, which do not exclude each other but might also not be the same. In particular for younger media users this might be increasingly difficult since both, the amount and sources of information and the speed of the propagation have massively increased over the past 10 years.
1
I'm curious as to why there is no discussion of a verification feature, as Twitter has for celebrity accounts and Facebook did when it first started, only allowing members from certain .edu domains. It seems that after the outlet submits an application, certain source urls could be identified as news outlets with an icon indicating whether the shared link is from a news source, or an unknown domain. Facebook would then not be policing the content, but providing context for what people are reading. As it is now, real news, clickbait, satire and fake news are all mixed together and though it would be nice if people fact-checked, it's unrealistic to expect most Facebook users to differentiate these stories on their own.
1
Facebook was pushing false news dressed up as real news into my news feed as suggested, related articles all year long. I suspect they made a lot of money doing it. I know how to debunk, but it would be a full time job, just addressing the horse hockey flung at me by my families and friends and they don't believe me; they believe these articles that look like news. It is a real problem. If I own a banquet hall, I may not be responsible for everyone who rents it, but I don't have to rent to the KKK and if I do, money is more important to me than anything else.
1
Facebook news problem is a false accusation even if all the news in it is fake. Facebook should not control or edit content. Otherwise people will read the lies that satisfy them on overseas false news websites providing them the revenue. An example is thus. What if a Trump supporter wrote he knows Hillary is certain to lose. It was false news on the morning of the election but true later that day.
While Facebook might have trouble with "truth" that is less than black and while, it should be able to label posts that are clearly UNTRUE. It's nice to see so many Times readers proudly reporting that they curate their own news, but that doesn't address the problem of people of apparent education, intelligence and means who believe every lie they see on Facebook. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/inspired-life/wp/2016/11/18/fake-new...
1
When the head of the dominant political party lies without accountability there is a bigger problem than FB.
It's an adversary system. Accountability has to be fostered by the opposition.
The Democratic party needed to take the lead on this -- and they didn't do an adequate job.
Democrats needed a clever spokesman who was entertaining enough that the announcements had to be covered. And, frankly, the spokesman needed to verge on vicious in calling out lies.
A similar argument applies to FB. What was needed was a coujnterattack, not an attempt to bring a referee into a free for all.
It's an adversary system. Accountability has to be fostered by the opposition.
The Democratic party needed to take the lead on this -- and they didn't do an adequate job.
Democrats needed a clever spokesman who was entertaining enough that the announcements had to be covered. And, frankly, the spokesman needed to verge on vicious in calling out lies.
A similar argument applies to FB. What was needed was a coujnterattack, not an attempt to bring a referee into a free for all.
5
Why should facebook do anything? It should really be a completely open forum unless content is, or promotes, illegal activity. The role of social media is still very poorly defined or understood. Is it simply a cyber form of street corner, where people can meet or voice their opinion, and the people who laid the cement or asphalt have no responsibility for what is said on the street they built? On the other hand, is it some sort of edited or controled site where a private company gets to control or approve content. There really isn't a middle ground because once you allow subjective editing there is no way to know when to stop. My vote is that it should simply be an open forum, like a street corner. The recipients of information would then know that they should trust the information they get there the same way they do information that they may hear from someone standing on a soap box with a mega phone on a public street. End users really need to learn to be more discriminating in how they get their news and not rely what Mark Zuckerberg thinks is right.
1
"I’m not comfortable trusting the truth to one gatekeeper..."
What are news publications such as the NYTs, the WSJ, The Nation, Foreign Affairs, etc other than gatekeepers? Facebook is just another gatekeeper, albeit a huge one, and therein lies the problem.
Urban Legends/Snopes already performs the service of validating and debunking stories that appear in social and conventional media. Frankly, it seems to me that all facebook has to do is partner with and outsource this task to Snopes, who can simply put a red banner across the top of or as a pop-up over any story that their (human reviewed) algorithms find suspicious that simply says "warning: the information at this location is at odds with a preponderance of evidence in our database to the contrary" or some such statement, provide a link to that database, and then let people sort it out for themselves. Outsourcing it provides some credibility as snopes - although compromised by the fact that they would be getting paid by fb - nevertheless would at least be a third party policing fb.
And we should stop referring to this "fake news" as misstatements, misinformation, or fabrications and call it what it is: propaganda. EG: Donald TriumPh stating that he won the popular vote because of voter fraud in three states should be called propaganda. Some say that should be called a lie, but lies in this context are propaganda, and the word propaganda is stronger and more specific because it points towards the lie's purpose.
What are news publications such as the NYTs, the WSJ, The Nation, Foreign Affairs, etc other than gatekeepers? Facebook is just another gatekeeper, albeit a huge one, and therein lies the problem.
Urban Legends/Snopes already performs the service of validating and debunking stories that appear in social and conventional media. Frankly, it seems to me that all facebook has to do is partner with and outsource this task to Snopes, who can simply put a red banner across the top of or as a pop-up over any story that their (human reviewed) algorithms find suspicious that simply says "warning: the information at this location is at odds with a preponderance of evidence in our database to the contrary" or some such statement, provide a link to that database, and then let people sort it out for themselves. Outsourcing it provides some credibility as snopes - although compromised by the fact that they would be getting paid by fb - nevertheless would at least be a third party policing fb.
And we should stop referring to this "fake news" as misstatements, misinformation, or fabrications and call it what it is: propaganda. EG: Donald TriumPh stating that he won the popular vote because of voter fraud in three states should be called propaganda. Some say that should be called a lie, but lies in this context are propaganda, and the word propaganda is stronger and more specific because it points towards the lie's purpose.
2
Can't believe this "opinion" piece was even published. It couldn't be less informed about the actual nuts-and-bolts of news aggregation and "algorithms," surely a word the journalist doesn't know in terms of having created them. Anyone who is actually knowledgeable about such topics knows that it's not a question of curating posts, article by article, but of determining credible sources and weighting them. Google did this ages ago in establishing it's "pagerank" algorithm, whereby it counted each link as a "vote" for a site's quality, but not all votes were equal, because not all sources were. Enough to say that the Times should do a better job of sourcing their own opinion pieces. This one is complete rubbish. A programmer, not a "journalist", would be infinitely more knowledgeable!
1
This comment may not make it through the Times' human algorithm but I feel compelled to state that this is a great piece of writing and thoroughly informative. Thank you MS. Lessin so much for this. Also, thank you for making me feel that it is at least somewhat safe to click on a piece in this paper having even a peripheral relationship to Mr. Trump.
Facebook shouldn't fact-check but it also shouldn't influence things by algorithm. Honest to God, how much money does Zuckerberg need?
1
I agree, Facebook should not fact check.
That is the job of the 4th estate and to us; the voter.
We have failed miserably in that job, for quite some time now.
That is the job of the 4th estate and to us; the voter.
We have failed miserably in that job, for quite some time now.
1
What you may, or may not realize is that for many, Facebook (and other social media platforms) has effectively replaced the 4th estate as a viable news source...And this is exactly what makes its credibility (or lack, thereof) so significant.
2
The classic "double edged sword" of technology. They were eager to change the world, they did, just not as anticipated. However there is an easy solution, leave social media. I did and am much happier for it.
1
Apparently people *still* haven't deleted their Facebook accounts to protect what's left of their privacy in 2016. Now Facebook has also taken full control of their realities, and Trump has shaped up to be the leader they deserve.
1
Nonsense. Private entities -- corporations, businesses, schools -- routinely set and enforce guidelines on allowable speech in their spaces. The fact that Facebook is online and virtual does not change the fundamental ethical requirement to discourage harmful and hateful speech.
1
I deleted my Facebook account many moons ago. It's a goldmine for people collecting intelligence on individuals, just the kind of information people look for to compromise and manipulate a target.
If the Chinese can access and steal my protected investigation files from my government service then they, and others, can easily hack Facebook. In fact while I did have an account I received lots of spam and phishing attacks connected to that account. The attacks stopped when I deleted the account.
In other words, one can easily get through life by ignoring Facebook completely. I'm surprised anyone even considers anything appearing on Facebook as factual.
If the Chinese can access and steal my protected investigation files from my government service then they, and others, can easily hack Facebook. In fact while I did have an account I received lots of spam and phishing attacks connected to that account. The attacks stopped when I deleted the account.
In other words, one can easily get through life by ignoring Facebook completely. I'm surprised anyone even considers anything appearing on Facebook as factual.
3
Facebook definitively should make a better effort to filter or flag fake news. But as with anything these days, including the NYT, the reader is ultimately responsible. Unfortunately there is no cure yet for stupidity.
As it is now I gave zero credibility to anything posted in Facebook while I tend to give more weight to news appearing in the NYT.
As it is now I gave zero credibility to anything posted in Facebook while I tend to give more weight to news appearing in the NYT.
1
People turn to social media for news because it is where so many news organizations turn for news.
Almost all cable and internet new sources use twitter to ensure they have an article ready to go within 5 minutes of the story breaking. The term "live coverage" is synonymous with newscasters reading tweets verbatim, and almost every major story of the last two years has been accompanied by multiple outlets jumping on a train of false information, only to backtrack hours later.
Breaking news research rarely goes further than twitter, so why we are surprised when consumers skip the middle man?
Almost all cable and internet new sources use twitter to ensure they have an article ready to go within 5 minutes of the story breaking. The term "live coverage" is synonymous with newscasters reading tweets verbatim, and almost every major story of the last two years has been accompanied by multiple outlets jumping on a train of false information, only to backtrack hours later.
Breaking news research rarely goes further than twitter, so why we are surprised when consumers skip the middle man?
Sorry to disagree with you, but as someone who works in the News industry -- I can assure you that Facebook (and other social-media platforms) is not where most accredited organizations go for information.
2
Jessica Lessin says, "I simply don’t trust Facebook, or any one company, with the responsibility for determining what is true." I go one step further, I don't trust anything that is written in Facebook. It is truly a juvenile exchange of dubious value.
1
Jessica Lessin is right about how Facebook should address its abuse, but we have a bigger problem staring us in the face: The Toxic mix of Twitter and Trump.
Today Trumped tweeted about cancelling citizenship for flag burners. Yes, it would not be consitutional. But that is almost a side story.
The main story is the dangerous use of Twitter.
Via Twitter, Trump achieves more government intrusion into our lives than any President has even tried to achieve before. More days than not, Trump tweets into our homes and even our hands, with no filter in between us. It is like the leader in Orwell's 1984, appearing ubiquitously on screens.
And then there are the second order effects. When the President tweets, it is news. Suddenly the President calls the press to a briefing with no opportunity to ask questions, and does it almost every day, at 3AM or 6 AM.
The press reports this, and the President in front of all of our faces again. Ubiquity. There is no escape.
Twitter in this usage will stoke mobs and spread disinformation worse than fake news on facebook.
Trump might be Consitutionally wrong about his power to prosecute Clinton (or not), to order torture (or not), to strip citizenship, etc. But he uses Twitter to make people believe he has the power and to spur them to act.
Facebook can't be trusted as an editoral board, but Twitter and/or statute can ban certain classes of officials from using Twitter.
Shouldn't we all agree to stop such intrusion into our lives?
Today Trumped tweeted about cancelling citizenship for flag burners. Yes, it would not be consitutional. But that is almost a side story.
The main story is the dangerous use of Twitter.
Via Twitter, Trump achieves more government intrusion into our lives than any President has even tried to achieve before. More days than not, Trump tweets into our homes and even our hands, with no filter in between us. It is like the leader in Orwell's 1984, appearing ubiquitously on screens.
And then there are the second order effects. When the President tweets, it is news. Suddenly the President calls the press to a briefing with no opportunity to ask questions, and does it almost every day, at 3AM or 6 AM.
The press reports this, and the President in front of all of our faces again. Ubiquity. There is no escape.
Twitter in this usage will stoke mobs and spread disinformation worse than fake news on facebook.
Trump might be Consitutionally wrong about his power to prosecute Clinton (or not), to order torture (or not), to strip citizenship, etc. But he uses Twitter to make people believe he has the power and to spur them to act.
Facebook can't be trusted as an editoral board, but Twitter and/or statute can ban certain classes of officials from using Twitter.
Shouldn't we all agree to stop such intrusion into our lives?
1
Perhaps the solution is to note what is a trusted source when the publishing author is a known entity and stop there. Should an entity wish to become "trusted," there should be a mechanism to do so. Approached that way, a story from a reputable news source would always be published with a stamp that lets the reader know they can trust the information or at least easily verify it. If the story does not have the stamp, it signals the reader that it is up to them how to react.
The problem here is not that people are stupid or lazy, it is a widespread lack of information literacy. People assume that because it is popular or appears on Google/Facebook/etc. that it is true. The very appearance on those sites lends unintended credibility to the information and they should accept that and take responsibility for it. While we do not want these companies to be gatekeepers, we have to accept that they are more than aggregators. While it would be easy to dismiss that as each individual's problem, it is far too widespread and is being exploited far too much to be ignored. Verifying the company removes the need to constantly verify information on a case-by-case basis.
The problem here is not that people are stupid or lazy, it is a widespread lack of information literacy. People assume that because it is popular or appears on Google/Facebook/etc. that it is true. The very appearance on those sites lends unintended credibility to the information and they should accept that and take responsibility for it. While we do not want these companies to be gatekeepers, we have to accept that they are more than aggregators. While it would be easy to dismiss that as each individual's problem, it is far too widespread and is being exploited far too much to be ignored. Verifying the company removes the need to constantly verify information on a case-by-case basis.
2
One thing FB could reasonably do is attach to every item (its algorithms can figure out if two items are substantially the same despite minor changes) a user rating and comment system that is global in scope, i.e. anyone anywhere can add to it and it will follow that item to any FB page where that item is posted. Maybe two columns of comments, one thumbs-up, one thumbs-down. Maybe let people who voted one way or the other rate others' comments in the same column, and display top-ranked comments by default. Put these alongside the existing column for the poster's friends. FB would in effect be forcing a global conversation about each item alongside the private one.
Interesting notion in the article, that people are "losing trust" in news originators. Going a little deeper, it's actually more true to say that people are losing trust in news organizations being in any way comprehensive. The financial pressures on traditional news organizations is forcing them to appeal to sensationalist narratives, instead of objective reporting and rational analysis, so that the latest Trump Lie is seen as more important than any number of actual policy positions beginning to take shape. Facebook got caught benefiting from the click-churn of outrageous messaging. Ultimately, we need a citizenry literate in media analysis -- people who question why certain news of substantial interest (say the 50% of your tax dollars going to support perpetual warefare) are hardly ever reported, and who understand that media exists to (a) make money (b) spread opinions (c) spread truth and (d) spread lies, and that not all media are equally motivated to do all four of the previously listed functions.
2
Cop-out, "big league" as our new ignoramus-in-chief would say. Either Facebook prints a disclaimer that shows up when you log in that says that nothing on its site should be taken at face value due to the lack of professional journalistic editorial review, or it takes responsibility for the fact that it at least tacitly encourages its customers to treat it as an equally reliable substitute for sources that do observe the standards of the journalistic profession where it pertains to serious rapportage. To deny that such standards exist and are observed by at least a few media organizations (within which one has the option of choosing among a range of editorial leanings), or to deny that Facebook markets itself as a news outlet to increase its revenues, is simply naive at best.
2
I don't know if Facebook should determine what we see. However, an indicator of vetted news sources and an indicator for unverified sources could be created. For example, articles from reputable sources have a blue frame and articles from sources that do not have a longstanding reputation for delivering fact based journalism are framed in a red box.
2
I would be fine with the Internet going away tomorrow. I'd rather live in an economy with middle-of-the-bell-curve jobs where I talk to people every day and enrich my free time with outdoor activities. This fake cyber world does little for me, and I don't think it's making everyone more connected in a real way. It's actually making people more disconnected and creating conflicts that otherwise would not occur. It's also creating a false view of the world and undermining democratic institutions.
1
I understand this perspective for personal reasons, but business (my own included, which is totally based on personal interaction) runs much more efficiently and generates more capital for the business/employees/local global economy at large. I can pay bills, purchase equipment, receive quotes and perform basic business procedures in hours rather than the days it would take without a web connection.
1
I, too, am trying to run a small business with my wife, so I understand this perspective completely. Yet, as I do not feel like I am able to support myself despite the convenience of the Internet (and I know many people like me, as well), I guess my inclination is that the negatives outweigh the positives. Especially on a grand nation-state organizing scale. What is the new mythology? No borders at all? No borders only for businesses, but not for people? Interaction online is more "real" than face-to-face interaction? It just doesn't work for me. And I don't think it's working for the country, either.
I want to give a real example of what I'm talking about: There is an online social media page called nextdoor.com. Purportedly, it's supposed to bring neighbors together and help them communicate, share issues with each other, etc. I've used next-door.com for about a year now, and I am also pretty involved in my community through our HOA, etc. I'll tell you, if next door.com does anything, it's allow people to pick on one another, and say things about people, without having any of the challenges and consequences of dealing with them face to face. That's it. No improvement, no connection, just a kind of "slap someone on the back of the head and run away." Like many social media platforms, next-door.com is essentially an ineffective faux world of anonymous finger-pointing, in which no problems in the real world are ever solved as a result of this forum. I wish that it were different, but it's not. I've accomplished + communicated much more at our HOA forums, or meetings with district council people, than I have in any of these forums.
The influence of "fake news" is not Facebook's fault, it's not Trump's fault, and it's not Russia's fault. This is no one's fault but our own for failing to teach our fellow Americans how to think and read critically. State education departments mandate a "teach to the test" approach that doesn't allow any time to explore the nuances and controversies that surround nearly every area of study. Why is critical thinking not part (if not the cornerstone) of public school curriculums?
Totally agree. People should know how to filter out real news and garbage. What to do is simply follow solely a few reliable sources, such as NYTimes, Fox News and CNN.
1
I agree that facebook should not take on the role of fact checker. However, Facebook should also not compensate third parties for creating and publicizing fake news.
One thing that Facebook can do is to curate news sources. If a news source wants to be a part of the facebook feed, they can pay to register and agree to terms of service.
This would not prevent mere gossip from propogating throughout Facebook, but the problem of identifying real and fake gossip is much easier if news sources are curated and no one is rewarded for their ability to produce seductive lies.
One thing that Facebook can do is to curate news sources. If a news source wants to be a part of the facebook feed, they can pay to register and agree to terms of service.
This would not prevent mere gossip from propogating throughout Facebook, but the problem of identifying real and fake gossip is much easier if news sources are curated and no one is rewarded for their ability to produce seductive lies.
1
I agree. Let's just let all hell break loose and see what happens. It might be interesting to see what results, if nothing else. It won't be the first time we've been zuckered.
Yo completely miss the point. Facebook has transitioned (unwittingly) from a social media company, to a News company. Ans as such, it MUST adhere to at the ethics and professional guidelines that a news company lives by.
End of story.
End of story.
3
Consumers need an easy identifier to distinguish between fake news and news produced by an organization adhering to certain standards. In other words, we need a certification for responsible journalism given by an independent organization like ISO. This certification would affix a stamp to content produced by its members, which could be prominently shown on social media.
Facebook could play a role in setting up the certifying organization and defining the standards, but real news organizations like Reuters, CNN, the NYT and others should probably take the lead. A lot of care must be taken to include conservative news producers too, so that it doesn't become a "liberals only" club.
If the certifying organization is set up as a nonprofit, I would donate to it. This is way too important.
Facebook could play a role in setting up the certifying organization and defining the standards, but real news organizations like Reuters, CNN, the NYT and others should probably take the lead. A lot of care must be taken to include conservative news producers too, so that it doesn't become a "liberals only" club.
If the certifying organization is set up as a nonprofit, I would donate to it. This is way too important.
1
Rather than talking to friends or experiencing the world, most people prefer to stare at their screen/gateway to get news about their "friends" (which may or may not be true), and get news about the "world" (which may or may not be true) from Facebook or other web base sources. Thank you Steve Jobs (and others) for these "revolutionary" devices that replace human contact, and obviate the need to care.
1
A century ago, people bought their staples from bulk barrels, unlabeled, unsourced, unregulated, unbranded. They had no idea whether it was cut with cheap fillers, contaminated with toxins, bugs and rodent droppings, or made from floor sweepings. That's why the FDA was created -- now we can be reasonably sure our food is what it says and won't poison us.
We need a truth-in-labeling act for on-line news content. It is exactly like the food markets of 1900 -- filled with dangerous and fraudulent goods, unsourced, unlabeled, capable of damaging individuals and our society. Yet no sign warns "Caveat emptor!"
There should be some label -- perhaps a .news extension -- for organizations that agree to adhere to the standards of professional journalism. And numerous warnings that anything else is as likely to be fiction as fact. We cannot survive as a nation without a common set of facts to work from
We need a truth-in-labeling act for on-line news content. It is exactly like the food markets of 1900 -- filled with dangerous and fraudulent goods, unsourced, unlabeled, capable of damaging individuals and our society. Yet no sign warns "Caveat emptor!"
There should be some label -- perhaps a .news extension -- for organizations that agree to adhere to the standards of professional journalism. And numerous warnings that anything else is as likely to be fiction as fact. We cannot survive as a nation without a common set of facts to work from
3
A couple of days ago I was cruising my Facebook page with my very inquisitive and thoughtful high school son standing near me. Some provocative headline on Trump (most likely) came up and my son asked me what it said since I scrolled past it quickly. I said: "Don't believe everything you see on Facebook." His response was basically: "Oh yeah." I was kind of surprised that he appeared to be taken in by whatever thing the headline said.
So I guess educating our children on the effect of internet "news" and stories is very important.
I agree with other posters that seeking out news from multiple sources, right and left, even foreign sources, is much preferred to relying on Facebook to keep you cozily within your own little echo chamber.
So I guess educating our children on the effect of internet "news" and stories is very important.
I agree with other posters that seeking out news from multiple sources, right and left, even foreign sources, is much preferred to relying on Facebook to keep you cozily within your own little echo chamber.
1
The trouble with Facebook and Twitter is not the fake news. Everyone in the USA sees fake news on a daily basis in shops and supermarkets in the tabloid aisle.
The problem is that the fake news comes packaged with a bar that says 10,000 other people 'Like' that item and there are dozens of comments from all over the country that agree with it, creating an aura of legitimacy. Really this is just a selection bias, and 10,000 Likes is not that much compared to the size of the US or world, but the human brain is easily fooled in this way.
Facebook could go a long way to fixing the problem by simply labeling fake news articles for what they are, and permanently branding sites that repeatedly and intentionally publish fake news as false/tabloid/etc.
The problem is that the fake news comes packaged with a bar that says 10,000 other people 'Like' that item and there are dozens of comments from all over the country that agree with it, creating an aura of legitimacy. Really this is just a selection bias, and 10,000 Likes is not that much compared to the size of the US or world, but the human brain is easily fooled in this way.
Facebook could go a long way to fixing the problem by simply labeling fake news articles for what they are, and permanently branding sites that repeatedly and intentionally publish fake news as false/tabloid/etc.
17
There are so many ramifications to the fake news. I have found that a huge percentage of the Bernie supporters got their information from Facebook. So when it was to Bernie's advantage for them to be led to all of the phony anti Hillary sites and news feeds, Bernie was not really that appalled, nor did he try to stop them. Once all of the fake right wing "theories" (we know they are lies) spread like wildfire through the Bernie children who had not been around to know propaganda when they saw it, their hearts were totally hardened against her. So there was no way for Bernie to say "nevermind," Trump is worse when he lost. They hated her for taking the nomination from their savior and messiah. And I'm not sure that for Bernie, that was not just fine. Then Bernie could do a couple of tepid speeches for her and look like he meant to help. This cost Hillary the election.
I personally don't allow any news feed onto my Facebook. And anything that creeps on by mistake, I disallow and block. I don't even allow friends who spread lies. Or even politics I agree with. I prefer pictures of cousins and grandchildren. And to keep up with what friends are doing.
Having said that, there is no way for Facebook to vet postings. I would prefer they got out of the news business entirely, and got back to what people had for breakfast. A social media, and not a news media.
I personally don't allow any news feed onto my Facebook. And anything that creeps on by mistake, I disallow and block. I don't even allow friends who spread lies. Or even politics I agree with. I prefer pictures of cousins and grandchildren. And to keep up with what friends are doing.
Having said that, there is no way for Facebook to vet postings. I would prefer they got out of the news business entirely, and got back to what people had for breakfast. A social media, and not a news media.
2
Isn't it beyond absurd that one person effectively controls the distribution of news to the world? If Zuckerberg really wants to get out of this problem, he needs to dial back on his ambition of owning the connections between everyone on the planet. Stop the deals for news feeds. Slow down the velocity information between social groups. He can do it. It's a private business, right?
2
Why not accredit news services through an independent agency? We accredit lawyers, doctors and pharmacists. What we have is a bunch of news quacks. It's not Facebook's fault. It's everybody's fault.
1
We live in an age where the press is truly free, now we need a way to expand critical peer review systems of this news. Perhaps the answer is a more collaborative effort. What if the most widely shared stories and liked stories were aggregated and brought to critical attention of editorial staff at national newspapers? The stories would be critically reviewed and either debunked, left unconfirmed, or certified as "verified by editors at NY Times?"
My feeling is that Facebook, Twitter and the like are our modern day's Public Squares, where profound insights to delusional rants are fine. Only advocating physical harm should be censored, which I believe is still the case. Slander and libel should be left to the courts.
1
Yes, they should.
If Facebook wants to distribute a news feed it MUST vet the information. People are free to choose what websites they use. If Facebook becomes too draconian, people will find another site. 2 minutes to sign up, and you're ready to go.
1
A popular sentiment seems to be that people should be responsible for determining the veracity of information for themselves, and the abdication of this responsibility by people is a personal failing that doesn’t deserve to be addressed. This stubborn incredulity won’t help to rectify the current situation.
A problem has been identified. The unfettered flow of false information has poisoned our public discourse and rendered substantive discussion of issues untenable. We can either cross our arms and try to scold the problem away, or we can try more active solutions. I think the choice is clear.
A problem has been identified. The unfettered flow of false information has poisoned our public discourse and rendered substantive discussion of issues untenable. We can either cross our arms and try to scold the problem away, or we can try more active solutions. I think the choice is clear.
3
No, Facebook shouldn't fact-check.
Nor should fake news — a.k.a. lies — be used to throw an election.
These two shoulds may not be compatible, so something has to give.
The lesser of the two evils is clearly avoiding having an election thrown with lies.
Nor should fake news — a.k.a. lies — be used to throw an election.
These two shoulds may not be compatible, so something has to give.
The lesser of the two evils is clearly avoiding having an election thrown with lies.
3
Anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of Facebook would realize that, for better or worse, it has morphed into more than a social network. For many users, Facebook is both a tool for disseminating and a means for accessing news, however dubious the source or content. For some, in fact, it is their Only source of news. There are no simple solutions for determining the veracity of 'news' posted on social media sites, but it is irresponsible and dangerous for Mark Zuckerburg to be absolved of all responsibility by falling back on the position that Facebook's sole domain is social media.
1
"Erroneous reporting by established organizations is as bigger threat than fabricated stories, and far more rampant"
Is this a self-referential statement. I think so.
Is this a self-referential statement. I think so.
Could we enlist IBM's Watson as an impartial arbiter to fact check these fake news releases? - i.e. using computer technology to solve a problem arising as a consequence of same.
2
Amazing how Lessin would vouch for her chum from the Crimson. Get real NYT and publish legitimate OP-ED's in which we hold business accountable like FB for the mess we are in. Last time I heard, business are fined for releasing toxic waste, reporters are fired for creating false stories (Jayson Blair) and companies are fined for making up information on food labels. Lessin is a blantant apologist for a generation who lacks the moral fiber to be held accountable. GROW-UP
1
People who use Facebook need to understand one basic fact: You are not the customer. You are the product.
Facebook is not a "common carrier" - it is a mechanism to gather data on you and then sell it. Nothing more.
They will do what best serves their real customers.
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
Facebook is not a "common carrier" - it is a mechanism to gather data on you and then sell it. Nothing more.
They will do what best serves their real customers.
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
8
Given that so many people receive their news via Facebook & Twitter, I don't see how you can posit that they shouldn't be responsible for disseminating fake news.
5
While ideally, citizens would not get their "information" from Facebook, actual facts prove that nearly half of them do.
I believe in the importance of traditional media to perform this vital element of democracy: a free press providing news based on journalistic integrity. However, when "post-factual" and "post-truth" have been added to the dictionary, we are not in Kansas anymore.
Facebook and Twitter, etc. have proven for all time the maxim:
A lie can get around the world before the truth can get its pants on.
I believe in the importance of traditional media to perform this vital element of democracy: a free press providing news based on journalistic integrity. However, when "post-factual" and "post-truth" have been added to the dictionary, we are not in Kansas anymore.
Facebook and Twitter, etc. have proven for all time the maxim:
A lie can get around the world before the truth can get its pants on.
3
Facebook offers a platform through which anyone anywhere can set up a page and communicate to the world. Facebook profits from this platform.
20 or so years ago no such platforms existed, and anyone wishing to communicate with such a wide audience had to go through the media, either by making news which the media would report or by paid advertisements. The media is not anonymous, it is governed by journalistic standards, it is available to be sued, it has obligations to the public.
So why should Facebook not have the same obligations as the media? If a newspaper could not or would not accept a paid advertisement because of its content, or could not or would not publish a story because of its content, why should Facebook be permitted to display the content on its website?
Perhaps the obligation to edit the content should be triggered only when Facebook is alerted to its existence by one of its users, but once that has occurred, shouldn't the media-type responsibilities click in?
20 or so years ago no such platforms existed, and anyone wishing to communicate with such a wide audience had to go through the media, either by making news which the media would report or by paid advertisements. The media is not anonymous, it is governed by journalistic standards, it is available to be sued, it has obligations to the public.
So why should Facebook not have the same obligations as the media? If a newspaper could not or would not accept a paid advertisement because of its content, or could not or would not publish a story because of its content, why should Facebook be permitted to display the content on its website?
Perhaps the obligation to edit the content should be triggered only when Facebook is alerted to its existence by one of its users, but once that has occurred, shouldn't the media-type responsibilities click in?
9
what??? the media has obligations to fact check??? journalistic standards??? please; the news media have become entirely partisan organizations, Slate, MSNBC, Fox News, they dont fact check, they spew propaganda. they report events and the regale us with their interpretations of those events. north american news media has little objectivity.
1
The thought of Mark Zuckerberg and his ilk as the arbiter of the truth is a total laugh! It takes 3 weeks or more for him to grudgingly recognize the truth when it's placed squarely in front of him.
5
When you forage for food (news) in the town dump (Facebook) you should not be surprised that what you find is not too healthy.
3
Facebook users can mark posts from drunk uncle Donald as spam and call it offensive without blocking drunk uncle Donald's updates on Aunt Mel's plastic surgery recovery. This has been true for some time. Police your own page. Let's not give this coporate behemoth more power to wreck journalism.
1
That's right Jessica - let our democracy burn while facebook and its minions run off with billions of dollars. If one follows your logic, shouting fire in a crowded theater is also acceptable.
More than that though, you are a shining example of the sycophantic press covering silicon valley - tech companies can do no wrong and you and your colleagues enable the bad behavior all in the name of commerce. The obituary of the United States will be written by those of your ilk.
More than that though, you are a shining example of the sycophantic press covering silicon valley - tech companies can do no wrong and you and your colleagues enable the bad behavior all in the name of commerce. The obituary of the United States will be written by those of your ilk.
5
Who would have fact-checked "Hands up, don't shoot" (since debunked in Ferguson), and "Jackie's" tale of rape at U-Va (rejected and punished in a defamation trial since)? The biggest lies in the media are "truthy" narratives intended to raise our consciousness, using loosely checked or false stories to support them. And these narratives are precisely what many of the loudest voices criticizing Facebook believe in most strongly.
2
Facebook should check attribution to legitimate sites. Many fake news stories falsely bear trademarks and names of legitimate news outlets. They're not just faking hte story, they're faking the source of it to make it more credible.
Facebook should check that a story outlandish on its face supposedly sent by ABC news, or the NYT, was in fact published by those entities.
Facebook should check that a story outlandish on its face supposedly sent by ABC news, or the NYT, was in fact published by those entities.
1
Years ago, I decided it was hubris for me to "police the 'truth'" or even to enforce grammatical rules in a living, shifting language.
Giving everyone an A has made my life easier and me more beloved by students all of whom no doubt see themselves reflected in Trump and therefore vote for him.
Giving everyone an A has made my life easier and me more beloved by students all of whom no doubt see themselves reflected in Trump and therefore vote for him.
1
I think it's great that the outlets that dispense fake news - Facebook, Twitter - are taking responsibility for the over-saturation of fake news and the damaging results to our democracy. Next, how about the media increase pressure on the plethora of fake web sites/memes that are plastered all over Facebook and Twitter? The NY Times has recently done a great job of publishing articles about fake news. Maybe if others - The Washington Post, LA Times, Chicago Tribune, CNN, TV News, Time Magazine - follow suit, we'll make a dent.
4
Question every post, search out the correct information and reply with resources. It might take a little time but it certainly is better than passing on the negative virulent comments.
While I broadly agree that one company should not have monopoly on what's true or not, this is just too important to be left to user generated flags.
User generated flags are highly susceptible to all sorts of mob behaviors e.g. large majorities crushing the voice of minorities. A minority in India or China trying to express their plight would never be able to voice their opinions, in an age of user generated flags.
In the final analysis, we would need an algorithm + human editor solution to the problem. We will need some checks/balances on those human editors but in the end, this will have to be solved by Facebook embracing its role as a media company.
As you point out there will be an inherent conflict of interest between those editors and the revenue goals of the organization. But Facebook is not the only company with fiduciary responsibility to advertising dollars. The same is true for CNN, Fox, MSNBC, NYTimes and so on.
User generated flags are highly susceptible to all sorts of mob behaviors e.g. large majorities crushing the voice of minorities. A minority in India or China trying to express their plight would never be able to voice their opinions, in an age of user generated flags.
In the final analysis, we would need an algorithm + human editor solution to the problem. We will need some checks/balances on those human editors but in the end, this will have to be solved by Facebook embracing its role as a media company.
As you point out there will be an inherent conflict of interest between those editors and the revenue goals of the organization. But Facebook is not the only company with fiduciary responsibility to advertising dollars. The same is true for CNN, Fox, MSNBC, NYTimes and so on.
2
Facebook does not belong in the news business. Period. They need to remove the news feed completely.
3
Jessica, leave your ridiculous Silicon Valley bubble. Facebook is much more than a social network, and needs to take real responsibility for real things in the real world.
2
If Facebook cannot fact check then it should shut down the capability of allowing blind acceptance of links to outside websites. Lets return to the era of using social media for socially acceptable communication. Right now, I'm getting some good stuff from groups I subscribe to. I don't want to see what others subscribe to. If they are on my friends list, I trust that what they are stating is honest but please lets back out of this onslaught of garbage from both sides of the fence.
We have not even started to discuss ads on Facebook or any news. These things are sometimes as fake as anything else. The NY Times is the only paper I can even read online anymore without facing a ton of stupid ads.
We have not even started to discuss ads on Facebook or any news. These things are sometimes as fake as anything else. The NY Times is the only paper I can even read online anymore without facing a ton of stupid ads.
2
Facebook should label it "Spews"; not "News". News is false labelling. What they are distributing, what they say they are distributing, is "what's trending". That is what bot sites are hosing the internet with.
1
If we want to reduce -- not eradicate, that's impossible -- fake news on the internet that gets vacuumed up by aggregators like Facebook, we might at least outlaw the compensation to website developers for clicks on their sites. After all, without those fractions of cents (or euros) that were credited to the Georgian purveyor of fake news, he would never have built the site. By his admission, the reason that he turned to Trump and away from Clinton was that a news site that appealed to Trump supporters attracted more clicks and hence more revenue. Following that observation, it was a downward spiral of more and more outrageous news, because to stay relevant (and profitable) the audience demanded more red meat. Get rid of the profit, and we may see fewer sites like this. But of course, that is only a dream, since this is the business model of so much of the Internet today.
2
I wonder how anyone could demand fact checking on millions of daily posts in social media. Even for human agents it would be rather hard to verify many such posts as "fact" (define fact!). There is simply no time and besides it would instantly slide down into blatant censorship of "your facts are not my facts". In other words, it is not doable unless you simply block any posts in a Stalinist fashion. Maybe that is what liberals really want?
I think people forget that we already had this debate about ten years ago, when Google started taking pages' substantive content into account in search algorithms. It's why when you search a story, major outlets turn up near the top, and sites like LIVEFREEORDIEPOLITICIANSLIE.COM wind up somewhere back on page 47.
We all have an obligation to fact check what we tell others. The individual needs to think and verify before talking. Editors need to see sources before reporting to the public and Facebook is an editor. I would think it would be relatively simple to simply rate a source according to a few categories. Accurate or frequently accurate; occasionally got it wrong, totally nuts, and never heard of this site. Then people might have a better shot. I just keep going back to the NYT to see if they had a story.
1
If fb wants to be the one-stop-shop for people's online lives then they have to take a responsibility for protecting its users from the blatant falsehoods that are being spread. It will never be more source for anything more than updates on childhood friends but the mission that it has for itself demands that it take the responsibilities in hand with the perks.
2
It is naive to think that Facebook cares for our welfare, or our country's welfare; it was created to make a profit. That it is profitable is good, regardless of the damage it may ultimately inflict.
Whatever makes a profit in our modern world is what becomes the "truth." The "truth" is that a handful of shrewd people know how to exploit human nature. The "truth" is that too many Americans live in denial because they're in a perpetual state of panic, created by their willful ignorance, which only fantasy can assuage. America's anxiety allowed a man like Donald Trump to enter our home, tell us wonderful things as he robs the silverware.
Life is good in these United States because, increasingly, reality rarely intrudes. Our existentialism is fast food washed down with Coca Cola and then, with a full belly, getting into the car - as we text and check Facebook, and if we don't crash - drive to buy a lottery ticket.
Yeah, fake news is a significant problem facing Facebook, but who cares as we pollywally doodle all the day?
Whatever makes a profit in our modern world is what becomes the "truth." The "truth" is that a handful of shrewd people know how to exploit human nature. The "truth" is that too many Americans live in denial because they're in a perpetual state of panic, created by their willful ignorance, which only fantasy can assuage. America's anxiety allowed a man like Donald Trump to enter our home, tell us wonderful things as he robs the silverware.
Life is good in these United States because, increasingly, reality rarely intrudes. Our existentialism is fast food washed down with Coca Cola and then, with a full belly, getting into the car - as we text and check Facebook, and if we don't crash - drive to buy a lottery ticket.
Yeah, fake news is a significant problem facing Facebook, but who cares as we pollywally doodle all the day?
1
It wouldn't be hard for Facebook to create an algorithm that automatically flags anything my aunt posts as most likely nonsense.
It would probably be quite effective, but I'm not sure it would make people any happier.
It would probably be quite effective, but I'm not sure it would make people any happier.
If Facebook is representative, then it simply doesn't matter one way or another. Half of our republic has little interest in what is a fact and what is not. Facts and truth no longer seem to matter as there is no entity of authority that is trusted with either making that decision or living with it. We have clearly been dumbed down to the point that we, generally, cannot figure out sunlight from darkness.
In general, I am in favor of evidence based factchecking. But like any statement, a factcheck is only as good as the reputation of the people making it and the evidence supporting it.
And the mainstream media, although more reputable than many sources on the extreme right and left, has stated as truth things that are false on multiple occasions. For example when Trump said a few months ago that there was something fishy about Vince Foster's death, the mainstream media's factchecking said that was absurd, that there was nothing fishy about his death.
In fact, there were multiple things fishy about Vince Foster's death including, among other things, evidence indicating: he was not shot in the geographical location he was allegedly shot, was not shot in the part of his head where he was allegedly shot, was not shot with the gun he was allegedly shot, that several Clinton supporters, including a former Governor, claimed to have been informed of his death an hour before is body was supposedly first found, and that two of the world's leading handwriting experts have said his alleged suicide note was a definite forgery.
So much for blindly trusting mainstream media factchecking.
And the mainstream media, although more reputable than many sources on the extreme right and left, has stated as truth things that are false on multiple occasions. For example when Trump said a few months ago that there was something fishy about Vince Foster's death, the mainstream media's factchecking said that was absurd, that there was nothing fishy about his death.
In fact, there were multiple things fishy about Vince Foster's death including, among other things, evidence indicating: he was not shot in the geographical location he was allegedly shot, was not shot in the part of his head where he was allegedly shot, was not shot with the gun he was allegedly shot, that several Clinton supporters, including a former Governor, claimed to have been informed of his death an hour before is body was supposedly first found, and that two of the world's leading handwriting experts have said his alleged suicide note was a definite forgery.
So much for blindly trusting mainstream media factchecking.
The author completely misunderstands how this "truth serum technology" would would work.
Facebook could use classical NLP algorithms in a "supervised context" (show these algorithms stories taken to be true, and those demonstrated to be false, and teach it to recognize them) to predict "truth values."
Whenever they're "sufficiently" confident, we rely on them. Otherwise, we use the algorithms as a sorting mechanism to hand to another process to do the final classification. This process could involve real people or another algorithm that scours the internet for other articles speaking to the truth value of the article in question.
There are plenty of reasonable solutions here that do not rely on Facebook _at all_ to determine whether something is true. They merely look to the content generating machine upon which they _already rely_ to characterize that from which they profit.
If anything, any defense of Facebook in this regard seems disingenuous.
Facebook could use classical NLP algorithms in a "supervised context" (show these algorithms stories taken to be true, and those demonstrated to be false, and teach it to recognize them) to predict "truth values."
Whenever they're "sufficiently" confident, we rely on them. Otherwise, we use the algorithms as a sorting mechanism to hand to another process to do the final classification. This process could involve real people or another algorithm that scours the internet for other articles speaking to the truth value of the article in question.
There are plenty of reasonable solutions here that do not rely on Facebook _at all_ to determine whether something is true. They merely look to the content generating machine upon which they _already rely_ to characterize that from which they profit.
If anything, any defense of Facebook in this regard seems disingenuous.
2
SOMEBODY better start the fact checking, and soon.
How else can the lies, 72% of the time by the president elect, a rvery reliable souce polled, be taken out of any conversation needed by a democracy?
Who thinks America can survive this? Both our enemies and our rfiends
agree. We are in deep trouble and not getting better.
How else can the lies, 72% of the time by the president elect, a rvery reliable souce polled, be taken out of any conversation needed by a democracy?
Who thinks America can survive this? Both our enemies and our rfiends
agree. We are in deep trouble and not getting better.
3
"Jessica Lessin is the founder and chief executive of The Information." True enough. It should also be mentioned that Jessica is married to Sam Lessin, former Facebook executive, and close friend of Mark Zuckerberg. This article may very well represent Facebook's "real opinion," not just Jessica's, and it is interesting that the gist is "Facebook should do nothing."
6
It is more responsible to fact check than not at all. It is too easy to create fake news, so a large publicly traded organization like Facebook should fact check otherwise they take too much heat for letting garbage through. Just like any individual organization.... you have to make sure you call out power is being abused, so if they are in the future, call it out... just like a regular news org. If people want to get news straight from a source, let them go there.
If a fake news agency says that they found evidence that Ted Cruz's father was involved with Lee Harvey, without showing what that evidence is... they shouldn't be able to have a wide audience
If a fake news agency says that they found evidence that Ted Cruz's father was involved with Lee Harvey, without showing what that evidence is... they shouldn't be able to have a wide audience
1
I do not have a facebook account, so the only exposure I have to it is to view businesses that use it to advertise their services. So reading the other comments was helpful to learn about it (thank you). And I'm gathering that the author is wrong in her opinion, and that facebook was indeed complicit in spreading lies and propaganda. Ms. Lessin's libertarian ideas are irresponsible and selfish. Libel and slander are only protected by the 1st amendment if they pass the test of truthfulness, and fact checking is the 1st step in that test. If you don't know the facts, you don't know anything.
1
Whether it is the government or Facebook, censorship is unAmerican. If people are stupid enough to accept everything that is spread on social media, no amount of censorship will cure them of their stupidity.
Despite it's potential problems, 3rd-party fact checking is a sound solution to a very serious problem. The problem with simply resorting to Facebook users "flagging" articles is that many users tend to live in their own bubble on the social network, according to their own ideology. How many progressive-thinkers or non-partisans have loads of friends with extreme-right views who will share these posts with them? How many will spend hours searching out posts on white nationalist or pro-Trump pages?
We have a serious problem in that fake news articles can be now be shared with the click of a button once it aligns with someone's "gut feeling" on an issue, instead of taking 30 seconds to fact check the claim. There are millions of FB participants who don't know how to distinguish between an article posted by a legitimate news organization, that employs seasoned reporters, editors, and fact checkers with decades of experience...and some 22-year old blogging in his mom's basement, spreading hatred for profit or just for the sake of division. If Zuckerberg doesn't take some kind of action, it may wind up affecting FB's bottom line far more than if he does nothing.
We have a serious problem in that fake news articles can be now be shared with the click of a button once it aligns with someone's "gut feeling" on an issue, instead of taking 30 seconds to fact check the claim. There are millions of FB participants who don't know how to distinguish between an article posted by a legitimate news organization, that employs seasoned reporters, editors, and fact checkers with decades of experience...and some 22-year old blogging in his mom's basement, spreading hatred for profit or just for the sake of division. If Zuckerberg doesn't take some kind of action, it may wind up affecting FB's bottom line far more than if he does nothing.
1
Best quote from this Article. "I simply don’t trust Facebook, or any one company, with the responsibility for determining what is true." That's why you should always do your own research if you truly want to be informed of the world around you.
1
I agree that Facebook shouldn't fact check, but news organizations shouldn't re-tweet from Twitter or re-post anything from Facebook until actual journalism has happened covering the story. The NY Times, WSJ, Washington Post, CNN, Fox News, ABC, NBC, CBS, etc. should have no business running with any Twitter or Facebook post until they are able to do any fact based reported, rather than, for example, publishing that some guy in Austin who saw buses who he thinks may have something to do with protestors as though that were a real story.
Here we see one of the astonishingly bad outcomes of creative destruction. At some point journalism may have to be treated more like a public utility, something that serves a public need but has limits to its profit-making capabilities. At least then journalists may be able to stop chasing clicks and begin focusing again on news.
Here we see one of the astonishingly bad outcomes of creative destruction. At some point journalism may have to be treated more like a public utility, something that serves a public need but has limits to its profit-making capabilities. At least then journalists may be able to stop chasing clicks and begin focusing again on news.
1
'Fact-checking' is just a new way of attacking your political enemies. A non-progressive will say that the fake news is in the New York Times and the Washington Post. Progressives will say the National Review and the American Spectator are full of falsehoods. It's a fight no one could win, and you'd be much better off avoiding it and just debating the actual issues.
"Progressives will say the National Review and the American Spectator are full of falsehoods."
No, they won't, because progressives are progressive enough to know that the National Review and the American Spectator are journals of opinion and not newsmagazines.
No, they won't, because progressives are progressive enough to know that the National Review and the American Spectator are journals of opinion and not newsmagazines.
1
We prosecute fraudulent telemarketers that scam people of their money, so why not prosecute fraudulent news posters that scam people out of their integrity? Both are caes of free speech, and we accept there are limits.
Fraud is fraud.
Fraud is fraud.
2
Whose taxes will fund those prosecutions, Bob? And who is going to pay whom to check out which "news" posted to Facebook is fraudulent and which news posted to Facebook is fact? Who is going to set the norms that will be used to decide how close to factual a post has to be in order to be deemed, in fact, news?
That's only three of the questions that need to be answered, before it will be possible to begiin punishing people for Facebook fraud.
That's only three of the questions that need to be answered, before it will be possible to begiin punishing people for Facebook fraud.
Let's hope that Lessin is a better editor than she is an opinion columnist. Her column makes little sense.
This is a different era of "media" which embraces a lot that we previously might not have considered part of that world. Facebook very much is media - and Big, Big Media. Lessin creates a ridiculous straw man to knock down. The call for closer scrutiny to flag fake news is not an invitation for Facebook to sway opinion. It's a call to do a better job scrubbing the site of phony articles that purport to present the news - news that indeed can sway millions of people.
This is a different era of "media" which embraces a lot that we previously might not have considered part of that world. Facebook very much is media - and Big, Big Media. Lessin creates a ridiculous straw man to knock down. The call for closer scrutiny to flag fake news is not an invitation for Facebook to sway opinion. It's a call to do a better job scrubbing the site of phony articles that purport to present the news - news that indeed can sway millions of people.
1
"It's a call to do a better job scrubbing the site of phony articles that purport to present the news"
"Do a better job" than what, Sparky? Whom do you trust to decide for you and for Facebook which "articles" are the "phony" ones "that purport to present the news," were such a "job" done at all? What should the hiring standards be? Who should pay these censors?
"Do a better job" than what, Sparky? Whom do you trust to decide for you and for Facebook which "articles" are the "phony" ones "that purport to present the news," were such a "job" done at all? What should the hiring standards be? Who should pay these censors?
A video was circulated by friends of mine on Facebook about a fake post that managed to make its way around the world - it was about how Sweden is banning Christmas lights to not offend Muslims. Apparently many people believed this fake story which only fermented anti-Islamic sentiments. And of course the story was shared and shared again until it was seen by the whole wide world. The video did a great job of explaining how fake news spreads like a virus and how we should all take a moment to stop, think, and fact check before posting and reposting "news".
1
It may be a bad idea to overtly quash stories that fail some veracity test, but there should be some mechanism to put the brakes on overt fiction that is spread in malicious glee. For example, un-vetted stories could be displayed under a lower contrast image, or with a disclaimer reading "Interesting if it were proven".
1
How is expecting Facebook assume editorial control over its news content different than expecting traditional media do them same? Facebook is hardly unique in having financial incentives to favor advertisers or, one presumes, political leanings. Traditional media also faces the challenge of separating news, opinion and marketing departments and decisions, without always doing so well. Facebook is de facto a news organization. It should be expected to behave responsibly as one and criticized by other news organizations when it falls short or shows obvious bias.
The larger question is whether social media in general should be exempt from the civic, Fourth Estate expectations placed on traditional media, which these days is also online media. Facebook's preeminence as a near-monopoly "gatekeeper" will not last forever. What we are adjusting to is the role and power of social media beyond any one company that functions as a news organization. The starry-eyed techie anarchist dream of complete laissez-faire in the digital marketplace of ideas is about as bankrupt a notion as possible, missing the assumed responsibility and mechanisms of public accountability that make Free Speech something other than Free Disinformation.
The larger question is whether social media in general should be exempt from the civic, Fourth Estate expectations placed on traditional media, which these days is also online media. Facebook's preeminence as a near-monopoly "gatekeeper" will not last forever. What we are adjusting to is the role and power of social media beyond any one company that functions as a news organization. The starry-eyed techie anarchist dream of complete laissez-faire in the digital marketplace of ideas is about as bankrupt a notion as possible, missing the assumed responsibility and mechanisms of public accountability that make Free Speech something other than Free Disinformation.
3
And yet Facebook's business will ultimately depend on whether users lose trust in its news links. If it becomes Fakebook and its content is untrustworthy (if it hasn't already), users will move on. Why do you think Facebook insists that people publicly identify themselves truthfully, as opposed to platforms like Twitter? Some level of editorial oversight is essential if it is to continue in any recognizable form.
13
@Bruce
This is exactly the same point I made in an earlier post -- Aside from the fact that a recent PBS News report stated that 67% of Americans get their news solely from Facebook and other social media platforms, lies the fact that too much false and faulty information is being passed around as truth.
Some sort of oversight (and responsibility!) is sorely needed.
This is exactly the same point I made in an earlier post -- Aside from the fact that a recent PBS News report stated that 67% of Americans get their news solely from Facebook and other social media platforms, lies the fact that too much false and faulty information is being passed around as truth.
Some sort of oversight (and responsibility!) is sorely needed.
2
Begging to differ, Facebook's success is not based on its news acumen but on its ability to deliver targeted advertising to an audience that loves to talk about itself. It is my belief that the only reason Facebook insists on identification is to indemnify itself against law suits. Other than that they are as unconscionable as any other large corporation.
@Frauenglass
It's not a matter of whether or not, "Facebook's success is not based on its news acumen" -- The point is that it's often being used as a sole news source by many, who for whatever reason, don't go beyond it as a critical source for information.
It's not a matter of whether or not, "Facebook's success is not based on its news acumen" -- The point is that it's often being used as a sole news source by many, who for whatever reason, don't go beyond it as a critical source for information.
People want to believe ... it's the basis of all cons. The "balanced" approach to journalism has been broken so this lament is too little too late. I recently heard an interview on PBS where the interviewer had two individuals and treated them equally as if each was telling the truth, but it was pretty obvious to me that one was lying outrageously for effect, but the interviewer didn't even question what was being said as if everyone tells the truth all the time instead of lying. But the new normal for for Trump and his supporters is to always always remember they mainly lie first. This is a very different terrain and will be difficult to navigate and that's the point (see the post about propaganda mainly useful to confuse). We don't even understand what propaganda is and how it's used in this country and it appears that few to none of our news outlets - including the NYT knows either. The coverage of Trump's twitter feed is ridiculous - reporting it as if it's news when it's a straight propaganda feed to his base. It's sad to have to realize we're about to have POTUS who's main MO is to lie lie lie and has no shame about it whatsoever. When will we tally up the damage of this? Facebook should intervene with the con industry and so should we. It' going to be difficult, but it's important to democracy that we stop the slide into propaganda domination that FOX news and Twitter and yes Facebook is profiting from.
1
People in your circle of "friends" who pass these on should be shamed. Most people don't want to pass on false information, and perhaps if they're called to task for passing something questionable along, they will do the minimal work it takes to at least "consider the source".
1
I find this op-ed, and many of these responses, bizarre. Why not let Facebook fact-check? This isn't a "big brother" moment, facts are facts. Why place the burden on users to have to wade through media and primary sources trying to determine FBI crime statistics, or whether a politician has been documented as saying X, if Facebook has that information and can easily disseminate it? Why not take advantage of this economy of scale? The idea that Facebook can't monitor all information, and so shouldn't monitor any, is such a baby-with-the-bath water response. The perfect shouldn't be the enemy of the good; if Facebook can stanch the flow of bad information, even modestly, of course it should. Am I supposed to learn meteorology and keep a barometer on hand because my local weatherperson can't monitor everything?
Our society has fundamentally changed. We have limited time, and too much information to research for every choice we could personalize. We have to stop romanticizing the idea that "good citizens" have researched every ballot issue, grow their own organic vegetables, and will doubtlessly welcome the idea of researching the many charter school and health plan choices that Republicans are offering. We are interdependent, which requires a certain amount of curation and trust. We need to focus more on trustworthy processes rather than just dumping choices on people and saying "figure it out."
Our society has fundamentally changed. We have limited time, and too much information to research for every choice we could personalize. We have to stop romanticizing the idea that "good citizens" have researched every ballot issue, grow their own organic vegetables, and will doubtlessly welcome the idea of researching the many charter school and health plan choices that Republicans are offering. We are interdependent, which requires a certain amount of curation and trust. We need to focus more on trustworthy processes rather than just dumping choices on people and saying "figure it out."
7
Somebody should fact check. People need a method of telling what is true or not, and not everyone should have to figure it out for themselves for everything they read.
I'm half tempted to visit some alt-right websites, just to confuse Facebook's sorting algorithms.
Meanwhile, they're still trying to sell me an inflatable kayak after I already bought one. The chances that I'll by another are close to 0.
I'm half tempted to visit some alt-right websites, just to confuse Facebook's sorting algorithms.
Meanwhile, they're still trying to sell me an inflatable kayak after I already bought one. The chances that I'll by another are close to 0.
2
What should we worry about more-Facebook "determining what is true" or the president-elect "determining what is true?"
1
Fearful of what FB will do to journalism? Too late, it's already affected journalism. Consider today's importance of graphics (often interactive, such as in today's piece on illegal immigrants). They convey a lot of info quickly and are perfect nuggets for FB consumption visually. But don't we all kinda assume the graphics and data are presented with statistical accuracy and integrity? I believe the mention of sources and candid explanation of methodology are essential and even worth highlighing to readers of the media age.
2
Fact checking is different from censorship. Calling a source unverified is different from excluding it from your feed. This is basic quality control.
If they are profiting from providing "news", they have a responsibility to the consumer to provide a quality product.
It is not much different from a chef tasting his dishes before he plates it, or a fruit farm having workers sift out the rotting produce.
If they are profiting from providing "news", they have a responsibility to the consumer to provide a quality product.
It is not much different from a chef tasting his dishes before he plates it, or a fruit farm having workers sift out the rotting produce.
3
facebook has become a rancid swamp of wacko political ingrates on both sides, layered over with ludicrous depictions of peoples supposed perfect lives and families
2
In order to avoid taking on the responsibility for fact-checking,
FB could list addresses of 2-3 reliable fact-checking sites at the end of articles.
FB could list addresses of 2-3 reliable fact-checking sites at the end of articles.
3
"Fake news " was an essential feature of this election,with the result we now have.
Something should be done when people are paid to sow confusion,propaganda and lies.
Facebook should be held responsible .It's not at all trustworthy and has been downright dangerous in some cases.
Something should be done when people are paid to sow confusion,propaganda and lies.
Facebook should be held responsible .It's not at all trustworthy and has been downright dangerous in some cases.
3
Dear Ms. Lessin,
When Fox and its affiliated news delivery machines make a concerted effort to report and not distort, reassure people rather then incite them and discourage foul language and anti American rhetoric that clearly goes against our Constitution - THEN and ONLY THEN can you have the right to speak out against what FB has been asked to do - and that is take responsibility for what they enabled - and to ensure their platform is not manipulated by unscrupulous media like the Fox channels and their radio show hosts and hateful right wing bloggers.
The Right and alt Right media supporters know that the Left and Democrats are too decent and will always hold back on the foul and untrue reporting.
FB and Zuckerberg know they contributed significantly to Hillary's loss due to fake blogging sites and Zuckerberg finally feels guilty that his company allowed a candidate who WAS most qualified and will have gotten 2.5 million more voters to be vilified as she was.
As a woman I have been insulted throughout Mr. Trumps candidacy by every step he has taken to denigrate our country and its citizens, and now to hear you act as though you care for honesty and decency to acknowledge FB did wrong by Hillary is nauseating.
At the end of the day I am proud of Hillary and of all women and men who stood for and by her and feel sorry for what this country has lost and could have become.
So please don't give us a lecture on the importance of taking responsibility.
When Fox and its affiliated news delivery machines make a concerted effort to report and not distort, reassure people rather then incite them and discourage foul language and anti American rhetoric that clearly goes against our Constitution - THEN and ONLY THEN can you have the right to speak out against what FB has been asked to do - and that is take responsibility for what they enabled - and to ensure their platform is not manipulated by unscrupulous media like the Fox channels and their radio show hosts and hateful right wing bloggers.
The Right and alt Right media supporters know that the Left and Democrats are too decent and will always hold back on the foul and untrue reporting.
FB and Zuckerberg know they contributed significantly to Hillary's loss due to fake blogging sites and Zuckerberg finally feels guilty that his company allowed a candidate who WAS most qualified and will have gotten 2.5 million more voters to be vilified as she was.
As a woman I have been insulted throughout Mr. Trumps candidacy by every step he has taken to denigrate our country and its citizens, and now to hear you act as though you care for honesty and decency to acknowledge FB did wrong by Hillary is nauseating.
At the end of the day I am proud of Hillary and of all women and men who stood for and by her and feel sorry for what this country has lost and could have become.
So please don't give us a lecture on the importance of taking responsibility.
2
The only reason why facebook, twitter & c.s. exist is to make money; they are the plunderknights of this era.
4
Should Facebook review string theory articles, to separate unfounded speculations from already known to be true facts? I don't think so.
Same thing for any other topic.
Same thing for any other topic.
2
Facebook should get out of the news business. There is no evidence whatsoever that people respond positively to "real news" or "fact checking." In fact, it's quite the opposite - when presented with evidence that goes against their beliefs, they dig in. This is human nature. Fact is, people believe what they want to believe, and they will post on Facebook what they want to post.
Thanks to the internet, people can get any sort of facts they wish, and they do. This is true of both conservatives and liberals. Politifact isn't going to change that, and neither is a bunch of Facebook curators. In fact, if I recall, Facebook got rid of its curation team when they were accused of a left-wing bias.
Thanks to the internet, people can get any sort of facts they wish, and they do. This is true of both conservatives and liberals. Politifact isn't going to change that, and neither is a bunch of Facebook curators. In fact, if I recall, Facebook got rid of its curation team when they were accused of a left-wing bias.
3
Time to boycott Facebook. Too powerful, too sloppy, too slow to address threat speech. I've deleted my account and I encourage everyone to.
8
I can't believe ANYONE uses Facebook or other social media as a primary source of news. Ridiculous. And yet.........
3
Basically, Ms. Lessin is telling us that Facebook is a fundamental part of the problem with the deterioration of so-called news and "truthiness" today, but bears no interest or responsibility for its role. Just one more reason why I will never participate in this irresponsible for-profit marketing scheme.
2
If we go into the whole Pope/Trump rabbit hole, what about the previous interview, which made rounds in mainstream media with headlines like "Pope Francis Suggests Donald Trump Is ‘Not Christian’" (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/19/world/americas/pope-francis-donald-tru..., only to be played down by pretty liberal mainstream Web sites shortly thereafter (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/20/what-pope-francis-reall... , http://www.vox.com/2016/2/19/11073026/donald-trump-pope-francis)
Do we censor initial NYTimes reports? In fact, do we declare any early news that are later confirmed to be inaccurate to be deserving of censorship? Even more importantly, do we ban NYTimes from Facebook over several instances of such "fake" news - as the proposed algorithm would do?
Do we censor initial NYTimes reports? In fact, do we declare any early news that are later confirmed to be inaccurate to be deserving of censorship? Even more importantly, do we ban NYTimes from Facebook over several instances of such "fake" news - as the proposed algorithm would do?
1
You can't fix stupid. We are the stupid country. We are the self absorbed country. We are the fearful country. We are trend setters so we are on our way to a stupid/self absorbed, fearful world. FB is merely a tool we used to beat out whatever brains we had left FB. FB couldn't monitor a playground.
1
I'm sorry, but Facebook is profiting off of lies being peddled on its site. It is contributing to the erosion of journalism, and making money off this. For something like the election it is debatable how much harm this has caused but unchecked lies can do more and more damage over time. Facebook doesn't just allow lies to be circulated as articles, it actually perpetuates them by send them as curated links to people's feeds based on that persons reading preferences creating an endless echo chamber of lies. It's not that FB can't do some basic fact checking, it's that it doesn't want to. But this approach is not better than the "I'll wait and see attitude" of the German people after Hitler came into power. Either fix the problem now or share the blame when real damage ensues.
5
I agree with the author, although I'd like to see her present a better solution to a problem that threatens democracy and human civilization as we know it. The sentence "...editorial power in Facebook's hands would be unprecedented and dangerous" overlooks the fact that the power Facebook wields is ALREADY unprecedented. No other medium has ever commanded the attention of so many eyes and brains. Without question, Zuckerberg et al. need to do something big and bold.
What did major radio and, later, television companies do with their (at the time) unprecedented power? They created news divisions, dedicated to producing high-quality journalism. Analogously, rather than trying to police the "news" posted by users, Facebook (and perhaps Google, Twitter, and others) could create their own news teams, built of superb journalists from declining newspapers around the world, and hold them to the highest possible journalistic standards. Facebook News, for example, could be inserted regularly into everyone's feeds, just as ABC news plays regularly on the radio or TV. Users would be free to decide which stories to trust...but eventually Facebook News would be seen as a trustworthy brand. Their efforts would be performed as a public service; as fulfillment of a moral obligation when commanding so much of humanity's attention.
What did major radio and, later, television companies do with their (at the time) unprecedented power? They created news divisions, dedicated to producing high-quality journalism. Analogously, rather than trying to police the "news" posted by users, Facebook (and perhaps Google, Twitter, and others) could create their own news teams, built of superb journalists from declining newspapers around the world, and hold them to the highest possible journalistic standards. Facebook News, for example, could be inserted regularly into everyone's feeds, just as ABC news plays regularly on the radio or TV. Users would be free to decide which stories to trust...but eventually Facebook News would be seen as a trustworthy brand. Their efforts would be performed as a public service; as fulfillment of a moral obligation when commanding so much of humanity's attention.
2
With the "democratization" of media, fact checking or fact validation is more important than ever. It's similar to FDA labeling, we still have the freedom to eat junk, we should just be aware of what we're consuming.
My problem with this Post-Truth world is that it has infected our education system, in particular how the Texas school board (the most influential in the country) as been found to allow dubious facts and outright revisionist information to leak into school books.
The old adage of if you repeat it often enough it becomes truth is even more true and spreads quicker in the Post-Truth social media age. I don't think Facebook, Twitter or any other media platform should handle fact checking, instead an independent source should provide the service.
Legitimate journalists should never fear 3rd party fact checking, in fact they should relish the validation.
My problem with this Post-Truth world is that it has infected our education system, in particular how the Texas school board (the most influential in the country) as been found to allow dubious facts and outright revisionist information to leak into school books.
The old adage of if you repeat it often enough it becomes truth is even more true and spreads quicker in the Post-Truth social media age. I don't think Facebook, Twitter or any other media platform should handle fact checking, instead an independent source should provide the service.
Legitimate journalists should never fear 3rd party fact checking, in fact they should relish the validation.
5
Welcome to the Trumpocracy. This Orwellian pied piper of Populist anger. The billionaire narcissist puppet master of the poor deceived Facebook dreck. It boggles the imagination that an entity like Facebook could have more influence that Vladimir Putin on the 2016 election.
2
The author misses the point. FB is not planning to verify the level of "truth" but rather to reduce the posting of the clearly false. Two different operations and algorithms entirely. Further, FB is not journalism and will not have an effect on real journalism. The fact that it did effect journalism (like the author) merely highlights that the journalists did not do their job of verifying the data on FB in the first place. Sorry, I simply don't trust the author of this article because of the apparent failure to be a true journalist.
4
Every time someone opens Facebook and reads an article, a disclaimer from Facebook should appear:
Facebook does not endorse the truthfulness of content of the articles. Articles may contain factual errors, significant omissions, intentionally misleading statements, and rely on unproven assumptions or on assumptions based on erroneous facts. These articles are for entertainment purposes only and to get your advertising dollar. Read at your own risk. And don't believe everything you read. If you rely only on what you see here, you will be ill-informed.
Facebook does not endorse the truthfulness of content of the articles. Articles may contain factual errors, significant omissions, intentionally misleading statements, and rely on unproven assumptions or on assumptions based on erroneous facts. These articles are for entertainment purposes only and to get your advertising dollar. Read at your own risk. And don't believe everything you read. If you rely only on what you see here, you will be ill-informed.
2
Anyone who believes that Facebook posters are posting real news is not going to be educated by a disclaimer. The Romans said it centuries ago. "Buyer beware!"
1
I'd rather they'd use the Huff Post disclaimer:
"Editor’s note: Donald Trump regularly incites political violence and is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist and birther who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims — 1.6 billion members of an entire religion — from entering the U.S."
Trump and Sanders benefitted from fake news 50-1 more than Hillary. Now let's make up for it for another 12 months.
"Editor’s note: Donald Trump regularly incites political violence and is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist and birther who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims — 1.6 billion members of an entire religion — from entering the U.S."
Trump and Sanders benefitted from fake news 50-1 more than Hillary. Now let's make up for it for another 12 months.
2
The real reason lies spread so easily on Facebook has little to do with Facebook and a lot to do with its user base.
As in, it's not hard to find friends who are happily posting and re-sharing verifiably false information. For example, there was a photo purporting to be of the NoDAPL protest that was in fact a shot of the original Woodstock. A lot of times, there was substantial evidence that the user in question didn't read past the headline.
We should always be fact-checking ourselves. And yes, that includes more official sources like the New York Times.
As in, it's not hard to find friends who are happily posting and re-sharing verifiably false information. For example, there was a photo purporting to be of the NoDAPL protest that was in fact a shot of the original Woodstock. A lot of times, there was substantial evidence that the user in question didn't read past the headline.
We should always be fact-checking ourselves. And yes, that includes more official sources like the New York Times.
4
I agree - if people are stupid enough to believe that FB is a source of real news, then there is not much to be done about it. It is the same with Fox News - if you take Bill O'reilly or that idiot Sean Hannity as a news source, I just don't see how these people can be convinced otherwise.
That said, if the democrats could message consistently and accurately, maybe we would be having a more enlightened conversation.
That said, if the democrats could message consistently and accurately, maybe we would be having a more enlightened conversation.
2
Very important issue.
As long as Facebook wants to be a source of what's happening with cousin Eddie, as one commenter said, than they don't have to fact check anything. If they want to be a reputable purveyor of news in any form than they should have a responsibility to differentiate between news and opinion/propaganda. It should be that simple Mr Zuckerberg.
9
Facebook has certainly put in place the echo chamber through preferential filters. It is already tweaking what pops up in our news feed. When a friend posted a Breitbart article as example of the rabid resentment of women in tech, I clicked on it to see the slant. After that, six more articles from Breitbart on women in tech came up. Obviously people liking or reading one were correlated with liking the others, so that I could very quickly descend into the deeply satisfying male fantasy land of how women were never going to be successful in tech. But couldn't fb have easily provided more balance and breadth in its selection, so that people might get a sense of diversity in opinion or "fact base"?
5
The damage that social media are doing to our society cannot be over emphasized. Not only do people continuously bombard me (and you too) with erroneous "information" but the easy access to unsubstantiated rumors treated as facts has stopped people from learning to reason. That's precisely how Trump got elected. Of course, the Democrats tried to counter with their own set of erroneous facts. Until we stop allowing Facebook and others to flood the internet with garbage, the ability of our society to reason will continue to be eroded. Why are you people keeping you Facebook accounts? I got rid of mine and I don't miss it one iota.
7
I look at animal videos and pictures from people I know. It's still good for that. Maybe they'll start trying to sell me pet food.
Facebook is no different from Fixed Noise propaganda coolaid. Look how Zuckerburg votes and his unAmerican unpatriotic fascist views. His philanthropy only makes him feel better. Facebook only changes their policies when caught. As an example, they give away or sell your private information on the site without telling you and have only let you know later. Very unAmerican unpatriotic for fascist Zuckerburg! Notice also how they have billions hidden overseas. No different from the Mafia! Facebook is just another fascist machine to lull us into a false sense of security. There are plenty of "people" in this country that believe everything they see and hear as truth whether it be from the media or word of mouth such as so called "friends" or passers by, then how stupid deplorable gullible Americans, do you explain Bugs Bunny or Trumpet?! Most of these gullibles are religious. We, as a nation and earth, are in deep doggie do-do because of your voting, arrogance, ignorance, bigotry, racism and you don't even realize it. By the way, fascist Trumpet and the unAmerican unpatriotic masochistic sadistic myopic tyrannical Republican'ts aren't even in office yet and are already plotting our destruction. Good person President Obama and good person President Hillary Clinton and the Dems would have saved your sorry little existence but you deplorable stupid Americans chose to believe liars and thieves instead. Next time you gullible deplorables want to ruin your lives, stay home!
1
Facebook itself is the problem.
It's too easy to use, and too easily used to manipulate the continued narcissism it promotes.
It's all about showing "friends" what world you'd like them to see.
How often do we see a happy facebook family turn out to be abusive? Kid kills themself but hey, at least their facebook profile looked good!
Facebook allows all too many people to spin lies around what they want people to see them as, rather than the natural order of the world seeing who we are based on... WHO WE ARE!
Social media gives us this false sense of popularity, a sense that because we got "likes" people really "like" us. No, they just "like" whatever BS we put out there, which isn't really us, just the image we prop up for the world to see...
It's too easy to use, and too easily used to manipulate the continued narcissism it promotes.
It's all about showing "friends" what world you'd like them to see.
How often do we see a happy facebook family turn out to be abusive? Kid kills themself but hey, at least their facebook profile looked good!
Facebook allows all too many people to spin lies around what they want people to see them as, rather than the natural order of the world seeing who we are based on... WHO WE ARE!
Social media gives us this false sense of popularity, a sense that because we got "likes" people really "like" us. No, they just "like" whatever BS we put out there, which isn't really us, just the image we prop up for the world to see...
5
Why shouldn't Facebook be held accountable to ordinary media standards and responsibilities?
Facebook is a content creator and an editorial organization, not a blind or impartial internet corkboard. "Social media?" Maybe that's what it was a decade ago, but unpaid "organic" content creation and sharing has been in decline for some time. Today Facebook is a web & app news vertical stocked with professionally-created content / editorial, financed by surveillance advertising.
Let's be clear: Facebook contracts and pays professionals and professional organizations (the New York Times, among them) to supply content for Facebook members' consumption.
And they use algorithms (and, in the recent past, a basement pool of harried human editors) to make editorial decisions about how this content should be headlined and presented to members.
If you pay for professionally-created content and you edit how that content gets presented, you are a media company and you are responsible for the consequences what you publish.
Unless they want to be branded as liars and cheats, publishers need to fact-check their news.
Facebook is a content creator and an editorial organization, not a blind or impartial internet corkboard. "Social media?" Maybe that's what it was a decade ago, but unpaid "organic" content creation and sharing has been in decline for some time. Today Facebook is a web & app news vertical stocked with professionally-created content / editorial, financed by surveillance advertising.
Let's be clear: Facebook contracts and pays professionals and professional organizations (the New York Times, among them) to supply content for Facebook members' consumption.
And they use algorithms (and, in the recent past, a basement pool of harried human editors) to make editorial decisions about how this content should be headlined and presented to members.
If you pay for professionally-created content and you edit how that content gets presented, you are a media company and you are responsible for the consequences what you publish.
Unless they want to be branded as liars and cheats, publishers need to fact-check their news.
6
We decide our fates by deciding what to reveal and what to keep quiet about. Now we have to fact check articles we share, so objective truth still exists, and community members with malice aforethought don't take over our minds. I don't think this is Facebook's problem. A social network cannot babysit a billion people. We have to grow up.
3
There is a difference between fact checking and credibility checking. Facebook should not be in the habit of propagating fake news from websites with zero credibility. It's that simple. They don't need to read the article and check whether it is accurate or not -- they just need to know the source and whether it is credible or not. This would not be an elitist policy -- anyone can create a credible site just like anyone can create a fake news site.
2
In this discourse about the changing media landscape, why isn't greater vigilance on the part of the reader being encouraged? At least some of the responsibility to consume news responsibly should fall on the consumer. As users of information, we, the users, don't need to rely on any one news source -- or social media site -- to learn what is going on.
1
The people who should be responsible for fact checking is Us. If I read an article that says that Hilary Clinton is an alien and is trying to get into the White House to further her interplanetary agenda...and I believe it...that's my fault, not Facebook's for printing it.
Teaching critical thinking is the answer. Of course I have a world view I wish was true, but just wishing it isn't going to make it true, regardless of who is printing the 'news'.
Teaching critical thinking is the answer. Of course I have a world view I wish was true, but just wishing it isn't going to make it true, regardless of who is printing the 'news'.
1
Until the rise of social media, every media outlet "policed the truth." Lies were weeded out from truths, and yes, fallible people did this. They did not always print the truth, but they tried. And because fallible people trusted what they read in these outlets, the task was vital. Perhaps Facebook should not "police the truth." Zuckerberg is in deep denial if he thinks Facebook's fake news had no impact on the election. If he refuses to take responsibility, the obvious response will be to never trust Facebook again. Unfortunately, the gulled and the gullible can swing an election.
3
What's wrong with fact checking? Why not publish anything then, including stories about the invasion of the three-headed Martian? That anyone would question fact checking and making sure stories are real is hard to believe and needs to be fact checked.
3
Rather than fact-checking or banning web pages, which are both controversial, I think Facebook could look to recommend news stories from reputable sites (i.e. news papers and vetted news organizations) that provide an alternate take on things relative to the story in question, or any story for that matter. This allows Facebook to continue being a platform rather than a media outlet, and would also help folks break out of their red or blue bubbles.
2
How is fact checking controversial? John Adams said facts can be inconvenient, but how on earth can investigating the validity of a news report be controversial?
1
I respectfully disagree.
I would first argue that facebook is a face-newspaper (joke: is could also be called a fake-newspaper): With the incredible 201 million users in USA is it now clearly the largest news source (some 40% treat FB as their primary news source).
Lets consider the final result : As a user of facebook I see a face-newspaper with articles that facebook algorithms (in other words facebook) selects. This selection process did not consider veracity only some complex calculation of the social media response. The result is media content with extreme viewpoints that if they were actually published as a real news paper would be ridiculed as extremist and wacky.
More on the authors: What I find more frightening is that fake articles can be written by anybody, from a kid in Macedonia to a propaganda unit in a foreign country and they are treated equally by the Facebook algorithm. Furthermore fake articles are oftentimes designed to be hard to spot and trick the user into believing them.
To summarize: Facebook have opened the door to the largest media channel on the planet. This channel is clearly being misused by bad actors for personal benefit and it also seems for actual propaganda.
I would first argue that facebook is a face-newspaper (joke: is could also be called a fake-newspaper): With the incredible 201 million users in USA is it now clearly the largest news source (some 40% treat FB as their primary news source).
Lets consider the final result : As a user of facebook I see a face-newspaper with articles that facebook algorithms (in other words facebook) selects. This selection process did not consider veracity only some complex calculation of the social media response. The result is media content with extreme viewpoints that if they were actually published as a real news paper would be ridiculed as extremist and wacky.
More on the authors: What I find more frightening is that fake articles can be written by anybody, from a kid in Macedonia to a propaganda unit in a foreign country and they are treated equally by the Facebook algorithm. Furthermore fake articles are oftentimes designed to be hard to spot and trick the user into believing them.
To summarize: Facebook have opened the door to the largest media channel on the planet. This channel is clearly being misused by bad actors for personal benefit and it also seems for actual propaganda.
4
This from that other unreliable source of information, Wikipedia, which we rely on nonetheless. Lesson's credibility as a journalist is very Trumpian! Not huge in the least bit! Why would she criticize the company that made her very wealthy?
"Lessin's husband Sam is a close friend of Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg... and the fact that her wealth was largely generated by the acquisition of her husband's company by Facebook has been raised as compromising her journalistic independence."
"Lessin's husband Sam is a close friend of Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg... and the fact that her wealth was largely generated by the acquisition of her husband's company by Facebook has been raised as compromising her journalistic independence."
2
Facebook has successfully developed algorithms to provide news feeds in China that meet the Chinese communist Party's stringent standards. Surely it can do the same to filter out blatantly fake news here.
2
But an algorithm choosing the stories you see are okay...
2
No it is not.
1
I know I am not foreseeing all og the issues -but - I agree Facebook isn't responsible for fact checking everything ( Did you really eat that dessert in the picture? IS that selfie doctored.? ..), but I would love to see them forced to defend themselves from allowing blatantly libelous factitious "news" items. Opinions, everyone is entitled to. But presentations of rumors and invented stories as factual is not acceptable. When various sites on the Internet come close to predicting my next click due to collection of tremendous amounts of information -- these sites can also ferret out whether such items have any bass in fact. I don't care if they carry a black box warning or are shuttled to a separate site, but there should be an indication that such stories are not researched or vetted by anyone.
As with most stuff, this will probably end up in court in some way, perhaps not currently predictable. It simply isn't enough to say reader beware.
As with most stuff, this will probably end up in court in some way, perhaps not currently predictable. It simply isn't enough to say reader beware.
1
I agree - FB cannot be responsible for vetting the accuracy of 'news.' While the NYTimes and this author appear to be focused on Trump, there is a great deal of 'fake' news present from the left, the middle, and beyond.
Censorship is never good, and asking FB to censor 'news' that it deems fake, OR for that matter, censor news that is 'flagged' as fake is nonsense. There are many satire sites that some may believe, for example. There are also partial truths in some of the 'fake' news stories. Frankly, I read fake news in the NYTimes as well - I call it fake because it pulls partial statistics and presents them as fact. The truth these days is more complex than any news outlet will admit - right and left.
What is necessary is for FB to respond when someone is attacked on FB. The story about the jewish shop owner in Germany in the NYTimes today is a perfect example. NO ONE should be able to publish a map identifying where people work or live. Before FB, pro-lifers had sites set up identifying abortion doctors, with their home and business addresses. This results in violence against an individual and is NOT acceptable. It's not acceptable in the print media, it's not acceptable in the Zuckerman world either. This isn't censorship, but a right to privacy. A right to thwart violence. The second amendment does not protect one if they incite violence.
Really tired of Zuckerman, tired of tweets, and tired of the lack of honest, objective journalists in the world
Censorship is never good, and asking FB to censor 'news' that it deems fake, OR for that matter, censor news that is 'flagged' as fake is nonsense. There are many satire sites that some may believe, for example. There are also partial truths in some of the 'fake' news stories. Frankly, I read fake news in the NYTimes as well - I call it fake because it pulls partial statistics and presents them as fact. The truth these days is more complex than any news outlet will admit - right and left.
What is necessary is for FB to respond when someone is attacked on FB. The story about the jewish shop owner in Germany in the NYTimes today is a perfect example. NO ONE should be able to publish a map identifying where people work or live. Before FB, pro-lifers had sites set up identifying abortion doctors, with their home and business addresses. This results in violence against an individual and is NOT acceptable. It's not acceptable in the print media, it's not acceptable in the Zuckerman world either. This isn't censorship, but a right to privacy. A right to thwart violence. The second amendment does not protect one if they incite violence.
Really tired of Zuckerman, tired of tweets, and tired of the lack of honest, objective journalists in the world
"Facebook Shouldn’t Fact-Check"
If an account is purely commercial or purely political, yes it should, and these accounts abound on FB. Just got a friend request this AM from a person unknown to me and not friends with anyone I know. Looked at her page to find that she is a conservative Christian and that she uses her FB page primarily to hawk stuff.
If an account is purely commercial or purely political, yes it should, and these accounts abound on FB. Just got a friend request this AM from a person unknown to me and not friends with anyone I know. Looked at her page to find that she is a conservative Christian and that she uses her FB page primarily to hawk stuff.
1
Who is the arbiter of real news in your imaginary world? Should it be Big Brother? How will you all monitor social intercourse? Will there be someone to guide us with proper thoughts and words? 1984 has arrived.
Nonsense. We are talking about truth vs lies. Easy to do. Comments are always available This is NOT about opinions but rather out and out lies irrespective of which side. Take the lie of "stand down". Never happened. Take the lie Hillary lost/stole 6 billion from State. Never happened. The lie she sold uranium to Russia. Never happened. BUT those, were among dozens if not hundreds of other lies, were spread throughout the internet and taken as gospel by the right.
THOSE should be shut down immediately when the owners and FB is owners find out. WHY should lies be allowed on private sites if they are not wanted?
Tell the truth and no problems.
THOSE should be shut down immediately when the owners and FB is owners find out. WHY should lies be allowed on private sites if they are not wanted?
Tell the truth and no problems.
1
This is a good piece, and I agree with the author's conclusions. It is especially disturbing to me that many of Facebook's news "editors" are not Americans, and English is probably not their first language. Furthermore, it has been reported that they are forced to deal with an impossibly heavy workload and can only spend a few seconds assessing each flagged piece. This is inevitably resulting to oversights and misinterpretations, which can be harmful to all if us, even if they're not intentional. The obvious solution to the overall problem is for Facebook to simply omit news coverage from their business model.
While the author raises some fair points and helpful questions, I disagree. Ethics isn't an all-or-nothing game; it is a measured, rational, systematic, continuous effort to forge and maintain trust through transparency. In a healthy democracy, institutions are best at policing themselves through ethical standards, which it seems Facebook is attempting to do. The credibility of our democracy and democratic institutions were the biggest losers, second only to the voting public, in this election cycle which was dominated by fakery and click bait. Edward R. Murrow said, "The truth is the best propaganda." and he is still correct within a democracy built on ethical standards. However, Facebook and Twitter cross international lines and those generating stories out of eastern Europe and Russia have no ethics or civil society. For them destabilizing our country is easy--creating confusion, all the while making money off of our degradation. And, they are far more intelligent about it than most Americans give them credit for. Let's face it, Facebook has become an American public information and social institution. And, if they are to be a democratic institution, then they must adopt fourth-estate ethical standards befitting an entity with so much influence. I agree that any "for-profit" social network shouldn't be in charge of the truth, but if Facebook has any interest in the United States enduring, then they bear a heavy ethical burden. I hope they are up to the task.
2
Ms. Lessin sets up a false dichotomy between Facebook doing nothing about those using it's platform dishonestly for political or profit motives (its current policy) and Facebook becoming the grand arbiter of truth in news coverage.
Facebook allowing its platform to be used by opportunistic propagandists with a political agenda is no different from allowing pornographers using it to sell their wares. Facebook doesn't allow the latter. It has both the means and the moral imperative to do the same with regard to do the same with Fake News, aka propaganda.
Facebook allowing its platform to be used by opportunistic propagandists with a political agenda is no different from allowing pornographers using it to sell their wares. Facebook doesn't allow the latter. It has both the means and the moral imperative to do the same with regard to do the same with Fake News, aka propaganda.
2
The premise of this piece is inane. There is a vast difference is editorial power and not providing an outlet for lies and propaganda. We have already seen that algorithms do not work so what is the alternative? Editors, which is what, I believe, Facebook is proposing to resume using for this purpose. The question is would editors at Facebook be any worse or better than those at CNN, NYT, WaPo or the networks. All of those outlets have their own, some shared, issues and shortcomings.
2
can i ask about the creative photography? is there a new trend to be artsy instead of recordy?
Call FB what it is: lie-book.
Stop using it, and watch how irrelevant it will quickly become.
Much easier than believing it will, or should, self censor.
For what its worth, Twitter deserves the same fate.
Stop using it, and watch how irrelevant it will quickly become.
Much easier than believing it will, or should, self censor.
For what its worth, Twitter deserves the same fate.
1
I am using Facebook only for its original purpose: social networking and to follow arts and entertainment people and celebrities I admire. It is not my news source.
5
Facebook is a private company. It can block or permit anything it chooses without running afoul of the First Amendment. And it already does so. It filters everything you see. No one is asking Facebook to break some kind of virginal non-filtering hymen. They are simply asking Facebook to place the benefit of society at large, and its own users, on equal terms with the benefit of its advertisers.
Actually, Facebook is a publicly traded company.
2
I think Ms. Lessin is missing the point. No one is expecting Facebook to be THE gatekeeper of truth. We expect it to be A gatekeeper of truth. They are a news aggregater. As such, they have a responsibility to vet the news it publishes and to vet the sources it chooses to use. It's really that simple.
3
I strongly feel that the New York Times should remove itself from Facebook.
I did !!! because FB is horribly intrusive and is NOT of the calibar or importance of the NYT.
And, of course, MZ is just an ego and nothing else.
Wake up NYT.
I did !!! because FB is horribly intrusive and is NOT of the calibar or importance of the NYT.
And, of course, MZ is just an ego and nothing else.
Wake up NYT.
1
Comparing the twitter sharing on Facebook to the National Enquirer seems fair. Anything goes. But how can people be weaned from this dubious platform as their “source of news,” even for points of view that we support. It can’t be moderated and you can’t fight the lies one at a time. Facebook was fine for keeping in touch with far flung friends, but once it became a political platform professionally manipulated to spread questionable and flatly wrong information it became dangerous.
How can we reach a national consensus that we should just smile and put all the crazy talk back on the rack and check out the groceries? Any ideas?
How can we reach a national consensus that we should just smile and put all the crazy talk back on the rack and check out the groceries? Any ideas?
You are letting Facebook off too easy. For a lot of people it is their main source of news. But you do have a point.
2
The problem isn't Facebook allowing "fake news". It's the fact that so many of us believe fake news or get our information from Facebook! I saw that headline about the Holy Father endorsing Donald Trump. It didn't even occur to me that it would be true. I see other headlines that, like the author of this piece suggests, could be plausible. If I'm intrigued, I go to an established source of reporting to confirm or refute. I am keenly aware that I am being sold something with every provocative headline. Sometimes, there's a payoff if I'm drawn in by a title like "Facebook Shouldn't Fact-Check" and find a thoughtful essay. Most of the time, I know that someone behind the curtain just wants me to click so they can get paid. We should be talking about how we've missed this element of critical thinking in public education!
27
Many of us were educated before "clicking" was an issue in keeping up with the news.
Before Facebook became popular, I was stunned by the ridiculous email chain letters I'd receive by people I thought would know better. But they didn't, and they didn't like it when they were shown to be wrong.
Before Facebook became popular, I was stunned by the ridiculous email chain letters I'd receive by people I thought would know better. But they didn't, and they didn't like it when they were shown to be wrong.
1
Why doesn't Facebook simply mark those stories it checks for factual accuracy? That's what every other news outlet is supposed to do. The assumption with old journalism is that, if a story was printed, it had been checked by editors. Unchecked-out stories didn't even see the light of day. With Facebook, the assumption should be that the story is not to be trusted as real information unless Facebook marks it as checked. This assumption should be repeated loudly and often. After all, Facebook is nothing more that talking to some stranger, acquaintance, or friend through a computer. We still live in a world where screens are believed to be windows to the truth. Advertisers rely on this mistake of the consumer.
1
There is a much larger issue here, and it has little to do with Facebook and Fake News.
The truth is whatever your "network" says it is, which now includes your online and infinitely scrolling "self."
This is very dangerous territory because it's not just the Truth as reported in traditional News outlets that have lost their footing, but also the whole human endeavor that used to be described fondly as the Search for Truth. Nobody really cares about facts anymore, or a genuine search for them, as evidenced by the most recent national election and the President-elect's latest tweets. Nobody -- or at least not enough people -- really care about this strange new world.
Fretting about Facebook and Fake News loses the much larger point that we, as a species, have entered a strange world where learned institutions (of all political stripes) matter less and less every day, and the carnival barkers with the most tweets and retweets -- and their vast interconnected networks of once un-connected people -- become the purveyor of all things news. Nobody thought the Internet and mega-sites like Facebook would lead us here.
But here we are.
The truth is whatever your "network" says it is, which now includes your online and infinitely scrolling "self."
This is very dangerous territory because it's not just the Truth as reported in traditional News outlets that have lost their footing, but also the whole human endeavor that used to be described fondly as the Search for Truth. Nobody really cares about facts anymore, or a genuine search for them, as evidenced by the most recent national election and the President-elect's latest tweets. Nobody -- or at least not enough people -- really care about this strange new world.
Fretting about Facebook and Fake News loses the much larger point that we, as a species, have entered a strange world where learned institutions (of all political stripes) matter less and less every day, and the carnival barkers with the most tweets and retweets -- and their vast interconnected networks of once un-connected people -- become the purveyor of all things news. Nobody thought the Internet and mega-sites like Facebook would lead us here.
But here we are.
I previously could have agreed with a laissez-faire approach on principle until I considered the following:
* The reliance of many (including my own family members) on Facebook as their primary source of news
* The uncanny ability of Fake News to credibly mimic journalism
* The probability that Fake News actually shifted the results of the presidential election
* Economic incentives to the generators of Fake News based on links, ad pennies, etc.
* The rise of "weaponized disinformation" to shift (or cloud) public sentiment as practiced by state actors such as Russia.
* The provincial and balkanizing tendency of humanity, now made clear by our behavior on the web, to occupy echo chambers which reinforce our viewpoints.
--
Given Facebook's central role in the promulgation of news and media it has at the very least a responsibility to flag suspect news sources. Failing to do so opens the door to a vast maw of disinformation sprayed upon a meek electorate. Given the risks, being agnostic about the content on a "tech platform" is no longer a credible option.
* The reliance of many (including my own family members) on Facebook as their primary source of news
* The uncanny ability of Fake News to credibly mimic journalism
* The probability that Fake News actually shifted the results of the presidential election
* Economic incentives to the generators of Fake News based on links, ad pennies, etc.
* The rise of "weaponized disinformation" to shift (or cloud) public sentiment as practiced by state actors such as Russia.
* The provincial and balkanizing tendency of humanity, now made clear by our behavior on the web, to occupy echo chambers which reinforce our viewpoints.
--
Given Facebook's central role in the promulgation of news and media it has at the very least a responsibility to flag suspect news sources. Failing to do so opens the door to a vast maw of disinformation sprayed upon a meek electorate. Given the risks, being agnostic about the content on a "tech platform" is no longer a credible option.
2
But Facebook is a news distributor now. So they need to fact check. I think an effort needs to be made here, especially since I am not asking to see these news items, but they are popping on my feed as ads.
1
FB should not be a platform for spreading lies. It is technically possible to publish alongside "news stories" their supporting sources and their online history. From these and growing past experience of automated fact verification, independent veracity indexes could be derived and posted. It's not hard to understand how to do this, and it is not hard to implement. Time to take off the virtual reality goggles FB, and step back in the real world and take responsibility for the harm to democracy mass spreading lies does.
1
A very well written opinion. Thank you.
Really bad idea! Like inviting the fox to the hen house.
I would argue that Jessica Lessin is not simply "letting Facebook off too easy", she is acquiescing to the same phenomenon that the news media in general acquiesced to in this election cycle: the idea of false equivalence. When the Republican candidate for President of the United States can shout total falsehoods from the rooftop, evade answering any questions that hint at what his "policies" are (yes, I know, we are now in a post-policy era), demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of the laws of our land, threaten violence on those he does not like and still be considered the "equivalent" of his opponent by virtually all the media, one can only conclude, and perhaps Ms. Lessin would agree, the the NY Times and the National Enquirer, that the Washington Post and Facebook are equivalents and deserve equal consideration as to their standards of journalism. I argue that to do so is an abdication of responsibility as a journalist and as a citizen.
To say that because Facebook can't "ferret out misinformation" and therefore should not attempt to do so because everyone will believe that Facebook only publishes truth is ludicrous.
Should we remove the seatbelts from our cars because seatbelts can't guarantee that it will prevent death in case of an accident? Should we do away with TSA screening because we cannot guarantee that a terrorist will manage to sneak past? Standards exist for a reason. Society is at peril if we ignore that fact.
To say that because Facebook can't "ferret out misinformation" and therefore should not attempt to do so because everyone will believe that Facebook only publishes truth is ludicrous.
Should we remove the seatbelts from our cars because seatbelts can't guarantee that it will prevent death in case of an accident? Should we do away with TSA screening because we cannot guarantee that a terrorist will manage to sneak past? Standards exist for a reason. Society is at peril if we ignore that fact.
1
..but Facebook users should.
The current editorial jumble has promoted 'back of the magazine' ad fodder to the front page. Actual journalism is in danger of being overtaken by volume.
In the early days of electricity - and electrical fires from badly designed appliances - Underwriters Laboratory fulfilled a necessary gap. Shouldn't a similar system be established to help the non-literate Internet users tell wheat from fluff before they pass it on to friends and family?
The current editorial jumble has promoted 'back of the magazine' ad fodder to the front page. Actual journalism is in danger of being overtaken by volume.
In the early days of electricity - and electrical fires from badly designed appliances - Underwriters Laboratory fulfilled a necessary gap. Shouldn't a similar system be established to help the non-literate Internet users tell wheat from fluff before they pass it on to friends and family?
1
the problem is not "fake news." there has always been "fake news." does no one remember the Weekly World News? Has no one been past a supermarket checkout in 50 years?
the problem is idiots believing the fake news as real. people like the president-elect who seems to think the National Enquirer is a reputable news source, for example.
facebook should not be fact-checking. what they should be doing is NOT creating echo chamber bubbles. let me see ALL of my friends posts - in order - and LET ME DECIDE on what to click. stop pretending you know what i want to read. if i don't want to see their posts i will unfriend or block.
stop blaming fake news. start blaming stupid. fix education, not facebook.
the problem is idiots believing the fake news as real. people like the president-elect who seems to think the National Enquirer is a reputable news source, for example.
facebook should not be fact-checking. what they should be doing is NOT creating echo chamber bubbles. let me see ALL of my friends posts - in order - and LET ME DECIDE on what to click. stop pretending you know what i want to read. if i don't want to see their posts i will unfriend or block.
stop blaming fake news. start blaming stupid. fix education, not facebook.
Of course Facebook should fact-check! Imagine Walmart sold an oven that didn't heat, or a music CD that contained no music, or a box of cookies that contained rat poison. Folks would rightly be outraged.
Facebook has become a propaganda marketplace. It sells "community" and it will live or die on how much poison it allows into that community. It may be too late. Trump's presidency promises to alter the very principles on which our nation was built. But Facebook can easily determine that massive numbers of new sources from across the political spectrum are edited and adhere to basic standards of journalism, even if I disagree with them. But FB users who try to share links from fake news sites should find their efforts blocked until that site can prove that it has sources for its journalism.
Just as Walmart should have standards for what it sells, including not selling food that it knows is poisoned, Facebook needs standards if it is to remain trusted.
Facebook has become a propaganda marketplace. It sells "community" and it will live or die on how much poison it allows into that community. It may be too late. Trump's presidency promises to alter the very principles on which our nation was built. But Facebook can easily determine that massive numbers of new sources from across the political spectrum are edited and adhere to basic standards of journalism, even if I disagree with them. But FB users who try to share links from fake news sites should find their efforts blocked until that site can prove that it has sources for its journalism.
Just as Walmart should have standards for what it sells, including not selling food that it knows is poisoned, Facebook needs standards if it is to remain trusted.
1
We have to steer clear of censorship. Just yesterday, the new director of authoritarian Venezuela's telecommunications agency Conatel, Andrés Eloy Méndez, warned that "There are opposition heads that still use very violent, very aggressive language that worries Conatel, which is the the organ that is responsible for the content placed in the [electronic] spectrum." "We are not going to be blackmailed into the view that here one says whatever one wants, and that a concession that the State administers like a good father, a radioelectronic spectrum that belongs to all Venezuelans, that someone could use that concession to go against society itself." Chilling. It could happen here. http://www.el-nacional.com/politica/Conatel-evalua-reforma-regular-socia...
Do what I did and just say no to Facebook. Give yourself the gift of all that wasted time.
2
I think she's right. The people who believe fake news don't take the time to look for information. they seem to prefer that it be fed to them by their friends and their friend's friends. Perhaps that is no different from when a person called their friend and said, "hey you need to read this article about ..." It's friend driven news consumption. the real problem is that news organizations are desperately trying to remain relevant when the only reason that they have a first amendment right is not to make money, but to be the source of what is happening, and an unbiased source at that. News media are businesses first and invest their time in that pursuit, in the same way that Facebook is a business and invests its time in efforts that boost the bottom line. we're all sliding on the same slippery slope.
1
Full disclosure --- I have a Facebook account -- now:
Of course Facebook should not fact check. It is not a newspaper, it is not a magazine, it is a place for people to engage in "look at me", and post whatever political or other fake stories people think their unsuspecting "friends" will swallow. The fault is not within the posters, but in the readers for not taking the time to verify. But then again most of the time these "friends" sing the the same choir.
Those who seek truth will do so and the rest will continue to be lemmings, the passive process for the success of all scams. And there is nothing anyone can do about that.
Of course Facebook should not fact check. It is not a newspaper, it is not a magazine, it is a place for people to engage in "look at me", and post whatever political or other fake stories people think their unsuspecting "friends" will swallow. The fault is not within the posters, but in the readers for not taking the time to verify. But then again most of the time these "friends" sing the the same choir.
Those who seek truth will do so and the rest will continue to be lemmings, the passive process for the success of all scams. And there is nothing anyone can do about that.
We all know about Ministry of Truth.
2
Someone should -- fact check -- FB. Journalism faces extinction if FB continues to run a tabloid operation with no checks an balances. The First Amendment guarantees a free press and by anyone's interpretation, the fake "press" or so-called "News" that floats around FB is not making anyone "free". Freedom only comes when the people have information -- not propaganda fed by Alex Jones and the Alt-right and click/bait fake news sites that flooded FB during this terrifying election. How could anyone really make an informed decision about a choosing the next President of the U.S. in the middle of all of that? Propaganda -- like this morning's tweet threatening people who burn the flag with prison or loss of citizenship or Trump's people threatening to prosecute Hillary Clinton because her team joined the recount efforts underway -- is just that Propaganda and it's usually brought out by a dictator (not a U.S. President-Elect). And Propaganda does not belong on FB -- Freedom of the Press is something American's enjoy (while most of the rest of the world does not) -- allowing lies to pass as truth on FB seriously undermines that Freedom with no Freedom of the press, religion or expression gone, the Second Amendment, including the "guns" these folks hold so close will not be far behind.
1
Why should Facebook be an editor at all? They should police their content for pornography and clearly illegal content, but that's it. So called fake news is on the spectrum. It's a slippery slope from censoring "fake news" to censoring news that is uncomfortable or unfavorable to this or that group.
What we need to do is recognize that we have a lot of gullible people who have been terribly educated and are too lazy to investigate stories. It used to be that too many thought it was true if it was in a book. Now, apparently, too many think it's true if it's someplace on the internet.
What we need to do is recognize that we have a lot of gullible people who have been terribly educated and are too lazy to investigate stories. It used to be that too many thought it was true if it was in a book. Now, apparently, too many think it's true if it's someplace on the internet.
It is no longer just a social network.
1
This opinion piece conflates a number of questions, and in doing so, seems to go off the rails.
First, when asking whether FB should fact check, there are two questions: "Should FB do *any* fact checking?" and "Should FB fact check *everything*?" Lessin seems to be arguing that FB shouldn't get into fact checking at all, but because of the spectre of checking everything. Non sequitur. Moreover, there is a clear basis for which news stories to check: the ones that trend enough to create waves of 'likes' are clear targets, while the ones that are only shared among a small circle of friends are not.
Second, Lessin conflates the questions of whether FB should be the one and only arbiter of truth, or whether it should be one of the many entities who have the responsibility to call out and cull out misinformation. Lessin seems to argue that FB should not have the power of the latter, by pushing the spectre of the former. Non sequitur again.
Finally, Lessin conflates the task of fact-checking at all with making close calls about labeling (should CNN have described what the FBI did as having "reopened" the Clinton email investigation, when that could suggests an official status?). We can conclude that Fbook should not be in business of making close calls without concluding that Fbook should not fact check.
Lots of non sequiturs.
First, when asking whether FB should fact check, there are two questions: "Should FB do *any* fact checking?" and "Should FB fact check *everything*?" Lessin seems to be arguing that FB shouldn't get into fact checking at all, but because of the spectre of checking everything. Non sequitur. Moreover, there is a clear basis for which news stories to check: the ones that trend enough to create waves of 'likes' are clear targets, while the ones that are only shared among a small circle of friends are not.
Second, Lessin conflates the questions of whether FB should be the one and only arbiter of truth, or whether it should be one of the many entities who have the responsibility to call out and cull out misinformation. Lessin seems to argue that FB should not have the power of the latter, by pushing the spectre of the former. Non sequitur again.
Finally, Lessin conflates the task of fact-checking at all with making close calls about labeling (should CNN have described what the FBI did as having "reopened" the Clinton email investigation, when that could suggests an official status?). We can conclude that Fbook should not be in business of making close calls without concluding that Fbook should not fact check.
Lots of non sequiturs.
Facebook is a platform for friends and families to share their pictures, stories, and opinions. I'm on Facebook primarily because I like to see how people's children and grandchildren are coming along. I have friends on both sides of the political fence. This year I've seen plenty of offensive and untrue stories about Republicans and about Democrats, but I know who they're coming from, and I don't believe everything I hear. Nor do I believe everything that Facebook suggests I look at. To expect Facebook to monitor and truth check this broad flow of information seems not only absurd, but also something that could lead to censorship. Who will be the judge of truth? Providing accurate news is not the purpose of social media. It is the purpose of legitimate journalists (who have their own biases), and I see where sources like Facebook might provide interesting leads, but journalists are just lazy if they rely on social media alone for their stories. As for the rest of us, we tend to be gullible and believe what we want to believe. I click "like" for opinions I already agree with (and for cute puppies, good recipes, and pleasant scenery).
Just whose "facts" are we vetting; just what "truth" is being purveyed?
Even within the august New York Times, much "truth" can be left open to interpretation. Hard facts can be "spun" to mean almost anything, and just because you doubt the other person's perspective on things, that is no reason to censor them out of the discussion and into oblivion.
Take for example the current imbroglio over Donald Trump's "lies" regarding the number of 'illegal' voters in the recent election. You may feel one way, but would it help you to know that in a recent Pew Research Center study, it was found that some 24-million voter registrations belong to people who are either dead, or who have lost the privelege of voting under law. Even more, some 12-million registered voters----these are the legal ones----are registered to vote in at least TWO states. And this isn't taking into account that unknown number who've obtained voter registration through the black market or other nefarious means.
And then we have to take into account pure, old-fashioned ballot box stuffing and vote rigging. Perhaps Mr. Trump isn't that far off the mark after all?
Even within the august New York Times, much "truth" can be left open to interpretation. Hard facts can be "spun" to mean almost anything, and just because you doubt the other person's perspective on things, that is no reason to censor them out of the discussion and into oblivion.
Take for example the current imbroglio over Donald Trump's "lies" regarding the number of 'illegal' voters in the recent election. You may feel one way, but would it help you to know that in a recent Pew Research Center study, it was found that some 24-million voter registrations belong to people who are either dead, or who have lost the privelege of voting under law. Even more, some 12-million registered voters----these are the legal ones----are registered to vote in at least TWO states. And this isn't taking into account that unknown number who've obtained voter registration through the black market or other nefarious means.
And then we have to take into account pure, old-fashioned ballot box stuffing and vote rigging. Perhaps Mr. Trump isn't that far off the mark after all?
1
One thing that would help a lot is if credible news organizations like the NYT, the LA Times, and the Washington Post would allow anyone to read any article linked from a social media site like Facebook. It's really difficult to be well-informed if you can't read an article shared by a friend because you can't afford to subscribe to multiple sites and you're limited to 6 articles per month from those news sources. That pretty much leaves the fake news sites and nontraditional journalism, some of which is credible and some of which is not.
I'm OK with limiting the number of articles people may click on once they're on your site or they click on from a search engine. But, especially since you all encourage shares on Facebook, Pinterest, etc., it would be a service to a well-informed population if you all didn't restrict access to those shared articles.
I'm OK with limiting the number of articles people may click on once they're on your site or they click on from a search engine. But, especially since you all encourage shares on Facebook, Pinterest, etc., it would be a service to a well-informed population if you all didn't restrict access to those shared articles.
1
Facebook doesn't need to curate or fact check feeds it receives from other sources, but surely, presenting it as "News" is the problem here. Zuckerberg (and Ms. Lessin) are wrong here.
All of us (not just Americans) have been struggling with the definition of what that word means. Barely 20 years ago, it meant "facts" but it doesn't any more. My NY Times "news" is often diametrically opposite to what I get from the WSJ or Fox. I might agree with one or the other, but it's my judgement, based on opinion, and potentially not fact. That's the poison seeping through America. You can believe that a wonderful kid-friendly pizzeria in Washington DC is a child abuse zone because it is "news" somewhere.
So why doesn't Facebook make it the "gossip & opinion" section? That's what it is these days, even in the main stream media (NYT and WSJ included).
If anyone wants to "do" real news, then make a fuss about it. Put standards in place. Evict the fakers and interlopers. My town requires a permit to move a ceiling light within a room. Lobby for those types of permits to be put into place for facts in the journalism biz! Let's have established sources of true information (like the Washington Post, NYT, WSJ, etc) and label the rest as gossip.
All of us (not just Americans) have been struggling with the definition of what that word means. Barely 20 years ago, it meant "facts" but it doesn't any more. My NY Times "news" is often diametrically opposite to what I get from the WSJ or Fox. I might agree with one or the other, but it's my judgement, based on opinion, and potentially not fact. That's the poison seeping through America. You can believe that a wonderful kid-friendly pizzeria in Washington DC is a child abuse zone because it is "news" somewhere.
So why doesn't Facebook make it the "gossip & opinion" section? That's what it is these days, even in the main stream media (NYT and WSJ included).
If anyone wants to "do" real news, then make a fuss about it. Put standards in place. Evict the fakers and interlopers. My town requires a permit to move a ceiling light within a room. Lobby for those types of permits to be put into place for facts in the journalism biz! Let's have established sources of true information (like the Washington Post, NYT, WSJ, etc) and label the rest as gossip.
1
No need to fact check but every post about politics, business, or anything outside of the direct contact of the writer should have a note saying that, "this is the opinion of the writer and has not been proven to be true. Please check several reliable, fact checked sources to determine if this material is true or false. If you find it to be false please submit to FB for review."
1
Ms Lessin:
me thinks that you need to
perform a recalibration...
any gatekeeper at FB
would be far-better than the
open and untended flood-gates
that are now the norm...
especially given that
entire new-generations
of citizens are receiving
virtually all of their "accepted"
'news' via such web sources.
1
A couple of days ago I heard an interview on NPR (that's my source, apply a "truthiness" weight as you see fit) of a man, a registered Democrat, who had made a nice living from creating fake news, and fake news sites - via the advertising revenue.
The interviewer asked why all the fake news site he currently had created fake news favoring the alt-right, and/or Trump. The reply was he'd tried sites and fake news targeted at Democrats but that they had all failed.
That's only one data point of course but perhaps some research is in order to determine if there is a correlation between right-wing beliefs and susceptibility to being conned (defined as believing something that isn't true).
The interviewer asked why all the fake news site he currently had created fake news favoring the alt-right, and/or Trump. The reply was he'd tried sites and fake news targeted at Democrats but that they had all failed.
That's only one data point of course but perhaps some research is in order to determine if there is a correlation between right-wing beliefs and susceptibility to being conned (defined as believing something that isn't true).
1
I agree. The best remedy for dubious news is making reliable news more available in the marketplace of ideas. Maybe we need to resort to clickbait, as Brian McFadden suggested in "The Strip" on Sunday: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/26/opinion/sunday/the-strip-brian-mcfadde.... I can't imagine why anyone would rely on Facebook for news (although reportedly 40 percent of the population does), but I do think there is room for Facebook and other online sources to share what is known about the reliability of certain sources. I suggest that "news" from sources that have been repeatedly flagged as misleading be displayed by all browsers in Comic Sans.
1
Ms. Lessin message is dangerous in the extreme. Facebook was utilized by a most nefarious business to compile a list of gullible members to be targeted with FAKE NEWS. These gullible members of Facebook now believe the Fake News over the real news. That's extraordinarily irresponsible. If, as Ms. Lessin dares to suggest, Facebook as no responsibility, I am very open to leaving Facebook for another more responsible social media site, make that not just open, but happy to. More than half the voting public recognize the danger of the fake news passed through Facebook, and hopefully those folks are willing to drop off Facebook membership as well.
1
Ms. Lessin's comments are on the mark. Above all else, it is ultimately the individual's reader's responsibility, not Facebook's, to read something carefully and decide if it's like true, false., or somewhere in between. That's better than having nameless, faceless editors in a giant organization make the call.
I would much rather them hire editors than hide behind bots and community "flagging." I could easily see real, controversial news flagged as fake, perhaps coverage of Isreal, for example. The Washington Post recently ran a shameful article on "Fake News" that included a list of supposed fake news sites, many of which, like Truthout, have been around producing real journalism for years.
There is fake news, bad journalism, and good journalism. Fake news was (and still is) for a long time a permitted source of ad revenue, newsvertisements that look like real articles but include a tiny disclaimer at the top. Now it shows up in a different guise on social media, no disclaimer, not an ad, still chasing profits. Time to use some good journalism to keep it tamped down. If it takes Facebook hiring those journalists, more power to them, and I'm sure they can use the work.
There is fake news, bad journalism, and good journalism. Fake news was (and still is) for a long time a permitted source of ad revenue, newsvertisements that look like real articles but include a tiny disclaimer at the top. Now it shows up in a different guise on social media, no disclaimer, not an ad, still chasing profits. Time to use some good journalism to keep it tamped down. If it takes Facebook hiring those journalists, more power to them, and I'm sure they can use the work.
1
I agree that a social network should not be fact-checking to establish the "truth."
That said, I think it is still incumbent on a public media (for that is what Facebook is) to vet demonstrably false posting.
This is definitely an issue for which society's representatives (government) must develop practical policies.
That said, I think it is still incumbent on a public media (for that is what Facebook is) to vet demonstrably false posting.
This is definitely an issue for which society's representatives (government) must develop practical policies.
1
If Facebook or Yahoo news market the ability to spoon-feed "send me more of these" news items, they absolutely should have a truth meter if the presumption is that people regard what they receive as verity. It is a rampant civic disservice to contribute to a misinformed populace, regardless of how much the people seem to want it.
Why? Because the people, in each and every case, appear to want "the truth of the matter." If what they select for feed is not the truth, that is NOT their problem, it is EVERYONE'S problem. Providers have a high responsibility to not deconstruct reality for anyone.
Why? Because the people, in each and every case, appear to want "the truth of the matter." If what they select for feed is not the truth, that is NOT their problem, it is EVERYONE'S problem. Providers have a high responsibility to not deconstruct reality for anyone.
1
We used to have such a thing as the Fairness Doctrine which said that if a news business was using the public airwaves it had to present arguments and news in a balanced way so viewers would have a chance to ferret out the truth.
We used to have things that we all owned, as a Nation or a community or a neighborhood. Public schools, post offices, rail lines, highways, a military, ports, and airports, to name a few of such things.
We used to have a common, and civil, language that we all spoke, it assured us that no matter which political sphere we occupied we all spoke of the same facts and history.
Now with fox not news and Limbaugh hate radio world we have a vast wasteland of lies and distortions that would make J. Goebbels sit up and take notice. Hitler and Stalin are green with envy at the propaganda success of the right wing world, which includes the congress and senate.
The next four years are going to be very interesting, and frightening. The future is fast approaching and our methods of dealing with it are not keeping up. In almost every facet of our lives from energy to transportation to news gathering we are still "fighting the last war".
I am not hopeful.
We used to have things that we all owned, as a Nation or a community or a neighborhood. Public schools, post offices, rail lines, highways, a military, ports, and airports, to name a few of such things.
We used to have a common, and civil, language that we all spoke, it assured us that no matter which political sphere we occupied we all spoke of the same facts and history.
Now with fox not news and Limbaugh hate radio world we have a vast wasteland of lies and distortions that would make J. Goebbels sit up and take notice. Hitler and Stalin are green with envy at the propaganda success of the right wing world, which includes the congress and senate.
The next four years are going to be very interesting, and frightening. The future is fast approaching and our methods of dealing with it are not keeping up. In almost every facet of our lives from energy to transportation to news gathering we are still "fighting the last war".
I am not hopeful.
2
Are you nuts? Print journalism ran out of money and new media journalism doesn't have the budget or interest in promoting actual ethical journalism. Some attempt at editing may not be perfect, but must be done. FB doesn't have to accept the mantle of authority over truth if it simply removes user flagged articles that don't pass a stink test. Also, as Dale Carnegie told us, you don't make friends by arguing - so SOMEBODY has to put a brake on people sharing any outrageous thing they think is interesting. Friends won't call it. When it gets passed on by people you know, fake news sounds more plausible.
1
Sorry to say it, but I felt more misled by the NYT and the "reputable" news media during the election cycle than I ever would be by fake news. Hilary was a shoe-in for president, anyone?
No fact checking, okay. Then don't be a purveyor of news! How about a simple disclaimer such as, "We do not verify the veracity of anything on our site!"
1
Facebook, is a bulletin board, for cryin' out loud. Anybody can post anything they want to. Nothing wrong with that. There is no guarantee that anything you read there is true. Nor should there be.
What is wrong is that we have a huge number of people who totally lack critical thinking skills. People who don't even know sites like Snopes exist. People who never question.
Finding factual information is so easy on the Internet. If people refuse to look for it (you can lead a horse to water...) shame on them.
Look, folks, this is a fake issue, a strawman invented by Hillary supporters to find someone (anyone other than Hillary) to blame for Hillary's dismal defeat. It's whining by deniers. And, of course, the NYT is in as much denial as every other Hillary booster.
What is wrong is that we have a huge number of people who totally lack critical thinking skills. People who don't even know sites like Snopes exist. People who never question.
Finding factual information is so easy on the Internet. If people refuse to look for it (you can lead a horse to water...) shame on them.
Look, folks, this is a fake issue, a strawman invented by Hillary supporters to find someone (anyone other than Hillary) to blame for Hillary's dismal defeat. It's whining by deniers. And, of course, the NYT is in as much denial as every other Hillary booster.
All media by and large is a for profit business. An outlet such as the NYT takes responsibility for its content so why not Facebook. Just because they are so large they should get a free ride, I don't think so. Why in the end would their overseers be any less or more responsible than those in your own newsroom. Will they make mistakes, of course because in the end it is we "humans" who have to make decisions and sometimes we are wrong. Why should either you or they be trusted to check content and facts. Who watches the watchers. Your argument is full of holes and a cop out. You are what's wrong with the media today. Take responsibility and hold others in the media to the same standard.
2
I'll do my own fact-checking, thanks. On the other hand, it might be useful if Facebook and similar social media sites added a tool so that readers had easy access to information about the source and to fact-checking organizations. As I've discovered many times, checking is both necessary and harder than it needs to be.
Facebook is becoming the new LinkedIn. When I signed up for LinkedIn early in it's career and joined a few interest groups it was somewhat intimate because the comments and contributors were people like me who wanted to pursue meaningful issues and helpful resources.
Now LinkedIn interest groups are nothing more than a platform for self-promoters and click-hunters. Very little meaningful discussion occurs. I never visit LinkedIn anymore. Maybe it's good for job hunting and promoting your resume, but that's about it.
Facebook has become boring. It's crowded with ads, click-hunters, and silly forwarded articles. How many more pictures of food and cats can one endure? Facebook is growing irrelevant and boorish. It will eventually sink from its own baggage weight.
Now LinkedIn interest groups are nothing more than a platform for self-promoters and click-hunters. Very little meaningful discussion occurs. I never visit LinkedIn anymore. Maybe it's good for job hunting and promoting your resume, but that's about it.
Facebook has become boring. It's crowded with ads, click-hunters, and silly forwarded articles. How many more pictures of food and cats can one endure? Facebook is growing irrelevant and boorish. It will eventually sink from its own baggage weight.
2
I get that concentrated power is potentially dangerous, but so is unchallenged, lying propaganda passed off as truth. The Nazis used newsreels and flyers from a centralized press machine to get their messages across; today we have instantaneous access from any device with a search engine for people to find "news" or conspiracies that conform to their already pre-determined world view.
No, I do think Facebook (and Google and any other aggregator of content) has a responsibility to at least flag real news from fiction. Or at least determine real journalism from random nutcases with a blog and a grudge.
No, I do think Facebook (and Google and any other aggregator of content) has a responsibility to at least flag real news from fiction. Or at least determine real journalism from random nutcases with a blog and a grudge.
1
The problem with Facebook fake news is that it is instantly sent around the world in seconds and many will just accept it as the truth. There is no retraction as in the case of Fox with the fake "No Go zones". Facebook is now a very legitimate news outlet like it or not. So it no longer is just a social site, which comes with some responsibility. They may not need to be a total arbiter of the total truth but they should not add to the total dumbing down of our democracy. There is enough of that going on already.
This is an issue. I was sitting at a table during a Catholic church event after the Officer Tearsing verdict in Cincinnati, and 2 people blurted out, "There are no protests here because they can't afford to bus the liberals and blacks in! hahah!".
People legitimately believed the bus-in story, hook line and sinker. No one bothered to actually fact check the story. Determining the validity of the bus-in story was very difficult. Facebook is to blame.
Mark is creating a false narrative, that even as a conservative, I find incredibly repulsive and undermining to the very fabric of the country. Leave journalism to journalists, and get out of the business. Social media has no place. Algorithms are inherently bias because they're created by humans.
People legitimately believed the bus-in story, hook line and sinker. No one bothered to actually fact check the story. Determining the validity of the bus-in story was very difficult. Facebook is to blame.
Mark is creating a false narrative, that even as a conservative, I find incredibly repulsive and undermining to the very fabric of the country. Leave journalism to journalists, and get out of the business. Social media has no place. Algorithms are inherently bias because they're created by humans.
1
I am trying to understand how an editors at Facebook would be different than editors at a newspaper. Newspapers are aggregators of information as well and for much of the latter half of the twentieth century they had local monopolies on printed news. I don't see Facebook being any different. "I’m not comfortable trusting the truth to one gatekeeper that has a mission and a fiduciary duty to increase advertising revenue". How is that any different than a newspaper?
Aside from paid ads promoting false stories, I'd have to agree that I'm not sure how Facebook could really stem the tide of fake news. Ditto for Twitter.
The only saving grace in all this is that candidates have equal access to social media. Despite voting for Clinton, I think there was a kind of perfect storm going on in the general election. Trump's campaign and some of its most zealous supporters never stopped giving their perspective on any issue (even when they had nothing to say or were outright lying). At the same time, Clinton had a tendency to avoid risking any statements about controversial issues concerning her until things had been blown wildly out of proportion. Lies, in the absence of a strong counter-narrative and repeated 24/7, find purchase. I cannot think of a single instance in which Clinton got out in front of any issue before Trump or his congregation had seized the initiative and controlled the narrative.
The only saving grace in all this is that candidates have equal access to social media. Despite voting for Clinton, I think there was a kind of perfect storm going on in the general election. Trump's campaign and some of its most zealous supporters never stopped giving their perspective on any issue (even when they had nothing to say or were outright lying). At the same time, Clinton had a tendency to avoid risking any statements about controversial issues concerning her until things had been blown wildly out of proportion. Lies, in the absence of a strong counter-narrative and repeated 24/7, find purchase. I cannot think of a single instance in which Clinton got out in front of any issue before Trump or his congregation had seized the initiative and controlled the narrative.
1
Somewhat unfortunately, I agree.
The best course of action is the one that forces people to be more critical about the information they consume, so they can actively weed out the garbage. It is not the one that pursues the impossible task of only allowing people to see "the truth" on whatever happens to be the popular media platform du jour.
Bottom-line is if nobody read, liked, or shared misinformation, then people would stop creating it. That's the only way to end this scourge.
The best course of action is the one that forces people to be more critical about the information they consume, so they can actively weed out the garbage. It is not the one that pursues the impossible task of only allowing people to see "the truth" on whatever happens to be the popular media platform du jour.
Bottom-line is if nobody read, liked, or shared misinformation, then people would stop creating it. That's the only way to end this scourge.
Yes, we should let Bannon and the rest of his white supremacist colleagues to continue to use FB to spread lies and manipulate public opinion. Good call, Jessica.
2
Fact checking? Very difficult if not impossible: the people who purvey "fake news" (aka "lies") are like hydras - cut off one arm and they sprout another 10.
Many things can be done, certainly some of them harmful to FB and other social media:
1) have a disclaimer on every single message, "baked in", the way the logo is baked in, with the kind of warning seen on currency: "Whoever forges banknotes, or knowingly brings forged banknotes into circulation, shall be punished with not less than - - years in prison."
2) facebook et al shall not check the content of the messages, but it shall check that those sending them are not anonymous. It has to verify the source and, when there are complaints, it has to take the message down. What is needed is a notary public for the internet.
3) face book can disable the 'share' button on any device
4) "cookies" should be licensed.
5) I can think of many more steps that could be taken, but I fear getting into the hair of constitutional scholars.
Would love to hear of objections with reasons.
Many things can be done, certainly some of them harmful to FB and other social media:
1) have a disclaimer on every single message, "baked in", the way the logo is baked in, with the kind of warning seen on currency: "Whoever forges banknotes, or knowingly brings forged banknotes into circulation, shall be punished with not less than - - years in prison."
2) facebook et al shall not check the content of the messages, but it shall check that those sending them are not anonymous. It has to verify the source and, when there are complaints, it has to take the message down. What is needed is a notary public for the internet.
3) face book can disable the 'share' button on any device
4) "cookies" should be licensed.
5) I can think of many more steps that could be taken, but I fear getting into the hair of constitutional scholars.
Would love to hear of objections with reasons.
This author embodies the problem. There are no facts anymore, there is no truth, there is no right or wrong; there is only "my truth", "my facts", "what's right for me" and people wonder how Kellyanne Conway and Steve Bannon seized power. Be careful in so jealously guarding your "freedoms" you may end up losing them.
1
Unless facebook has some way to decrease the "noise" and snowballing of fake news, the platform will become irrelevant.
1
Frankly, anyone who treats ANY social media site as a source for news is just plain stupid. Note the average age of said devotees. Then realize they are your children, and their ignorance is your doing.
Sorry Ms Lessin, if Facebook wants to share or promote itself as a news outlet, it's going to have to have some standards...it's not a free for all s***storm vehicle. Published stadndards could go a long way. 1. For trending news, your statments must be verified, either from multiple news sources, or sourced to a known credible news outlet. Sources that submit more than one false report will lose access. 2. For shared political memes and information inserted that achieves (x degree) of shares, a new reaction button will be available. If more than (x number) of 'false' reactions are received, the meme will be checked against known sources of information fact checking, and labled as either 'false', mostly false, partly false, or verified" .
2
To quote Ms. Lessin, "My fellow reporters and editors will argue that I am letting Facebook off too easy. While my husband did work there for a brief period, my position isn’t a defense of the company, which I have covered critically for years." The history between the author's husband and Facebook, however, seems more complex than the author suggests. It is richly reported on the web, so I need not repeat it here. Suffice it to say that a May 17, 2011 article by Miguel Helft in the New York Times, titled "For Buyers of Web Start-Ups, Quest to Corral Young Talent," began as follows: "Sam Lessin sold his Web start-up to Facebook for millions last year, and Facebook promptly shut it down. All Facebook wanted was Mr. Lessin." Everyone has a right to express their opinion. But when the media sees fit to publish it, care should be taken to inform the public of undisclosed factors that might materially affect its substance.
2
Two billion profiles populate FB and untold millions get daily "fake news" and "false news", and unchecked propaganda from its feed, yet Jessica Lessin can live with that because who is FB to decide what's truth. Truth is... facts. It's not unfailing but it's the best we have. FB should hire journalists to manage its "news" feed, or eliminate it. Alternatively, it could eliminate intake from all non traditional news media until they establish themselves as reputable - not easy, but not impossible. Lessin, however, offers no contribution to a solution, as if not trusting FB to define truth is enough to accept its nefarious role in propagating lies, falsehoods, innuendo and the accompanying character assassination, bullying, and intellectual equivalent of the lynching mobs. The type of relativism offered in her prose will eventually get us there. We will promote more Steve Bannons from the bowels of America to the halls of power and more Breitbarts (or worse) from the news garbage bin to the coffee table. So, yes, there is a role for fact checking, for fact based reporting as close as possible to the truth, with people making decisions (based on known facts) on what is true and untrue: it's called journalism, it's been in existence for a long time, and it's been great to our democracy. FB should not be left off the hook. It should be pressured to make sure its "news" feed is principled, and follows acceptable journalistic standards such as the AP Stylebook.
1
I think a strong argument can be made that Facebook is doing real harm to this country by publishing, if that's the correct word, all sorts of things that people consider news whether it's real or garbage. Best if it shut down its "news" feeds; but of course, that won't happen - too much money to be made.
2
With all due respect to the opinion of Ms. Lessin, as a working journalist, I totally disagree -- Especially in light of the fact that a recent PBS News report stated that 67% of Americans get their news from Facebook and other social media platforms; which also explains the significant increase in "Fake-News", and the alacrity with which it is spread.
In view of all this, I think it necessary for Facebook to not only fact-check, but also put serious restrictions on the proliferation of hate-speech, be it anti-Semitic, racial, religious, or gender-based.
Those who have disdainful things to say, will always find some kind of way to broadcast it. Let them -- After all, there is the 1st Amendment granting this right.
But the proverbial buck has to stop somewhere on our continued downward slide from the course of civil discourse.
This is a good place to start.
In view of all this, I think it necessary for Facebook to not only fact-check, but also put serious restrictions on the proliferation of hate-speech, be it anti-Semitic, racial, religious, or gender-based.
Those who have disdainful things to say, will always find some kind of way to broadcast it. Let them -- After all, there is the 1st Amendment granting this right.
But the proverbial buck has to stop somewhere on our continued downward slide from the course of civil discourse.
This is a good place to start.
2
Young people get virtually all of their content from social media. Thanks to the current state of education young people are totally unequipped to critically evaluate the content they are exposed to. Since we have decided not to educate them so someone has to help them evaluate the content they are exposed to. Someone has to do it, and the news media are not in a position to do so effectively.
1
Right: "Just the facts, mam."
Our New York City broadcast corporations bring us each night, at best, 20% real news, the remaining, Sovietized propaganda and cheerleading for the Liberal Imperialists running the majority of our mass-media organizations replete.
Rather see the child-like Zuckerberg and his crew of one-worlders begin with running the major networks through their self-serving algorithms of truth finding first--then move on to all the little people.
Yeah, that's what we need, a world-wide-web grand poobah censor, just what the Stalinists ordered. May it begin with Zuckerberg's virtual dystopia.
Our New York City broadcast corporations bring us each night, at best, 20% real news, the remaining, Sovietized propaganda and cheerleading for the Liberal Imperialists running the majority of our mass-media organizations replete.
Rather see the child-like Zuckerberg and his crew of one-worlders begin with running the major networks through their self-serving algorithms of truth finding first--then move on to all the little people.
Yeah, that's what we need, a world-wide-web grand poobah censor, just what the Stalinists ordered. May it begin with Zuckerberg's virtual dystopia.
1
As a Muslim African-American citizen, Imam, and author of the book "We Fundamentalists," indeed, it is refreshing to hear that Mark Zuckerberg-chairman and chief executive of "Facebook" has decited to make a "cool change" of how "We" Americans are recieving information about our world around us and the news at home! However, it`s a pity that it took a Donald Trump presidental election victory to show the whole world how far Western corporate media failed to reflect the true concerns of it`s peoples! What`s shocking, is not only the conflicts of interrest by liberal and conservative media here but the conflicts of race, faith, culture, and wealth in this day and era here in America! Fear of the future is real on the streets of America! Our "Free Press" is a true "oxymoron," for it is certainly sadly neither independent or unbiased! Reporting the symptoms of the effects (fake news-hype-propaganda) while ignoring the causes of the problems (massive-unemployment-drugs-crime-jobs-suicide-miseducation) that "We" the people are dealing with everyday in our lives! "What do we have to Lose!!!" Was not only heard by Blacks but by White Americans as well! Yes, it is time to make America great again, implementing those antitrust laws to break-up these lying media monopolies here by the super rich would help bring truth from the rich shadows of ideological self-interest-greed! President Donald Trump-LLAP
1
Lots of money to be made off emotion, not so much off facts. All news organizations have moved closer to tabloid journalism, because it sells. As the CBS CEO said, "It may not be good for America, but it's damn good for CBS ... the money's rolling in". Stopping fake news is going to be like disarming America - get real. Posting Mr. Trump's Twitter feed with a corresponding comment like “false”, “true” or “stretch” would be nice, but not enough. Better to have an educational system that teaches people how to think, rather than continually cutting cost and suffering the consequences. That the US elected a president that lives in a tabloid journalism realm ought to clearly demonstrate the last election wasn't about ideology, but differing realities.
1
You can't mix flour and water and sell it as "milk". Neither should you be able to make stuff up and market it as "news". The best protection against fake news would be a law that makes people - anyone - who publishes false information labeled as "news" liable for fraud. Publish whatever you want, but if it's called "news" then you better have proof. Let's protect the term "news".
2
There is a difference from opinion and from fact. If that line is sometimes blurred, it is often crystal clear: like 3 million illegal votes claimed to have been cast, the removal of which makes Trump the winner of the popular vote. Blatant lies should be blocked from publication on FB or any other social media.
There is a kind of Gresham's Laws where fake news drives good news out ofthe marketplace. If fake news becomes pervasive, then all news will be regarded as fake because a reader cannot know what is true or false on one's own.
If all news is regarded as fake then there is no basis for policy debate, since I will simply assert the falsity of every proposition someone else makes in support of a position I disagree with; as will they to me.
Civic discourse thus comes to an end, as does democracy.
Into that vacuum steps the next dictator with his/her own truth which we must all accept.
There is a kind of Gresham's Laws where fake news drives good news out ofthe marketplace. If fake news becomes pervasive, then all news will be regarded as fake because a reader cannot know what is true or false on one's own.
If all news is regarded as fake then there is no basis for policy debate, since I will simply assert the falsity of every proposition someone else makes in support of a position I disagree with; as will they to me.
Civic discourse thus comes to an end, as does democracy.
Into that vacuum steps the next dictator with his/her own truth which we must all accept.
1
Hey, nobody's talking about YouTube.
According to my 17-year-old, "everyone" (meaning his circle of friends and acquaintances, of course) has at least one newspaper app on their phones (he likes the NYTimes and Al Jazeera), but "everyone" actually gets their news from YouTube, where they really do have talking dogs reporting the news.
Facebook is so 2000s.
According to my 17-year-old, "everyone" (meaning his circle of friends and acquaintances, of course) has at least one newspaper app on their phones (he likes the NYTimes and Al Jazeera), but "everyone" actually gets their news from YouTube, where they really do have talking dogs reporting the news.
Facebook is so 2000s.
1
Okay, in addition to everything else, let's just scrap the First Amendment because of Donald Trump. Get a grip people. If you have no faith in democracy, great go for it. Donald Trump and the GOP will be right behind you setting up an agency to ban "fake" news from liberal media sources. Or maybe, like the Chinese, just pressure Facebook to do it for them.
1
I COMPLETELY disagree with this editorial and disagree strongly .
We MUST begin to reign in false news and I believe the author minimizes the importance and the danger of such . To equivocate it to somehow leading to meddling in respected and legitimate news outlets such as the NY Times is ridiculous and very narrow minded .
They are already throwing around Nazi terms such as " Luggenpresse " -- lying press which Trump keeps hammering home . Trump calls news outlets such as the NY Times liars and the crooked press. Many people use Facebook as their primary news source . So now what , the NY TIMES is the crooked press but some made up news story on Facebook is the real news? . I'm sorry my friend , but that's a slippery slope and for you not to see the extreme danger in that is mind boggling . People who read and believe fake news has serious consequences .
Facebook DOES have a responsibility to ferret out false news . Somebody has to do it .
Our only salvation is keeping news outlets like the NY Times the real news and separate it from " fake news " .,
And the way Trump has been continuing his lying tweets makes it all the more urgent for Facebook to fight against this . Imagine , our President elect has already continued his tweeting of lie after lie.
Kudus to Facebook for taking this first important step in keeping real news outlets important and vital .
We MUST begin to reign in false news and I believe the author minimizes the importance and the danger of such . To equivocate it to somehow leading to meddling in respected and legitimate news outlets such as the NY Times is ridiculous and very narrow minded .
They are already throwing around Nazi terms such as " Luggenpresse " -- lying press which Trump keeps hammering home . Trump calls news outlets such as the NY Times liars and the crooked press. Many people use Facebook as their primary news source . So now what , the NY TIMES is the crooked press but some made up news story on Facebook is the real news? . I'm sorry my friend , but that's a slippery slope and for you not to see the extreme danger in that is mind boggling . People who read and believe fake news has serious consequences .
Facebook DOES have a responsibility to ferret out false news . Somebody has to do it .
Our only salvation is keeping news outlets like the NY Times the real news and separate it from " fake news " .,
And the way Trump has been continuing his lying tweets makes it all the more urgent for Facebook to fight against this . Imagine , our President elect has already continued his tweeting of lie after lie.
Kudus to Facebook for taking this first important step in keeping real news outlets important and vital .
2
Facebook cannot and should not be the arbiter of truth. Whose truth should they accept and whose truth should they deny? MSNBC? Fox? Not everything is black and white.
Facebook and all of the other social media websites should get out of the news business! Period.
2
Jessica Lessin is correct. Just as the NY Times does not fact check, (see NY Times coverage on G.W. Bush's justifications for why we should invade Iraq in 2003) why should we expect something different from Facebook?
Remember - (2002 - 2003) if we don't invade Iraq, we will disapear in a nuclear cloud.
Who needs facts - they are troublesome and get in the way.
Remember - (2002 - 2003) if we don't invade Iraq, we will disapear in a nuclear cloud.
Who needs facts - they are troublesome and get in the way.
Facebook doesn't belong in the news business and should just get out of it. Stop the newsfeeds. Let people find newspapers for their news. We've become so accustomed to tech companies disrupting markets and getting involved in businesses they have no business being in, that we accept the incompetent and inferior results.
2
Yup, just about as dangerous as the NYT establishing what is true.
1
On the other hand. when was the last time you saw Facebook print a retraction, or correction?
Take your time.....
Take your time.....
2
Good points. It could be a problem if readers believed news on Facebook had been independently verified, a service the company is not fully capable of providing.
If readers want the truth, they need to accept responsibility for getting it. There are many long established, reputable sources to use, as well as an incredibly vast amount of information in other online postings. It's not that hard to determine which of those are reasonable and which are bogus rants, or even to try to use your own brain to think if something actually makes sense.
If you're relying on social media for your news, you're probably getting what you deserve.
If readers want the truth, they need to accept responsibility for getting it. There are many long established, reputable sources to use, as well as an incredibly vast amount of information in other online postings. It's not that hard to determine which of those are reasonable and which are bogus rants, or even to try to use your own brain to think if something actually makes sense.
If you're relying on social media for your news, you're probably getting what you deserve.
1
Jessica is misinformed. The fact check we're talking about is not on the news shared by friends (those are already vetted by our friends), it's the "Suggested Post" and "Similar Pages" peddled by FB for clicks and revenues.
3
There are sites that are well known to be purveyors of fake news. It's all they do. Block them.
1
Why should they be bothered by facts when the President-elect isn't?
2
This is nonsense. Nobody expects facebook to verify users posts, but Facebook as a publisher, should fact check stuff it posts. The NY Times does it every day, often making minor corrections after a story is printed.
2
Who in their right mind would think Facebook is a news source? The site is just a place to show off. A haven for Narcissist. If you want to connect with your family, call them, write them and if you really want to go digital TEXT them directly, but to think Facebook is a source for facts and news is ridiculous.
It's not just the fakeness of the news. I have a Facebook page that I rarely use, and I certainly don't get my news from it. But I looked at it and saw a report about the death of Clint Eastwood. I normally would check a real news site to find that, but against my better judgment, I clicked on this link, which then hijacked my browser and I had to force-shut it down. Sometimes these things lock up the whole computer and you have to reboot. Who knows if some malware was installed. I did the usual virus-malware-etc. check and nothing turned up, but these devious hackers find a way around everything. Facebook means to tell me that with all its money and expertise, it can't stop this from happening? The answer, as far as I can see, is that it doesn't want to, because that will also mean stopping legitimate ads, which I also don't want. I need the page for business, but I'm reconsidering whether it's doing me any good.
1
Nobody's saying that Facebook should BECOME a news outlet. They're ALREADY one. What people are saying is that, given Facebook's already-outsized influence, that they have an moral duty to couch at least SOME of their design principles in the foundational guidelines of responsible journalism, or they will become (/remain) a profit-driven echo-chamber for histrionic sensationalism, which is massively damaging to the public welfare.
1
I kind of agree with the headline - Facebook shouldn't be a fact-checker. But perhaps they should stop "fixing" their algorithm so we only see stuff from friends we personally agree with - then we can personally call out the idiocy when we see it.
2
Here's an undeniable truth: This debate would not be happening if Clinton had won. Does anyone really believe that a fake report of a papal endorsement put The Donald in The White House? If so, they have issues well beyond fake news.
Is facebook to be seen more as the phone company, on which people lie and the company has no role, or more like cable news on which people lie, it is Fox's business model, but viewer expect them to be correct lies?
1
Telephone companies aren't responsible for ensuring everything that's said over of the telephone is accurate. Why should FB be any different?
Right... The only facts that Facebook needs to check are your subscriber demographics so that they can get an accurate picture of the data they sell to their advertisers. Everything else is...irrelevant. Blather away!
This headline is sensationalist. You agree that Facebook should in fact "fact-check", but only do it by algorithm. The headline should read "Facebook Shouldn't Editorialize" or something similar. The current headline is click-bait and exactly what all concerned citizens are railing against.
A simple flag: "Fact check suggested" would be enough. The readers could take over from there.
No editorial choice about what is worthy news and what is worthless news is free of bias. Deciding what news to cover and how to cover it is factually about business and information in the hearts, hands and minds of flawed ordinary mortal human beings. All human communication platforms are complex community social interactions. Addressing the linguistic cultural Tower of Babel that causes us to constantly babble and bloviate is the prime news fact.
Facebook is a collection of congenital liars. Leave them to their folly.
1
Something must be done. This fake news is affecting elections.
A friend of mine, who does not like Trump, voted for him because he ended up disliking Clinton immensely. When I asked him why he hated her so much, he repeated the craziest conspiracy theories I ever heard. When I confronted his beliefs and asked where he got his information he said Facebook.
He is one of those who thinks if it's on Facebook, it's true. So, yes, Facebook must do something to clearly identify fake news it passes along.
A friend of mine, who does not like Trump, voted for him because he ended up disliking Clinton immensely. When I asked him why he hated her so much, he repeated the craziest conspiracy theories I ever heard. When I confronted his beliefs and asked where he got his information he said Facebook.
He is one of those who thinks if it's on Facebook, it's true. So, yes, Facebook must do something to clearly identify fake news it passes along.
2
Ms Lessin points out that a media outlet's duty to report a carefully researched and analyzed truth is policed by readers unsubscribing and better competition. Her analysis is as wrong as the Times' "authoritarianism" narrative when the Donald won the elections, obviously. The media market is so fractured that you fail your readers by not giving them the real or made-up facts they desire. The quasi-monopoly of Facebook in the news sector would indeed put them into the dreaded position as the only gatekeeper. And they cannot do it, technically. This phenomenon is here to stay and homo sapiens americaniensis will have to deal with it. Maybe they start thinking for themselves again? - I was only joking...
More than checking facts , the investigation into the motivation for
using 'facts' would be a better occupation for discerning individuals.
using 'facts' would be a better occupation for discerning individuals.
what fool depends on Facebook for their news?
Several years ago I mentioned to my wife that the phrase, "social media," would soon become the two most noxious words in the English language.
Anyone remember the constant drumbeat from years ago about the 'dumbing down of America?' As Zippy the pinhead might say, "are we having fun yet?"
Anyone remember the constant drumbeat from years ago about the 'dumbing down of America?' As Zippy the pinhead might say, "are we having fun yet?"
1
Facebook should ban news posts altogether. It should limit itself to sharing pictures of your little one and whatever ever it was that you ate last night.
2
I agree - it would be impossible for Facebook to monitor all statements for their validity.
Do you believe everything you read?
I don't.
Do you believe everything you read?
I don't.
There is something Facebook could do to help. Look at the source of the post. If it is not NYTimes or some other reputable news organization, flag it as FAKE. An algorithm could be set to do that - there aren't that many reputable news organizations. Errors could be called to Facebook's attention and the algorithm adjusted.
1
In an article a few days ago, the NYT profiled a Russian who generated fake news stories. He admitted he did it for cash, but claimed he was mystified that anyone believed the idiotic stories he published. He thought of them as satire, like an Onion piece. I agree. How is anyone taken in by these stories?
25
Paul McB -- do you mean this story https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/11/17/facebook...
If so, it's in the Washington Post and the writer is not Russian, he's American. It sounds like what you're talking about because he mentions satire and the Onion. there was a NYT story http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/25/world/europe/fake-news-donald-trump-hi... about a Russian guy. Satire was mentioned there, but the Onion was not. Also, the guy did not come across as mystified or concerned about what he was doing.
This particular distinction may not be very important, but is is an example of how fake news can spread. If you had spent a few minutes checking your sources, you would have found what I did and would not have spread incorrect information.
If so, it's in the Washington Post and the writer is not Russian, he's American. It sounds like what you're talking about because he mentions satire and the Onion. there was a NYT story http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/25/world/europe/fake-news-donald-trump-hi... about a Russian guy. Satire was mentioned there, but the Onion was not. Also, the guy did not come across as mystified or concerned about what he was doing.
This particular distinction may not be very important, but is is an example of how fake news can spread. If you had spent a few minutes checking your sources, you would have found what I did and would not have spread incorrect information.
2
Hi Paul - let's look at this, though. There was a "fake news" story one of my FB friends posted - he posts a lot. This one was about a murder-suicide involving an FBI agent involved with Clinton emails.There was a dramatic photo of a burning building. The thing is, on the face of it, there was nothing wildly implausible - not an "alien walking with the Queen" story. Especially if you already thought her emails were important and sinister, it would have fit into that narrative. I don't think I immediately thought "oh, that couldn't have happened." I was actually expecting something like, a guy was marginally involved in the investigation, and had a gambling addiction. As it turned out, it was completely fake. But I can see how people get taken in.
2
Most people taken in are those seeking to justify how the feel or think. They want to find someone who thinks like them. DT was elected more for how he talked during the campaign than because of any platform or policies he stood by. DT's rhetorics were encouraging hate, promise of jobs and huge tax increases on the wealthy, and an unending supply of lies about Hillary, and people bought into it. They didn't bother to dig into his past or question his past even when told, because DT told his supporters that everything they were being told were lies.
1
My solution to the Facebook Problem (which is multi-faceted)?
I eliminated it from my life, it being a pointless waste of time.
Do the same, World. Send Zuckerberg packing.
I eliminated it from my life, it being a pointless waste of time.
Do the same, World. Send Zuckerberg packing.
5
I am apalled at the junk that comes across my newsfeed on Facebook. Google news, which is almost entirely an algorithm, seems to have less of an issue with fake news than Facebook. They only show news from vetted news sources, and always give you alternative sources of the same story. Perhaps, by blocking certain websites that are known to spread fake news, Facebook could incentivize journalistic fact checking by limiting the exposure to this relatively small handful of fake news generating sites without too much of an editor's hand.
1
I continue to be so happy that I never joined Fakebook, and never will.
Amazingly, I'm still able to know what my friends and relations are up to and get new pictures of 'the kids' and so on. News Flash: Telephones and e-mail are still functioning in our brave pseudo-new world.
You all should try a Fakebook Fast for yourselves. You might find you can think more clearly, and you'll be less consumed with trying to compete with hundreds of so-called 'friends' you barely know most of.
Amazingly, I'm still able to know what my friends and relations are up to and get new pictures of 'the kids' and so on. News Flash: Telephones and e-mail are still functioning in our brave pseudo-new world.
You all should try a Fakebook Fast for yourselves. You might find you can think more clearly, and you'll be less consumed with trying to compete with hundreds of so-called 'friends' you barely know most of.
2
I cancelled my Facebook page on the morning of November 9th. Clearly social media is not a tool which has been proven to enhance a constructice dialogue amongst voters.
1
FB (and all similar sites) have a big conflict of interest: They cannot give us true journalism while selling news from the highest bidder. They need to change their business model to blindly sell 'news'. They need to filter out hate speech + bots. If they are not capable of doing that they have to get our of the news business.
3
Caveat emptor! Definitely agreed.
It is really hard for me to understand why anyone would even consider FB to be a legitimate news feed. It is such an "all about me" kind of media machine that distortions and half truths should be assumed until proven otherwise.
On the other hand, we must remember that journalism and the News media are also under similar pressures of "ratings" and/or "subscribers". So, it is not like the NYTs editors would not consider the consequences of publishing certain news. They also have their particular interests too. So, social-media factors also influence the NYT. That said, at least they don't block me out when I don't have nice things to say about the newspaper.
It is really hard for me to understand why anyone would even consider FB to be a legitimate news feed. It is such an "all about me" kind of media machine that distortions and half truths should be assumed until proven otherwise.
On the other hand, we must remember that journalism and the News media are also under similar pressures of "ratings" and/or "subscribers". So, it is not like the NYTs editors would not consider the consequences of publishing certain news. They also have their particular interests too. So, social-media factors also influence the NYT. That said, at least they don't block me out when I don't have nice things to say about the newspaper.
1
"A million times a day" - you may want to fact check that...
1
I am not on facebook. So maybe this wouldn't work. But if Facebook can't police all its content, what about hiring fact checkers to look at some of it. Stick a "Fact-Checked By Facebook" badge on the stuff that passes. So you know that Facebook has approved this message - and you know that Facebook has its own definition of the truth so you take it with a grain of Facebook salt. Anything without the badge, you take with a grain of non-Facebook salt.
Anyone have Zuckerberg's number? I'll call him with this incredibly idea.
Anyone have Zuckerberg's number? I'll call him with this incredibly idea.
3
Reminds me of "the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval". It's been done, and there was some litigation around it in the 60's. Easy to fake an icon too. Sorry.
(I am the other person on the planet who is not on Facebook.)
(I am the other person on the planet who is not on Facebook.)
What we need is a new organization - perhaps a Ministry - to verify the truth of news reports. We could call it the Ministry of Truth.
When you write a a letter to the editor of a newspaper you must submit you real name, address and phone number to get it printed. Editors and reporters also have their name on the articles so they are held accountable for checking the facts. On Facebook you can be anonymous by signing up with a fake name and posting articles that you are not held accountable for. Facebook wants you to use them for everything now, shopping and news included. People believed what they read there in this election. Lies and rumors won the day.
The newspaper also competes for eyeballs that will gain advertisers but they do not allow anonymity and that is what makes Facebook dangerous.
The newspaper also competes for eyeballs that will gain advertisers but they do not allow anonymity and that is what makes Facebook dangerous.
3
My sister and daughters are avid facebook consumers. My default position, after having many facebook links sent, is that it is untrue until proven otherwise. I see no reason to adjust that.
Unfortunately, actual news outlets like the New York Times, which theoretically (should) have a fact checking operation, has reporters and editors so lacking in basic journalistic skepticism that everything that appears is no more reliable than a facebook posting.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/us/politics/joe-biden-white-house-2016...
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/nyregion/bloomberg-sensing-an-opening-...
These are two anonymously sourced, front page "news" speculations, each debunked within a week of appearing on the digital and print front page of the Times. Can't we now call these "fake news," or is there an archive to let us know how the Biden challenge to Clinton to fulfill Beau Biden's dying wish turned out? And, similarly, how did the Bloomberg expenditure of $1 billion of his personal fortune and his third party candidacy affect the election?
Unfortunately, actual news outlets like the New York Times, which theoretically (should) have a fact checking operation, has reporters and editors so lacking in basic journalistic skepticism that everything that appears is no more reliable than a facebook posting.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/us/politics/joe-biden-white-house-2016...
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/nyregion/bloomberg-sensing-an-opening-...
These are two anonymously sourced, front page "news" speculations, each debunked within a week of appearing on the digital and print front page of the Times. Can't we now call these "fake news," or is there an archive to let us know how the Biden challenge to Clinton to fulfill Beau Biden's dying wish turned out? And, similarly, how did the Bloomberg expenditure of $1 billion of his personal fortune and his third party candidacy affect the election?
2
So you don't trust Facebook to true? What, then, is your solution? This fake news (they are actually lies and we should call them what they are) is causing massive damage to our democracy. People's lives are going to be changed for the worse because of this nonsense. But, because it is a difficult problem to solve you say we should just punt? Your ethics as a journalist are questionable ma'am.
6
It is now seems that organized groups of Macedonian kids were the source of many fake news stories, (source PRI) so don't tell me that FB should not, and can not control for groups of kids punking our politics, for click profit.
These kids are not US citizens, they have no 1st Amendment rights, and FB is what it is, "All the Noise fit to Print, or Not"
These kids are not US citizens, they have no 1st Amendment rights, and FB is what it is, "All the Noise fit to Print, or Not"
9
The abdication of The New York Times from being the final arbiter of "truth" began when it covered up the famine in Ukraine, and was finished when it parroted George W. Bush's misinformation about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. That has left an empty field. Only a well-funded organization like Facebook as even fighting chance. You are a dog in the manger. You cannot eat the nice straw, but you can snarl at the cows. Bottom line, given the current crisis in the United States, where a strongman who uses lies as a weapon will soon rule, anyone who is willing to try, using any method, to maintain information integrity, is welcome to try.
6
In our reality TV world, I am becoming a Luddite.
1
So its better to allow the spread of false information to the already dumbed down public. Great idea!!
4
Read the article.
If we all took a short vacation from FB and it's ads, I'm sure that Zuckerberg would make the elimination of phony news a priority. If you are promoting your platform as a source of news and information, you have the obligation to ensure that that information is accurate.
6
So they should be more like Brietbart or the Drudge Report?
2
With all due respect, there might be a conflict of interest in writing this article:
"Lessin's husband Sam is a close friend of Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, from the time they spent together as students at Harvard. Sam Lessin was brought into Facebook when his company Drop.io was acquired. Lessin left Facebook on August 29, 2014. The close connection that Jessica Lessin has with Zuckerberg and Facebook, and the fact that her wealth was largely generated by the acquisition of her husband's company by Facebook has been raised as compromising her journalistic independence. Jessica Lessin has publicly supported Peter Thiel, who is a Facebook board member, against criticism that his financial backing of Hulk Hogan's lawsuit against Gawker Media is an affront against a free media."
I'm quoting the Wikipedia article on Jessica Lessin. Fact-checking would be appreciated.
"Lessin's husband Sam is a close friend of Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, from the time they spent together as students at Harvard. Sam Lessin was brought into Facebook when his company Drop.io was acquired. Lessin left Facebook on August 29, 2014. The close connection that Jessica Lessin has with Zuckerberg and Facebook, and the fact that her wealth was largely generated by the acquisition of her husband's company by Facebook has been raised as compromising her journalistic independence. Jessica Lessin has publicly supported Peter Thiel, who is a Facebook board member, against criticism that his financial backing of Hulk Hogan's lawsuit against Gawker Media is an affront against a free media."
I'm quoting the Wikipedia article on Jessica Lessin. Fact-checking would be appreciated.
1
Lies, gossip and false information have existed since time immemorial, yet Facebook is responsible for fixing it? Good luck. Americans have had to tolerate the likes of Fox News for a long time now, and I don't recall anyone demanding that they correct their ways. Our airwaves and print media are full of tabloid level crap, but last time I checked Facebook isn't a news outlet. Please don't try to kill the messenger. If anything, go after the source, but in a country where idle chitchat, outright lies and noise have reached Orwellian levels, and are poised to enter the White House, I'm not hopeful that this trend can be corrected.
1
how about banning all news articles from all sources? keep FB a social network not a news network? i notice that when i post something like the front page climate change article on FB almost nobody pays any attention but i see where someone posting something that appears to be straight out of the national enquirer? gets lots of attention. the alternative to me seems to be the continued dumbing down and distraction of the public.
2
Facebook wouldn't need to fact check if we had intelligent voters, which we do not, and putative news organizations didn't follow the money (i.e. Trump's stupidity) rather than critical reporting.
2
Haven't you heard? We live in a post-truth world. Fact-checking is completely irrelevant. Frankly, if you rely on social media to become informed on any topic, you may not be able to know a fact from a fabrication even when presented with any amount of evidence, as the presenter of facts will be assumed to be part of some sort of conspiracy.
3
I have looked for something worthwhile on Facebook for some time now and haven't found anything yet. It's difficult to imagine anybody being gullible enough to base their actions on something they read on Facebook.
2
The problem here is that anyone considers FB a 'news source' at all, much less the primary one. It's like a downstream sewer grate in a torrent, in which is caught anything that happens to be tossed in or is swept through. You might as well fish out discarded newspapers (and the occasional drowned raccoon); that's how curated it is.
Except ... there is a slant. For months now, I've been trying to get Donald Trump off my feed. Even now, no matter how often I click 'hide ad', I can't make his attempts to sell me baseball caps go away. him go away. Before the election he was pleading for campaign contributions (wait, didn't he say he'd pay for it all himself? If he's so rich, why's he panhandling me now?); now he wants to sell me a baseball cap ornament, put my name on a plaque, pay for his inaugural parade (see comment supra about campaign; to borrow a line, 'Sad!'). He's on my page like a zit that just won't go away. Yet the only posts I saw concerning Clinton (or Stein or Sanders)during the campaign were forwarded to me by others in my circle.
Apparently, from what I read elsewhere in the NYT, Trump paid to target users over age 27. Which includes me whether I like it or not.
So FB is not just an aggregator, a neutral platform. By selling FB to Trump, Zuckerberg took an active role in skewing the 'news'. He's now obligated to curate it, even if it cuts into his billions. He has more money than God (or Trump). It won't kill him to spend some of it addressing the problem.
Except ... there is a slant. For months now, I've been trying to get Donald Trump off my feed. Even now, no matter how often I click 'hide ad', I can't make his attempts to sell me baseball caps go away. him go away. Before the election he was pleading for campaign contributions (wait, didn't he say he'd pay for it all himself? If he's so rich, why's he panhandling me now?); now he wants to sell me a baseball cap ornament, put my name on a plaque, pay for his inaugural parade (see comment supra about campaign; to borrow a line, 'Sad!'). He's on my page like a zit that just won't go away. Yet the only posts I saw concerning Clinton (or Stein or Sanders)during the campaign were forwarded to me by others in my circle.
Apparently, from what I read elsewhere in the NYT, Trump paid to target users over age 27. Which includes me whether I like it or not.
So FB is not just an aggregator, a neutral platform. By selling FB to Trump, Zuckerberg took an active role in skewing the 'news'. He's now obligated to curate it, even if it cuts into his billions. He has more money than God (or Trump). It won't kill him to spend some of it addressing the problem.
5
You are talking about advertisements, not news. Of course, most ads are fake news, but it is important to be able to tell the difference.
With apologies to the makers of the bumper sticker with the same quote:
Critical thinking, the other national deficit.
Critical thinking, the other national deficit.
5
"What is 'Truth'?"....The Classic Question is chronic subject today, highlighted by the presence of a "President-Elect" who either Performed as a Sociopath/Psychopathic Liar in his total Campaign....or Indicated as Such. We are Given a President now who, though thoroughly "Unvetted",
Continues to bless us with his own Definition of the "Truth"....Anything Convenient to Donald Trump. A Question that Might have been Answered by Jesus....can Always be answered by President Trump.
Continues to bless us with his own Definition of the "Truth"....Anything Convenient to Donald Trump. A Question that Might have been Answered by Jesus....can Always be answered by President Trump.
This article essentially says that Facebook should do a "better job" of what it has been doing. Translation-do a better job of doing nothing.
2
Sorry, but there's nothing wrong with fact checking.
7
Removing blatantly false news is something FB should do, but "fact-checking" is something else entirely, like the example she gives about CNN's reporting on "reopening the investigation" of Clinton's emails. Was that article *wrong* or *false*, or just incorrect as to a certain point?
Seems odd people go to Facebook for serious news. By its very nature it's more a gossip column than a news source. Why are we not equally concerned with the accuracy of tabloid news we are all exposed to as we wait at the checkout counter. Common sense would suggest you diversify your source of news, if you have access to Facebook you have access to multiple online news sources. If I want to know what cousin Eddie is up to I'll log into Facebook, if I want serious news I'll log into credible news organizations. Even then, I'll take it in with a grain of salt.
28
But if you're following serious news sources on FB, what's the difference? Why go to more than one place if you don't have to? I can get NYT stories on FB, along with many other reputable sources, including NPR, and still subscribe. It's like saying you need two phones: one for personal and one for business. No you don't. You can simply have both streams of information come to one device.
Facebook is not a news site and never pretended to be one. It is a social media site. Anyone who believe that Joe from outer slobovia has the rear news is a fool, just as is anyone who relies on only one legitimate news source.
Sensible piece. The problem is that the progressive liberal Marxist democrats are Machiavellian and will do anything to stifle opposing views. Anything with which they don't agree will be tarnished as "fake."
Facebook should post... People should decide for themselves based upon the tests exposure brings.
Facebook should post... People should decide for themselves based upon the tests exposure brings.
1
Facebook determining the truth on their own is likely dangerous.
But the suggestion that you can "crowd source" the truth on a platform like Facebook is demonstrably false. That just gives you the kind of false information that is exactly what Facebook feeds up every day.
But the suggestion that you can "crowd source" the truth on a platform like Facebook is demonstrably false. That just gives you the kind of false information that is exactly what Facebook feeds up every day.
Ms please! In times of mass hysteria, albeit in modern times, am glad the people who are in charge of the current major information conduit are even thinking about it.
Not every media is NY TIMES. Am glad you got your opinion in.
Not every media is NY TIMES. Am glad you got your opinion in.
Really? Facebook is a news source?
3
sad, is it not?
Just like the fake news gushing through Facebook, this article is utter nonsense. It is not ok to have completely fabricated content passed off as real news. To sit back and do nothing makes you just as responsible as those creating the fake news.
1
Facebook this facebook that what about Fox Fake News?
2
People need to understand how Facebook really makes it's money. They data mine. They sell data about you for lots and lots of money. They don't really care about human "connection". They are a group of very talented technologists who collect information about their participants as "data" and then sell this information to companies and people who want to sell stuff. THEY are not JOURNALISTS. Pew Research collects data to better understand and further humanity. Facebook collects data to make money. Legal, yes. Ethical? That is really debatable. Unfortunately, their business is destroying our younger generations & many people's ability to think critically about almost anything. Think about it. Facebook is free. How do you think they are paying the high-level salaries of all their software technologists and the technological networks that allow Facebook to exist? Data mining.
4
Facebook shouldn't be a news outlet, period. If Mark Zuckerberg wants to get into the news business, fine, but it should be separate from his social media business.
2
Completely agree with this article. I mean, the nyt repeatedly stated that Hillary had over a 85 percent chance of winning..... I suppose that could be considered fake news too. Who is to decide?
1
Facebook became an extraordinary forum during this chaos. After a while I found myself looking at the information and saying ....hmmm that doesn't sound right--even if I wanted it to be true.....let me look that up. I started doing my own fact checking and settled on a few dependable sources. Now is that a good thing?--yes it is. I am sure the NYT got a bump in subs from similar people looking for some truth somewhere. FB can surely clean up its act a bit, but truth is --it functions more as a speakers corner. If we sit in that bubble long enough surrounded by those we know, saying things we want to hear, sooner or later ...one has to start thinking and figure out what is true and what is not. And god help us if we don't.
Like it or not, we are in a different era. Lies passing as truth is with us now. It will produce more chaos. Each of us has the responsibility for the truth--sorting it out, actively working on it. And the world of news has a new challenge...trying not to get duped by lies. It is no longer good enough to say its not true and produce the facts...the challenge is the manipulation. If Trump produces a whopper, the tendency is to rush in and eat it up and then reproduce it on the news, it steals the news cycle--he's done that through the campaign and he will continue to do that. It's natural for him, to divert away from the things he is getting away with. No publicity is bad publicity. So what is a newsroom to do? Keep on working on it NYT.
Like it or not, we are in a different era. Lies passing as truth is with us now. It will produce more chaos. Each of us has the responsibility for the truth--sorting it out, actively working on it. And the world of news has a new challenge...trying not to get duped by lies. It is no longer good enough to say its not true and produce the facts...the challenge is the manipulation. If Trump produces a whopper, the tendency is to rush in and eat it up and then reproduce it on the news, it steals the news cycle--he's done that through the campaign and he will continue to do that. It's natural for him, to divert away from the things he is getting away with. No publicity is bad publicity. So what is a newsroom to do? Keep on working on it NYT.
1
It's so very odd that we're now into a running discussion about the need for "fact-checkers." That used to be a primary role for the news media. Unfortunately, the "news media" these days typically does little more than serve as a conduit for talking heads, each representing a side, with "the news" now more often than not simply being an endless loop of "s/he said, s/he said." Given the demise of true news reporting and objective analysis, who's left to "fact check"?
If Facebook has become the channel for the spread of obviously bogus stories, why shouldn't Facebook step up and at least visibly flag the obvious untruths/lies? It's really no different than what a newspaper should be doing. And, if you don't like it when your newspaper flags the obvious untruths/lies, you can unsubscribe. Likewise, if you'd don't like it when Facebook does the same, you can delete your account.
If Facebook has become the channel for the spread of obviously bogus stories, why shouldn't Facebook step up and at least visibly flag the obvious untruths/lies? It's really no different than what a newspaper should be doing. And, if you don't like it when your newspaper flags the obvious untruths/lies, you can unsubscribe. Likewise, if you'd don't like it when Facebook does the same, you can delete your account.
3
Facebook has a civic responsibility to NOT PROPAGATE AND BROADCAST MATERIAL LIES that can cause irreversible damage to the social fabric.
If they identify commercial websites pumping false information for material gain, they should shut them down. This is not a free speech issue. There should be criminal penalties for posting demonstrably false information as fact if there is advertising revenue attached to the operation of a site. These sites are MASQUERADING AS LEGITIMATE NEWS SITES, NOT AS OPNION COLUMNS OR EDITORIALS, and do not deserve any of the protections we are constitutionally required to enforce regarding free speech.
Saying that Facebook has no civic responsibility to vet what they post as "news" on their platform is extremely socially irresponsible, politically blind, and really foolish. The extreme negative effects of this intentionally designed misinformation are too great, and too immediate, to tolerate without factchecking that news articles sent out from a clearinghouse website like Facebook are factually true.
Again: THIS IS NOT A FREE SPEECH ISSUE. Facebook WAS NEVER DESIGNED OR INTENDED TO BE A NEWS WEBSITE.It is not a newspaper with editorial oversight or journalistic ethical standards. That many Facebook readers seem foolish to mistake fiction for actual factual news is disturbing enough. We as a society should not tolerate website operators who intentionally try to confuse them with bad (untrue) information. The stakes are too high.
If they identify commercial websites pumping false information for material gain, they should shut them down. This is not a free speech issue. There should be criminal penalties for posting demonstrably false information as fact if there is advertising revenue attached to the operation of a site. These sites are MASQUERADING AS LEGITIMATE NEWS SITES, NOT AS OPNION COLUMNS OR EDITORIALS, and do not deserve any of the protections we are constitutionally required to enforce regarding free speech.
Saying that Facebook has no civic responsibility to vet what they post as "news" on their platform is extremely socially irresponsible, politically blind, and really foolish. The extreme negative effects of this intentionally designed misinformation are too great, and too immediate, to tolerate without factchecking that news articles sent out from a clearinghouse website like Facebook are factually true.
Again: THIS IS NOT A FREE SPEECH ISSUE. Facebook WAS NEVER DESIGNED OR INTENDED TO BE A NEWS WEBSITE.It is not a newspaper with editorial oversight or journalistic ethical standards. That many Facebook readers seem foolish to mistake fiction for actual factual news is disturbing enough. We as a society should not tolerate website operators who intentionally try to confuse them with bad (untrue) information. The stakes are too high.
1
The business model for news organizations is "under great stress as people lose trust" in real news? No, it has been dying because of the wonders of technology that have brought us fake news, email hacking, stolen personal IDs and shuttered newsrooms. Donald Trump sends his thanks.
2
I don't think they need to edit-but they could give user credibility ratings that appear on the posts. Maybe they can note "Facebook Verified" sites that they deem credible and objective.
I have noticed some fake looking news posted by "my friends" that I believe they have not really posted. Perhaps FB should not post any news under the guise of it being posted by a friend. Or are the fake news people able to do that? Some of those show when you open up facebook, and then disappear and are not on the friends timeline. Anyone else notice this?
I have noticed some fake looking news posted by "my friends" that I believe they have not really posted. Perhaps FB should not post any news under the guise of it being posted by a friend. Or are the fake news people able to do that? Some of those show when you open up facebook, and then disappear and are not on the friends timeline. Anyone else notice this?
Agreed. Why should we hold a social platform, that never purported to be anything but a community square, or in this case, a newstand, to a higher standard than those that call themselves "news"? Jealousy?
1
And here's another view from Bob Lefsetz on today's state of media :
http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/?utm_source=phplist5650&utm_medium=emai...
http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/?utm_source=phplist5650&utm_medium=emai...
"A million times a day" - you may want to fact check that...
1
How does this editorial not include at least an addendum at the end letting readers know that Jessica Lessin's husband's company was acquired by Facebook (how he made his money) and that he worked there until 2014. Lessin and her husband are also close friends of Zuckerberg because Zuckerberg and Sam Lessin were good friends at Harvard, and Jessica Lessin is a well known supporter of Peter Thiel in his fight with Gawker. Is none of this worth mentioning? Does none of it seem to compromise Ms. Lessins's journalistic integrity on this subject?
2
“Erroneous reporting by established organizations is a bigger threat than fabricated stories, and far more rampant….I simply don’t trust Facebook, or any one company, with the responsibility for determining what is true.”
Is this article motivated by a care for truth or competition? You know: “I’ll tell you the truth, don’t listen to those other guys.” Glenn Greenwald of The Intercept, privy to the vast majority of the Snowden materials, has shown many times that establishment media outlets, such as this one, make their first priority to cozy up to whatever establishment is in power, and support them overtly and covertly. If anyone doubts this let them read the transcript of the NY Times interview of Trump and then the analysis on The Intercept.
The problem is not erroneous reporting but deliberately misleading editing. The press was supposed to challenge the government not be its lapdog
Is this article motivated by a care for truth or competition? You know: “I’ll tell you the truth, don’t listen to those other guys.” Glenn Greenwald of The Intercept, privy to the vast majority of the Snowden materials, has shown many times that establishment media outlets, such as this one, make their first priority to cozy up to whatever establishment is in power, and support them overtly and covertly. If anyone doubts this let them read the transcript of the NY Times interview of Trump and then the analysis on The Intercept.
The problem is not erroneous reporting but deliberately misleading editing. The press was supposed to challenge the government not be its lapdog
2
The fact and opinion that we should not trust Face Book for news and information is well founded and a critical assessment of an enduring truth "don't believe what you hear and only half of what you see". The fact that The New York Times in it's news pages is often a slanted agenda filled biased collection of pre-tested distortions for a select group or purpose is much more troubling, and should be!
1
Facebook should get out of the news business altogether. It isn't part of their core business and given the myriad sources and diverse user base they will never get it right.
Save us all from a global source of potentially wrong, misleading and potentially damaging news content.
Save us all from a global source of potentially wrong, misleading and potentially damaging news content.
2
I disagree. I just "deactivated" my FB account as I don't want to participate in a platform that delivers libelous and slanderous fake news 24/7 to the willfully ignorant. Without FB, I never would have had to ponder if Hillary really was actively engaged in the murder of 40+ people or how she ran a pedophilia ring out of a pizzeria in DC with the assistance of John Podesta.
Seriously, when did our libel and slander laws become moot?
Seriously, when did our libel and slander laws become moot?
4
Pope Francis did not endorse Mr. Trump but Catholics came out strongly against fake Catholics that have been forced to tolerate the Democratic platform on abortion. The Planned Parenthood speaker at the Democratic Convention was over the top about her casual approach to abortion. Few news organizations are willing to tell the whole truth about such controversial subjects. The liberal news media did not want to bring the simmering frustration over abortion and sexual politics to light.
Yes, Pope Francis did not personally endorse Mr. Trump, but this year every Catholic knew which candidate to forgive and vote for. The news media could not cover the underlying true story because it went against the media’s progressive narrative and the polls. It is hard for traditional media to know when the pendulum is ready to swing back. Facebook couldn’t do any worse than the New York Times in uncovering the truth and may benefit from wider access to more real people.
Yes, Pope Francis did not personally endorse Mr. Trump, but this year every Catholic knew which candidate to forgive and vote for. The news media could not cover the underlying true story because it went against the media’s progressive narrative and the polls. It is hard for traditional media to know when the pendulum is ready to swing back. Facebook couldn’t do any worse than the New York Times in uncovering the truth and may benefit from wider access to more real people.
1
It is everyone's responsibility, when serving as a conduit for the transmission of any information, to filter lies, deceptions, fabrications, and delusions. If you are walking on the street and a man yells "Elvis was murdered by X", you don't just come home and repeat to your spouse "you know what honey, X murdered Elvis", you use your brain and know that's garbage. Everyone, and that includes newspapers, TV, web-based FB, should be responsible for picking some string of words and choosing to communicate it through their device. It is the act of communicating that gives credence to anything. Filtering some of the worse garbage does not mean that what is left over should not be taken as the "truth". Even scientific journals like Nature (which filter strongly via a strenuous peer-review process) can make mistake and publish something that is untrue. But at least they try. Everyone must do their best to stop the garbage fake news, lies, deceptions, fabrications, and delusions. If it everyone responsibility.
"The second reason I am fearful of Facebook as fact checker is what it will do to journalism."
Journalism is dead my friend.
More specifically, the notion that the half of the country that voted for Donald Trump can be swayed by "facts" reported by "journalists" is dead. There was plenty of fact checking available for those who are interested in facts.
Journalism is dead my friend.
More specifically, the notion that the half of the country that voted for Donald Trump can be swayed by "facts" reported by "journalists" is dead. There was plenty of fact checking available for those who are interested in facts.
Who do you trust "with the responsibility for determining what is true," Jessica? If the answer is "individual users of Facebook," we've already seen how well that works out. Saying that you don't trust editors employed by the company to do that because of the profit motive is a cop out. The real solution is that no one should trust the veracity of anything they see on Facebook unless it is linked to a reputable source. Where the company is at fault is in claiming that they are a source of news at all. They are an opinion sharing sight and, for anyone interested in objectivity, anything posted there should be considered suspect.
1
Relying on users to flag fake news will only encourage those who pedal fake news to flag real news. The only solution to this dilemma is for Facebook to higher human editors and do some simple fact checking. I don't think anybody envision the US populous getting most of their news from a social network but unfortunately this is reality. Therefore Facebook must change its role as a news organization as well as a social organization.
1
The main question is why people trust more to dubious sources than to established ones? Could it be because they don't believe that the established ones tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? In this case, the problem is not with Facebook, but with news organizations. They have to figure out how to earn the trust of the population.
I disagree. Americans are information sloths; they're likely to believe whatever incessant fake news appears from Fox news, the Koch brothers, and Donald Trump. It's a shame that Facebook and Twitter have become the home for the dumbing-down process, but this is the new reality. We either remove all "news" reports from social media or we catch them in their lies. What is so terrible about hiring editors and reporters? Truth may be subjective, but it needs to be respected.
1
The author's entire premise relies upon shifting the goal posts.
Facebook must not fact-check news stories, she claims, to eliminate false stories because some stories which are not false have headlines or premises which are open to debate, particularly about nuances of detail.
While the last is correct, it doesn't say anything at all about the actual fake news stories infecting Facebook and the rest of the journalistic and pseud-journalistic world.
Facebook must not fact-check news stories, she claims, to eliminate false stories because some stories which are not false have headlines or premises which are open to debate, particularly about nuances of detail.
While the last is correct, it doesn't say anything at all about the actual fake news stories infecting Facebook and the rest of the journalistic and pseud-journalistic world.
Come on, now. Proving that a story is true might be difficult for Facebook to do every time, but knowing when one is false is another matter entirely. "But did the F.B.I. reopen the Hillary Clinton email investigation? That’s a little tougher." Ms. Lessin then manages to answer this "tough" question in one sentence.
I agree with this op-ed writer. Consumer of information, beware. What happened to our intelligence? There are plenty of credible news sources out there. Do people reading tabloids believe what they read? Unfortunately, it's been proven that the president-elect is a serial liar: a fact that's been known for decades. Some people believe what they want to believe. Sometimes this is denial, sometimes it's pure selfishness. Others are more discerning and search out the truth.
When Facebook made itself a major news outlet, it made itself responsible for the damage done through irresponsible use of that power.
If Facebook doesn't want to lose the additional revenue it earns by holding users in place on its site, it should get out of this line of business.
If Facebook doesn't want to lose the additional revenue it earns by holding users in place on its site, it should get out of this line of business.
1
Fine. No fact check.
Instead, require a large font disclaimer that nothing is fact checked.
Advertisers have to do this in print journalism so nobody confuses their sales pitch with fact.
Instead, require a large font disclaimer that nothing is fact checked.
Advertisers have to do this in print journalism so nobody confuses their sales pitch with fact.
2
I have an FB account that I hardly every use so I don't know exactly how FB works. I am surprised to learn that people are getting their news from FB. How can that be, because people do not sign up with FB for news, that much I know. But in its zeal to lure more people to the site, and make more money, FB seems to be pushing content to members, enticing them to read this, see that, check out this or that, etc. Once FB engages in pushing content to members, they become responsible for that content in my opinion. In fact, they should become liable for that content.
1
Please remind me again. Why are stories accompanied by photos which feature the subject merely as a tiny head at the bottom of the frame, leaving 95% of the photo as empty background?
2
Facebook does nog need to be the institution that check veracity (I would not trust that either), but they need to create a mechanism that signals it.
1
Leave it to techies like Ms. Lessin to assert, against all evidence, that their way is always best: publish and circulate whatever excites the membership, and to hell with things like documentation, fact-checking or a concern for the truth. The great tragedy of the Internet is that it could have introduced a Golden Age for reliable information. Instead, it is relentlessly banal, empty of meaningful content, self-serving and unable to escape its childish roots. The origins of Facebook, after all, were a marketing ploy aimed at horny Harvard undergrads in search of sex. Twitter was a messaging system for adolescents. That they are now global giants in what passes for "contemporary media" says all you need to know about the decline of civilization.
9
Currently, the New York Times, like many other media companies, have transformed their reporting in response to Facebook algorithm to emphasize stories that will get clicks. Which is why Hillary e-mail articles were always above the fold, instead of policy articles. It would be nice if news organizations did not transform themselves in response to clickbate culture, where low information and high emotion are key. However, we are so far gone at this point, a Facebook algorithm that emphasizes truth in reporting would be better than the current one. While I appreciate the writers concern, she fails to acknowledged how much damage has already been done by Facebook to reporting and journalism.
2
I disagree. To a large extent, fake news determined the outcome of the election, as it was designed to create a high level of voter disgust that would result in tuning out and low voter turnout. This is what happened. The low turnout was in the cities, and that cost Hillary the election.
The fake news was an integral part of the cyber-war launched on the US by Russia in order to subvert our political infrastructure (that is how they regard a political system). This was our cyber Pearl Harbor, an unprovoked stealthy act of war. Some fact checking solution must become available, since Democracy cannot work if the public is unable to separate fact from fiction. This election technology empowered fiction, to the point it was able to overcome and subvert fact. This cannot be allowed to happen again.
The fake news was an integral part of the cyber-war launched on the US by Russia in order to subvert our political infrastructure (that is how they regard a political system). This was our cyber Pearl Harbor, an unprovoked stealthy act of war. Some fact checking solution must become available, since Democracy cannot work if the public is unable to separate fact from fiction. This election technology empowered fiction, to the point it was able to overcome and subvert fact. This cannot be allowed to happen again.
102
Arguably, the credible news media were as much or more to "blame" for outcome of the election by underreporting perspectives. The NYT, for example, preferred to publish election outcome probability statistics on the front web page every day, versus actual polling results.
The problem isn't fake news (better called propaganda, as others have pointed out), it's that people are not educated enough to recognize propaganda when they see it. Censorship is never the answer.
Much of what was reported in the "main stream" media was highly negative, and slanted against, Trump. It is reasonable to suppose that this also had an effect on the election outcome, possibly more than the bizarre rants on Facebook. Alternatively, it is quite possible that the overall effect was not very large and had little or no net effect. The risk of confirmation bias by those who worry about Facebook and Breitbart is very large.
"Erroneous reporting by established organizations is a bigger threat than fabricated stories, and far more rampant."
How true.
Social media is essential in holding corporate media's feet to the fire. CNN initially posted a banner that said "nothing of interest here" when the DNC leaks occurred.
However, because of the insistence of social media and revelations in "lesser" news outlets, eventually the mainstream media could not ignore some of the malfeasance revealed in multiple leaks: the pay to play list of government jobs awarded next to total contributions to the DNC, the DNC pushing the false narrative about Nevada to discredit Bernie, the town hall question (actually there were three) Donna Brazile fed to Hillary.
Then there are the stories that were not reported: the DNC plan to sell your data and the convoluted handling and editing of data collected by NGPVAN/the DNC and voter registration that suggests a way for compliant Secretaries of State to purge voter roles to create preferred voter demographics in a primary.
And essential data omitted, such as when CBS edited out Bill's saying Hillary's collapses occurred "frequently." http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/09/13/fncs_griffin_cbs_edite...
The only gatekeeper for news should be an informed electorate who has access to as many news sources as possible.
How true.
Social media is essential in holding corporate media's feet to the fire. CNN initially posted a banner that said "nothing of interest here" when the DNC leaks occurred.
However, because of the insistence of social media and revelations in "lesser" news outlets, eventually the mainstream media could not ignore some of the malfeasance revealed in multiple leaks: the pay to play list of government jobs awarded next to total contributions to the DNC, the DNC pushing the false narrative about Nevada to discredit Bernie, the town hall question (actually there were three) Donna Brazile fed to Hillary.
Then there are the stories that were not reported: the DNC plan to sell your data and the convoluted handling and editing of data collected by NGPVAN/the DNC and voter registration that suggests a way for compliant Secretaries of State to purge voter roles to create preferred voter demographics in a primary.
And essential data omitted, such as when CBS edited out Bill's saying Hillary's collapses occurred "frequently." http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/09/13/fncs_griffin_cbs_edite...
The only gatekeeper for news should be an informed electorate who has access to as many news sources as possible.
In what sense does an informed electorate exist in the United States?
1
this piece essentially argues the impossibility of the google search engine, but it does suggest a code of ethics for digital media.
"it would be unable to monitor the volume of information" is hardly credible when google crawls, finds, parses, indexes and reports in search results the content of millions of new web pages every day.
the "network connection" algorithms that google uses to rank the popularity and relevance of web pages in relation to search terms could be modified to report the sourcing and credible confirmation of news reports.
some combination of originating web source, pattern of dissemination, journalist stature and accuracy record, number of citations by credible vs. fake news sites (ranked by history of publishing accuracte or inaccurate information), and so on, would be sufficient.
all news content would be published with an insert text indicating the current credibility of the news item.
this is not a simple software challenge, but it is no harder than targeting ads to "anonymous" users based on the user's online content consumption as tracked by web beacons and cookies. if web sites cared about the truth as much as they do about profit, it would be a higher priority.
"private content in groups or messages" is gossip, as ms. lessin is aware.
news is the diet of the digital age. a mechanism and ethics to ensure that diet is healthful is entirely practicable and reasonable. only the profit motive will argue otherwise.
"it would be unable to monitor the volume of information" is hardly credible when google crawls, finds, parses, indexes and reports in search results the content of millions of new web pages every day.
the "network connection" algorithms that google uses to rank the popularity and relevance of web pages in relation to search terms could be modified to report the sourcing and credible confirmation of news reports.
some combination of originating web source, pattern of dissemination, journalist stature and accuracy record, number of citations by credible vs. fake news sites (ranked by history of publishing accuracte or inaccurate information), and so on, would be sufficient.
all news content would be published with an insert text indicating the current credibility of the news item.
this is not a simple software challenge, but it is no harder than targeting ads to "anonymous" users based on the user's online content consumption as tracked by web beacons and cookies. if web sites cared about the truth as much as they do about profit, it would be a higher priority.
"private content in groups or messages" is gossip, as ms. lessin is aware.
news is the diet of the digital age. a mechanism and ethics to ensure that diet is healthful is entirely practicable and reasonable. only the profit motive will argue otherwise.
1
One hundred percent correct. If a reader does not possess the native intelligence to discern the possible from the improbable, to check the large variety of news outlets - partisan or not - and the historical perspective to be able to understand and digest a particular "news" item, we can only lament the state of our public education system, which fails those most in need, sacrificed as they are on the alter of teacher union politics and greed, and their despicable graft-taking lackeys among the elected class.
The problem with fake news is the funding model where the number of clicks generats revenue. A part of the BBC program this morning chronicled the fake news creator's using Facebook to increase the viewership of their fake story. They could care less than the words were fake it was all about the money they could receive form the story. The country where this was happening was Montenegro. Thus the fake news syndrom is international and they made up to thousands of Euros per day. It was stated that the readers just wanted to read about Trump so they created stories out of thin air or copied others words a pasted those words into their posting. It generated revenue. It was all about the money, not truth.
2
I'm already pretty much done with Facebook - but not because of fake news. I'm tired of the supreme negativity on the site, from all political sides. When I was a frequent user, I would (almost physically) cringe whenever I started typing f-a-c-e.... on my query bar because I almost expected a figurative right cross to my face.
This is not to say that I close my eyes to pains and worries of the world - I mean I read the Times, Foreign Affairs, etc. But isn't Facebook "a place for friends?"
I know I'm in the minority, but I can't risk giving Facebook my emotional well being any longer. It's not fair to myself or to my family.
The near-bullying nature of Facebook is frustrating. If you choose not share or comment on someone's post on the latest injustice, are you condoning the injustice? Often you just don't the time or energy to take another thing on right now.
From a business viewpoint, I believe Facebook would lose lots of users if they became the adjudicators of what is right and what is wrong.
An alternate idea to hiring editors - who would never catch up - would be have a place on their site that lists timely articles that are being sited from people across their site on both sides of an issue. They already list popular topics by hashtag in the upper right side. This could be expanded.
This is not to say that I close my eyes to pains and worries of the world - I mean I read the Times, Foreign Affairs, etc. But isn't Facebook "a place for friends?"
I know I'm in the minority, but I can't risk giving Facebook my emotional well being any longer. It's not fair to myself or to my family.
The near-bullying nature of Facebook is frustrating. If you choose not share or comment on someone's post on the latest injustice, are you condoning the injustice? Often you just don't the time or energy to take another thing on right now.
From a business viewpoint, I believe Facebook would lose lots of users if they became the adjudicators of what is right and what is wrong.
An alternate idea to hiring editors - who would never catch up - would be have a place on their site that lists timely articles that are being sited from people across their site on both sides of an issue. They already list popular topics by hashtag in the upper right side. This could be expanded.
Nice sentiment but wouldn't be needed if most in the mainstream media did their job. Considering Trump & Company are allergic to facts and spout any unsubstantiated claptrap they imagine, it is more important now than ever to fact-check. But, breathlessly reporting on Trump's latest Twitter Tantrum is infinitely more important. For as long as the media allows Trump to dangle shiny objects in order to distract from his lies, his highly questionable business dealings, his conflicts of interest, his lack of providing tax returns, his cabinet picks, his climate change denial, his ignorance in how government and the world at large works, his racism, his sexism, his so-called charitable foundation, his mental instability, his lack of qualifications, Trump will continue doing so. Will the majority of the media finally do its job? Call me a cynic but, I have a better chance at the English Throne than the media has in restoring the Fourth Estate that it has so disgustingly buried.
1
It doesn't take a rocket scientist (note I didn't say brain surgeon) to look at an article, the way it is presented, the headlines to determine if it is, at least possibly, if not probably, fake. Misleading is also pretty easy to detect (and even the Times has misleading headlines). However, it seems most people are too lazy to do so or would simply prefer to believe what confirms their pre-conceived, already established ideas. "Busy" is an excuse - if they're looking at FB they are not too busy to question or do a quick fact-check. So, for all our sake, someone needs to put the facts in front of them at the very least and to stop creating algorithms that will only reinforce vs confront.
I wouldn't expect Facebook to hire experts, but I would want it to put warning labels on sites and open up the avenues to cross-polination of the news. This could be at least started by users, with additional icons that would, at least, flag the sites and memes as "fake," "questionable" "misleading" or "satire". That said, there would still need to be someone with half a brain checking. Truth doesn't have bias; it needs defending not arbiters.
It is equally important for Facebook to change its algorithms so that we are not segregated - seeing people and ads and articles that they think we want to see. Its initial mission was to bring people together, not separate them. This is easily accomplished and would not change their role.
I wouldn't expect Facebook to hire experts, but I would want it to put warning labels on sites and open up the avenues to cross-polination of the news. This could be at least started by users, with additional icons that would, at least, flag the sites and memes as "fake," "questionable" "misleading" or "satire". That said, there would still need to be someone with half a brain checking. Truth doesn't have bias; it needs defending not arbiters.
It is equally important for Facebook to change its algorithms so that we are not segregated - seeing people and ads and articles that they think we want to see. Its initial mission was to bring people together, not separate them. This is easily accomplished and would not change their role.
They don't have to fact check, but they bear some measure responsibility for enabling the spraying of so much misinformation and propaganda so widely and pervasively. Laissez-faire is unacceptable.
1
Considering the profits of media such as Facebook and the National Enquirer, they can most certainly afford to fact check to some simple level AND be held accountable. If not, just shut those highly profitable corporations down. Think about all the lawsuits brought against people speaking truth. Why can’t we moderate lies in a similar fashion? It’s unfortunate that we will have a liar acting as President soon. He’s protected. And he thrives on flagrant lies, innuendos and slurs similar to the National Enquirer and little ads in sidebars of websites such as Facebook. A mass of people believed one or more of his statements, thinking them truthful, when in fact, he “was just sayin’.” It’s time to appreciate that Zuckerberg has only profit in mind. Make him stand for truth even if he doesn’t want to do so in practice.
1
Sorry, this is a pretty thoughtless essay. We need more attention to determining which content on the web is more truthful, not less. Any effort in that regard, especially if it is transparent, is welcome and essential. Of course there is no final determination of what is true – it is always a discussion and a dialectic. Criticizing efforts to determine what is true on the basis that they can't be final is a resort to authoritarianism. I think conservatives are reveling in the fact that their supporters are more gullible and willing to except false "news", and don't want anyone to intervene. They would like us to think this position is a libertarian point of view – which reduces itself to the argument that truth and falsity are equal, and that whatever people buy, even if it's false, somehow becomes the "truth". To my mind, this is a cynical Point of view.
3
It's around 32 years late, but here we are at 1984's dystopian vision of "truth."
I don't use FB, but if you still have an account go ahead and post 2+2=5.
I don't use FB, but if you still have an account go ahead and post 2+2=5.
1
The vaunted NYT works an algorithm to, (annoyingly), "recommend" articles that I would find interesting. It's similar in Facebook, with their steering "like" content to participants. It's an enforced tribalism, where like minded groups are fed the same, "information," over and over, until it becomes dogma.
Guess what, once it's dogma, it doesn't matter if it's true or not. The lie is given that same weight as a fact, because we believe it. The tribe effect, makes people vote the same way as everyone else in the tribe. Groupthink, where non-critical thinkers place harmony over everything else, even blatant lies.
Trump got the tribe, "America," to believe that he alone can make us great again. Hillary was, "Stronger Together," attempting, (and failing), to mix divergent groups of Americans, who don't want to be mixed!
Guess what, once it's dogma, it doesn't matter if it's true or not. The lie is given that same weight as a fact, because we believe it. The tribe effect, makes people vote the same way as everyone else in the tribe. Groupthink, where non-critical thinkers place harmony over everything else, even blatant lies.
Trump got the tribe, "America," to believe that he alone can make us great again. Hillary was, "Stronger Together," attempting, (and failing), to mix divergent groups of Americans, who don't want to be mixed!
1
The International Standards Organization establishes standards for everything from steel strength to environmental management systems. Independent organizations like the Forest Stewardship Council audit and certify operations for sustainable forest management, allowing those products to bear a seal of approval. Academics rely on peer review.
It is possible to imagine a system of third-party audits and certification for news organizations based on their record of accuracy and their policies for sourcing, editing, fact-checking, and corrections. Personally I rely on trusted old media (e.g. NY Times, The Atlantic, etc.) and check with Snopes if something from other sources smells fishy. Something like an ISO standard could give others a similar level of confidence in their information sources.
It is possible to imagine a system of third-party audits and certification for news organizations based on their record of accuracy and their policies for sourcing, editing, fact-checking, and corrections. Personally I rely on trusted old media (e.g. NY Times, The Atlantic, etc.) and check with Snopes if something from other sources smells fishy. Something like an ISO standard could give others a similar level of confidence in their information sources.
2
Why shouldn't news sources be ranked with a FICA like score as we are for our credit worthiness? Where a tangible cost exists for getting in wrong, and where consistency for getting it right is rewarded. Be it peer reviewed, or weighted with public input, something that just helped people determine the risk of how much weight the source of such information carried as they consumed it. Surely this kind of solution far outweighs allowing others to become our moral censors. I would far rather be armed with a widget built into my browser or app which allowed me to personally filter news sources by their worthiness, then being blinded to what I should or shouldn't see by any third party. The solution shouldn't shroud us in darkness, but rather enlighten us to better see and determine the truth for ourselves.
2
Most of this discussion seems to assume that Facebook will assign a binary value, that is, strictly True versus strictly False. That has been their approach so far but it is not a very good one. It is not that hard to construct an algorithm for credibility that reports, say, a value from 0 to 100, or a thermometer analogy or what-have-you. More True is a higher volume of reinforcement on professionally edited sites, e.g. Bloomberg, or for that matter Fox News, while Less True is dissent by such sources. (This over-simplifies what is possible but gives the idea.) Such numbers would give a pretty good foretaste of what would turn up on further search, e.g. by those who insist that they prefer to make up their own minds. All are still free to look further but this first pass would save time and help rapidly screen out more egregious violations of common standards of 'fact'. The burden of further proof passes to those who would pass on items that the algorithm flags as more questionable, that is, flags as being more widely questioned or less widely endorsed.
There is no single or absolute standard of truth. However, averages over reputable, professional sources are about as good as it gets and are certainly worth knowing about. And if Facebook did endorse some Credibility Rating, nothing would stop competing organizations from, well, introducing competitors.
There is no single or absolute standard of truth. However, averages over reputable, professional sources are about as good as it gets and are certainly worth knowing about. And if Facebook did endorse some Credibility Rating, nothing would stop competing organizations from, well, introducing competitors.
in my opinion social networks , especially common ones as FB are more dangerous then drugs. It add almost nothing to our quality of life. From the other point damage to civilization is tremendous. It appeals to most awful sides of our personalities, to envy, arrogance, megalomania. It eats a lot of our time and energy. And it buries crumbs of valuable knowledge in sea of useless and even fake information. The world would be definitely better without FB and Instagram.
1
A bit of a false dilemma here in how the author frames this.
No, Facebook should not be in the position of awarding "truth" labels to content. But there's a massive gap between that and determining what content is demonstrably, objectively false (as she briefly allows is both possible and would not require major changes by FB).
Certainly, stories about whether the FBI did in fact re-open the investigation into Clinton's e-mails can be viewed as disputably true or false by reasonable people. But the stories about the Pope endorsing Trump? Demonstrably, clearly, prima facie false - an easy pick.
The question isn't whether Facebook should be in charge of determining whether ALL content posted is true, but whether they can and should do more to winnow out the most egregious offenders. I think there, the answer is a clear yes.
No, Facebook should not be in the position of awarding "truth" labels to content. But there's a massive gap between that and determining what content is demonstrably, objectively false (as she briefly allows is both possible and would not require major changes by FB).
Certainly, stories about whether the FBI did in fact re-open the investigation into Clinton's e-mails can be viewed as disputably true or false by reasonable people. But the stories about the Pope endorsing Trump? Demonstrably, clearly, prima facie false - an easy pick.
The question isn't whether Facebook should be in charge of determining whether ALL content posted is true, but whether they can and should do more to winnow out the most egregious offenders. I think there, the answer is a clear yes.
2
At 74 years old, I recall there always has been a need for individuals to determine for themselves the truth of information. How hard is it to hold open the possibility of falsehood and truth at the same time and then act with restraint accordingly? "Consider the source" is a key life lesson. We now know that even to witness an event personally is not without the opportunity for bias and inaccuracy. We never have been able nor are we now able nor will we ever be able to trust any institution completely. We are responsible for how we act on what we receive as information.
37
You are a few years older than me, so I understand your point. The problem is that people below a certain age or generation do not understand the concept of "consider the source." They are confounded by the concept that information delivered to them may be unreliable, or even intentionally false. The economic pressures of modern news and the demand for instant information has pushed old reliables that are still standing, like the NY Times, LA Times, Boston Globe, Washington Post etc away from being able to expend the resources and time to do it right. So they too often make mistakes or operate with barely more information than the unreliable sources. This is the age where Twitter can fuel revolutions, even though it is terribly easy to spread false information.
Periodicals such as the National Enquirer have not done serious harm to society. It is a niche publication and not read by the majority of people. The results of the election, heavily influenced by false news on Facebook, may cause harm and it may cause serious harm in the future. If even one person dies as a result of overturning the Affordable Care Act, for example, is that not harm? Preposterous slander that influences a significant portion of society should be considered as part of the discussion. Everything can't be a lawsuit to protect reputation. Facebook, and other similar forms of social media, are far from innocent. We await their solution to this problem.
45
And fake news is the equivalent of the Enquirer on the internet. Unfortunately most know the Enquirer is false. Not so with deceptive untruthful information parading as news on the Internet.
2
Perhaps there should be law or regulation governing false news of consequential effect. Like the limitations on free expression governing falsely "calling out 'fire' in a crowded theater".
1
How about putting the onus on the content providers?
If content providers can be verified as credible news sources that meet certain threshold criteria, Facebook can designate them as a Verified News Source. Others can be tagged Unverified.
The marketplace of ideas needs some reliable testing and labeling.
If content providers can be verified as credible news sources that meet certain threshold criteria, Facebook can designate them as a Verified News Source. Others can be tagged Unverified.
The marketplace of ideas needs some reliable testing and labeling.
5
The “news” posted on Facebook is becoming typical of “news” posted across the World Wide Web. E-news has completely changed the business of news because each individual piece of news is up for sale.
When you buy print news, you purchase the whole paper. Maybe you’re only interested in the sports page or the cartoons, but you also get exposed to other news that an editorial staff believes is important for an informed citizenry.
But, when news is sold by the article, there is pressure to print only what sells. Sensational articles get the most clicks. Fake news is easier to make sensational, so the profit motive encourages fakery.
If this trend continues, even traditional news outlets like the New York Times will be forced to become tabloids. There will be no other news beyond sensationalism and outright lies because the only barometer will be—will this sell?
How is news essential to a healthy democracy going to get distributed if all news is sold piecemeal? And editors have a financial incentive to publish only what gets clicks? And readers have no way to know what they are missing because they only read what everybody else clicks?
Journalists, please hold a conference to discuss this issue. I have no problem with the existence of tabloid news when there are also serious news outlets. But I’m afraid that I will soon see only one kind of news forum: the tabloid. And I will have no way to know what is happening in my city, my state, my nation, and across the world.
When you buy print news, you purchase the whole paper. Maybe you’re only interested in the sports page or the cartoons, but you also get exposed to other news that an editorial staff believes is important for an informed citizenry.
But, when news is sold by the article, there is pressure to print only what sells. Sensational articles get the most clicks. Fake news is easier to make sensational, so the profit motive encourages fakery.
If this trend continues, even traditional news outlets like the New York Times will be forced to become tabloids. There will be no other news beyond sensationalism and outright lies because the only barometer will be—will this sell?
How is news essential to a healthy democracy going to get distributed if all news is sold piecemeal? And editors have a financial incentive to publish only what gets clicks? And readers have no way to know what they are missing because they only read what everybody else clicks?
Journalists, please hold a conference to discuss this issue. I have no problem with the existence of tabloid news when there are also serious news outlets. But I’m afraid that I will soon see only one kind of news forum: the tabloid. And I will have no way to know what is happening in my city, my state, my nation, and across the world.
Well, what you are saying is that we can't protect the dumb from the consequences of their dumbness. As a child I was warned, "Don't believe everything you read." Today's social media dweller is far less equipped. "I saw is on Facebook," is their mantra.
Facebook is suitably dumbed down to support the vast market that it has. You are right in that additional editing is not going to solve the problem of fake news. The only solution is to have an educated Facebook reader who is able to respond to a fake news article with, "Oh, I saw that on Facebook. It's nonsense."
Or the ultimate solution, have the Facebook patron declare that he or she *never* gets his or her news from Facebook. It's not a vetted vehicle for publishing the news. So Facebook could simply eliminate news coverage. There are reliable sources of news to which to go.
The fact that "people lose trust in news organizations" is not a positive sign. One knows the answer to the question, "Do people say they distrust news organization because they prefer the simplistic lies of fake news?"
We can't poll these people to get the answers with a politically-correct driven fear of "elitism". We should do the best that we know how. Social media, on the other hand, is there to cater to the lowest common denominator among us. It's their business model. The news does not belong there.
Facebook is suitably dumbed down to support the vast market that it has. You are right in that additional editing is not going to solve the problem of fake news. The only solution is to have an educated Facebook reader who is able to respond to a fake news article with, "Oh, I saw that on Facebook. It's nonsense."
Or the ultimate solution, have the Facebook patron declare that he or she *never* gets his or her news from Facebook. It's not a vetted vehicle for publishing the news. So Facebook could simply eliminate news coverage. There are reliable sources of news to which to go.
The fact that "people lose trust in news organizations" is not a positive sign. One knows the answer to the question, "Do people say they distrust news organization because they prefer the simplistic lies of fake news?"
We can't poll these people to get the answers with a politically-correct driven fear of "elitism". We should do the best that we know how. Social media, on the other hand, is there to cater to the lowest common denominator among us. It's their business model. The news does not belong there.
4
Strong argument, and I probably agree.
After all, we don’t require the National Enquirer to fact-check claims that Brad Pitt actually is a trans man, and that BOTH Angelina and Jennifer preferred him that way – despite the fact that the paper is right there in front of us as we’re on the supermarket conveyor line patently waiting to pay for our cow tongue and Pope Francis Pez Dispenser.
It does assume, however, that people have the basic sense to come in out of the rain, and that may not be a safe assumption – particularly with the young. And automated routines to determine the likelihood of “false news” probably have a FAR higher error potential than editors; and could be slanted to enforce an ideological bias, as well.
After all, we don’t require the National Enquirer to fact-check claims that Brad Pitt actually is a trans man, and that BOTH Angelina and Jennifer preferred him that way – despite the fact that the paper is right there in front of us as we’re on the supermarket conveyor line patently waiting to pay for our cow tongue and Pope Francis Pez Dispenser.
It does assume, however, that people have the basic sense to come in out of the rain, and that may not be a safe assumption – particularly with the young. And automated routines to determine the likelihood of “false news” probably have a FAR higher error potential than editors; and could be slanted to enforce an ideological bias, as well.
13
Not sure there is ideological bias as you assert, by which I am sure you mean liberal. Not a user myself, but an analysis of the fake content on Facebook would be an interesting academic study-- and would perhaps reveal a right wing bias, if anything. It is 100% true that in this election, the exaggerations about HRC and the lighter pass given to Trump had an influence on the election-- conversation, debate, polls, turn-out, outcome, concerns about legitimacy. But these issues are probably beyond the scope of a FB filter to resolve.
1
The real issue is that the left-wing media bias will then dictate that any conservative thought/idea will be eliminated and left /liberal ideas will dominate even more then they do now.
These ideas only become mainstream when HRC was hurt.
Any unfair event involving the republicans never gets this type of response.
These ideas only become mainstream when HRC was hurt.
Any unfair event involving the republicans never gets this type of response.
1
My hat is off to you, sir, with the Pope Francis Pez dispenser! Especially since it appears to be a fake product... Brilliant.
1
Fakery is apparently the most valuable skill on this doomed planet.
28
"Sincerity is the most important thing, once you learn to fake that you have it made." I believe Jack Benny is the author.
2
Indeed, it is dangerous to allow Facebook to sit as editor over its users posts. It is better thst FB creates a button to label a post as fake that users can click to flag the post. And the algorithm can use the flags after a particular threshold to stop the post from further diffusion in the FB universe. Let the crowd be the editor, as it is with Wikipedia.
2
"I simply don’t trust Facebook, or any one company, with the responsibility for determining what is true."
While I broadly agree with the author, the problem with this is that Facebook already *does* have responsibility for determining what is true. It may not yet take a direct editorial stance, but to millions of its users, the content posted on Facebook is the single source of their truth. It already is threatening journalism. Where could Facebook go from the de facto state of being a news outlet other than to try to control some of the wilder lies it transmits? The only other alternative to save journalism and truth would be for it to outright ban news -- a judgment on what constitutes news or "attempts at fact-sharing" then being obviously fraught with peril.
Relying on users to flag fake news will result only in populist mud-slinging, and the "truth" will be determined only by the side with the most clicks, not the most information. Besides that, the masses have already proven remarkably ineffective at distinguishing ads or fake news from veritable information. I'd rather rely on a handful of experts to try to push back the tide.
While I broadly agree with the author, the problem with this is that Facebook already *does* have responsibility for determining what is true. It may not yet take a direct editorial stance, but to millions of its users, the content posted on Facebook is the single source of their truth. It already is threatening journalism. Where could Facebook go from the de facto state of being a news outlet other than to try to control some of the wilder lies it transmits? The only other alternative to save journalism and truth would be for it to outright ban news -- a judgment on what constitutes news or "attempts at fact-sharing" then being obviously fraught with peril.
Relying on users to flag fake news will result only in populist mud-slinging, and the "truth" will be determined only by the side with the most clicks, not the most information. Besides that, the masses have already proven remarkably ineffective at distinguishing ads or fake news from veritable information. I'd rather rely on a handful of experts to try to push back the tide.
4
I just keep remembering how, last May, Facebook was in hot water for having human "curators" and the op-ed pages were full of articles on the wrongness of them policing the "news". Americans are an uninformed and fickle people. We always have been. That's why we're such suckers we'll eventually give our country away to a carnival barker con-man and dump our governance through a democratic republic for single-party rule.
Oh. Wait. We just did that. Facebook is the last thing I worry about.
Oh. Wait. We just did that. Facebook is the last thing I worry about.
16
But if Facebook was complicit in this result, and contributed to it, is it not fair to assert that is should not be last on your list of your worries?
1
"Facebook shouldn't fact-check" -- maybe. But the mere existence of a social network as vast as Facebook, let alone a news service, has already dealt an irreparable damage to journalism. The quality of reporting has dropped substantially. With every click equaling a few cents, even respected outlets have started click-baiting. Many people have stopped reading news from papers almost entirely, and they rely mostly on social media. At this point, implementing fact-checking services despite its possible dangers would be "damage control."
It is quite bizarre that we are worried about a few editors abusing their powers and manipulating the public opinion while without fact-checking fake news can alter the public's mind so much that it affects the outcome of a presidential election.
It is quite bizarre that we are worried about a few editors abusing their powers and manipulating the public opinion while without fact-checking fake news can alter the public's mind so much that it affects the outcome of a presidential election.
17
Facebook has morphed into a (if not the) news source for millions of people. I am not among them. This un-intended result of Facebook's success places them in the perhaps uncomfortable position of having to act like the news source they have become. This includes a certain level of fact checking.
In monetizing their use-base, Facebook has a responsibility to that base, and that should include that it's "news feeds" are at least a bit clean of miss-information. They aren't, after all, Breitbart.
In monetizing their use-base, Facebook has a responsibility to that base, and that should include that it's "news feeds" are at least a bit clean of miss-information. They aren't, after all, Breitbart.
6
Alas, yet Facebook is Breitbart to millennials and the Left.
Facebook is the National Enquirer of the internet. Anyone who relies on either as the source of their news deserves exactly what they get. Neither should be forced to 'fact check', that is the responsibility of the reader to determine if an article is, first, reasonable, and second, verifiable.
7
The problem is that it's not a closed system. We are all affected by the people that believe this fake news, as the most recent election proves.
2
The problem is, what if "fake news" affects the votes of enough people that an idiot is elected? Do we ALL deserve that?
1
Unfortunately, "fact" and "fiction" are not synonyms. The public looks to the "media" with an expectation of due diligence. Yes, it's a slippery slope. Yes, there are news charlatans, outright liars, spin doctors and all that. But to therefore argue that there should be no standards at all is an abdication of responsibility to our society and threatens democracy itself. You may as well never wear your seatbelt because there's no guarantee it will save your life.
2
The system of "Likes" in Facebook and how they cross link until scads of material of similar content bombards the user is out of control. Likewise on the internet in general, when one clicks on an ad or a product the back flow of similarly aligned ads is like a tsunami. For instance, I bought a water heater online through Sears and for months afterwards was inundated on most of the internet pages I browsed with pop up ads of - you guessed it - Sears Water Heaters. Even though I had already bought one.
So... when people browsing political stories and outright clickbait lies do click on them, guess what? They are overwhelmingly inundated with similar material. Hillary Clinton is not a crook... but when a reader, after having been lured once into clicking on that little gem, is then led on and on in a downward spiral of myths and lies on what they thought was a trustworthy website, it's no wonder they may lean toward voting alternatively.
That's my take on what is happening. How to fix it?
So... when people browsing political stories and outright clickbait lies do click on them, guess what? They are overwhelmingly inundated with similar material. Hillary Clinton is not a crook... but when a reader, after having been lured once into clicking on that little gem, is then led on and on in a downward spiral of myths and lies on what they thought was a trustworthy website, it's no wonder they may lean toward voting alternatively.
That's my take on what is happening. How to fix it?
11
I guess Richard M. Nixon was not a crook either and Donald J. Trump is a honest statesman.
Of course Facebook should do absolutely no fact-checking. If people want to lie on Facebook, they have every right to do so. It's nobody's business to censor lies. Facebook does not produce content, it simply allows its users to distribute their content. It's a tool, and like a hammer or a chainsaw, it can be used in good and bad ways. The tool does not get to decide what its user does with it.
5
Facebook evolved to this roll because standard media distribution either became overly expensive with pay-walls or because of political bias
I am not judging *any* Editor's choice, since they are the captain of the ship; however, I will state that any Editor that attempts to judge others opens themselves to be judged.
I am a firm believer in Karma and God's design eventually allows folks to get gut/fact checked sometime later in life in ways undesirable. If Facebook is being less then factual/honest, it will lead to them collapsing due to some issue, since I have seen tech companies come and go over the years.
As for the NY Times and others (other paper's have been as bad), article selection, headline bias, and editorial op-ed creep into harder sections. The last 12 months pre-election I watched nearly all the media outlets turned into Fox News, and Fox News fell into what was held by myself as the NY Times counter point to Fox News of the past, leaving zero traditional outlets with proper fact checking and journalism to use.
What was horrible was having to go through the dregs of blogs and media and having to do the job of a fact checker to find information out. I really don't want to have to do that again.
Now to support the claim there should be fact checking, anything that could fall into "spam" which can be controlled and contained. Should be, and I have run out of characters to continue my defense of it :-)
I am not judging *any* Editor's choice, since they are the captain of the ship; however, I will state that any Editor that attempts to judge others opens themselves to be judged.
I am a firm believer in Karma and God's design eventually allows folks to get gut/fact checked sometime later in life in ways undesirable. If Facebook is being less then factual/honest, it will lead to them collapsing due to some issue, since I have seen tech companies come and go over the years.
As for the NY Times and others (other paper's have been as bad), article selection, headline bias, and editorial op-ed creep into harder sections. The last 12 months pre-election I watched nearly all the media outlets turned into Fox News, and Fox News fell into what was held by myself as the NY Times counter point to Fox News of the past, leaving zero traditional outlets with proper fact checking and journalism to use.
What was horrible was having to go through the dregs of blogs and media and having to do the job of a fact checker to find information out. I really don't want to have to do that again.
Now to support the claim there should be fact checking, anything that could fall into "spam" which can be controlled and contained. Should be, and I have run out of characters to continue my defense of it :-)
4
is Jessica Lessin abdicating the responsibility a news source has to fact checking the stories she publishes on her pay-to-read website? If so, she's part of the the problem. News publishers used to require verification. Publishing news stories that present unsubstantiated information as if it were equal to verified facts undermines public debate and aids and abets corruption.
22
Hi Jeff: As I understand it, she's not recommending that news sources not do fact checking, she's saying that Facebook shouldn't do it. Facebook being a medium for news sources, not a news source itself. And being a monstrous, unreliable corporation. In other words, let the journalists of various stripes carry on their arguments over what really happened, but let Facebook stay neutral and just present all the material - sort of like the post office, which doesn't play favorites among the magazines it delivers. We hope.
"The minute Facebook accepts responsibility for ferreting out misinformation, users will start believing that it is fact-checking everything on the site." This is already the problem. Ms. Lessin's article uses some of the same black/white reasoning she claims news organizations try to avoid.
15
Another seemingly informed intelligent person turns non compos mentis.
The accuracy of information should be the primary concern of all of us. If you, like this dangerous illogical lost soul think the propagation of lies designed to manipulate are something not meriting our attention you are also of such skewed perception that you are a social and political hazard.
Where do these people come from? Couldn't the editor find something besides click bait to fill this space. Must be difficult finding a for all practical purposes wackjob every day. And I'm pretty sure finding responsible conservative commentators would be more difficult but the NYTs owes it to its readers to come up with guest who do not insult us. This is one more essay in a long list of the flat out moronic; "Don't plant more trees" to nonsense like this where we are being told to not push back when lies are being deliberately put in our way. The author should be ashamed of herself, I am.
The accuracy of information should be the primary concern of all of us. If you, like this dangerous illogical lost soul think the propagation of lies designed to manipulate are something not meriting our attention you are also of such skewed perception that you are a social and political hazard.
Where do these people come from? Couldn't the editor find something besides click bait to fill this space. Must be difficult finding a for all practical purposes wackjob every day. And I'm pretty sure finding responsible conservative commentators would be more difficult but the NYTs owes it to its readers to come up with guest who do not insult us. This is one more essay in a long list of the flat out moronic; "Don't plant more trees" to nonsense like this where we are being told to not push back when lies are being deliberately put in our way. The author should be ashamed of herself, I am.
39
Sounds as though facebook kool aid is affecting reason
If you expect a top-down authority to be capable of sanitizing and objectively bestowing Truth then you are deluded. As a company Facebook has every right to do this, just like the sovereign nation of the People's Republic of China has every legal right to impose their authoritarian scheme on their citizens. As an American with my own mind, I have every right to have nothing to do with such infantilizing authoritarianism in the name of the true Truth, be it from a publicly traded company or a foreign government. All I care about is that it stays that way.
2
There is a list circulating by self-hating progressives (or false-flagging breitbarters) flagging several legit sites as fake (as well as several fake sites). I don't think I'm ready to turn over my evaluation of what is fake to anyone else just yet.
2
I think you mean Breitbart, but in any case Breitbart is a fake news site. is not a real new source, no more so than FAUX News. Both are opinion base entertainment. Posting Braitbart as a real news media is no different than someone posting from DailyKOS or blogs from TPM. The one thing I will give bloggers on TPM is they do update their blogs to reflect new information, something I don't see on Breitbart.
1
Fact checking is the way small minds deal with ideas they don't like. It requires less work than actually constructing a logical argument and presume erroneously that facts are always true. Let Facebook be Facebook and let the responsibility for knowing what's true or fake rest with the reader.
19
A fact is, by definition, a statement of truth.
1
What? What does this mean, if anything?
2
Argument and fact are not synonymous. One can ARGUE that the laws of physics are wrong, but without actual FACTS to back up the argument, it would be ill advised to venture out of your house and act as though the laws of physics didn't exist.
It actually requires MORE work to research a topic, discuss the issue with those who actually have expertise in the field and then ARGUE your point. The "small mind" takes the easy route by skipping those steps and simply stating their "opinion" as fact.
It actually requires MORE work to research a topic, discuss the issue with those who actually have expertise in the field and then ARGUE your point. The "small mind" takes the easy route by skipping those steps and simply stating their "opinion" as fact.
1
I think this would be more innocuous if the spread of false information on Facebook were more equitably distributed, but it's not. As we've seen in recent articles from people that are paid to generate fake stories, there is more of a demand for fake news from conservatives than there is from liberals. On top of that, we saw a coordinated effort from a foreign government to spread disinformation through social networks - are just to ignore that? We saw the problem get worse when FB disbanded their editorial department last spring. Theoretical discussions of this disregard the reality of the situation. I think that if FB is being treated as a de facto source of news, then it needs to be moderated as such.
119
I agree. And the politically incorrect truth is this: people to the right of mainstream thought seem to be more susceptible to fake news. They lack critical thinking skills, they are easily led (by their pastors in their evangi churches for instance), they subscribe to group think, they are less likely to expose themselves to alternative thought. This tendency affected the election of a demagogue at worst, a mere Charlton in the better case scenario.
if you thought of news as advertising, then you would not for a moment argue that FB could not know what it was showing to whom, and why.
"fact checking" is an entirely different process than "sourcing". fact checking asks, "are the assertions made substantially factual and accurate?" sourcing asks: "where did this information come from?" FB knows exactly where every ad and news article it distributes comes from.
this does not require "editorial" or "moderation". it simply requires crawling the web. there is no technical obstacle whatsoever to a web site such as google identifying the earliest online source of a news article and its subsequent citation history. the infrastructure of information flows is diagnostic and hierarchical: some content starts at or rises quickly it to the authoritative top; some swills forever in the credulity sewers. all that can be identified in the same way that search results are ranked by relevance and filtered for pornography or criminal content. no moderation required.
relying on users to "verify" the accuracy of a news article is completely uninformed and nutty. stop by amazon.com and notice how alt-right "reviewers" have hijacked the ratings of megyn kelly's new book if you are unsure how user vetting might work. and how are these users supposed to know where the information came from?
"fact checking" is an entirely different process than "sourcing". fact checking asks, "are the assertions made substantially factual and accurate?" sourcing asks: "where did this information come from?" FB knows exactly where every ad and news article it distributes comes from.
this does not require "editorial" or "moderation". it simply requires crawling the web. there is no technical obstacle whatsoever to a web site such as google identifying the earliest online source of a news article and its subsequent citation history. the infrastructure of information flows is diagnostic and hierarchical: some content starts at or rises quickly it to the authoritative top; some swills forever in the credulity sewers. all that can be identified in the same way that search results are ranked by relevance and filtered for pornography or criminal content. no moderation required.
relying on users to "verify" the accuracy of a news article is completely uninformed and nutty. stop by amazon.com and notice how alt-right "reviewers" have hijacked the ratings of megyn kelly's new book if you are unsure how user vetting might work. and how are these users supposed to know where the information came from?
Nonsense! I get fake news equally from the far left and the far right. Cannot believe Americans are calling for censorship. Seems the far left needs to go back to school and study history, as well as critical thinking, root cause, and data analysis.
When we talk about suppressing fake news, we're actually talking about censorship. It's a slippery slope, inevitably. Not only are facts at times difficult to determine, they are also selectively used, selectively ignored, contextualized in certain ways, etc.-- that is, imbued with someone's outlook. This is true at the NYT as well as at some clickbait site. If FB or any news disseminator assumes the power to ban certain sources for their inaccuracy, the next step down the slippery slope is banning them for their slant or their advocacy. It's censorship, and it's incompatible with democracy. What it's compatible with is repression.
2
It's very simple:
Facebook makes money by delivering news. The quality of the news we read is critical to the functioning of our democracy. Therefore, Facebook must take responsibility for the quality of the news it delivers; anything less would be to knowingly undermine democracy.
Don't fall for the rhetorical tricks of this article. Of course fact checking is hard, that does not make it any less necessary. Naming and critiquing a single, narrowly defined approach does not mean that all other approaches will fail. Facebook has total control over its algorithm, can leverage the behavior of its users, and has vast resources at its disposal. If Mark Zuckerberg so desires, this problem can be addressed.
I reject the notion that because truth is difficult to discern we shouldn't strive for it. Woe unto us all if we let clicks become the sole arbiter of our public discourse.
Facebook makes money by delivering news. The quality of the news we read is critical to the functioning of our democracy. Therefore, Facebook must take responsibility for the quality of the news it delivers; anything less would be to knowingly undermine democracy.
Don't fall for the rhetorical tricks of this article. Of course fact checking is hard, that does not make it any less necessary. Naming and critiquing a single, narrowly defined approach does not mean that all other approaches will fail. Facebook has total control over its algorithm, can leverage the behavior of its users, and has vast resources at its disposal. If Mark Zuckerberg so desires, this problem can be addressed.
I reject the notion that because truth is difficult to discern we shouldn't strive for it. Woe unto us all if we let clicks become the sole arbiter of our public discourse.
4
Any organization that disseminates the quantity of news stories that FaceBook does should be taking the time and making the effort to fact check stories. That there were more false stories than real ones during the election posted on FB is testimony to an awareness by some that there is a complete lack of scrutiny of postings at FB other than for those with sexual content. If those can be rejected, then why not outright lies masquerading as truth?
1
Although Ms. Lessin makes some valid points in this op-ed, she seems oblivious to the impact that fake news created by sources like those teenagers in Macedonia created to get rich quick has had.
She states that "Publications have been suckered into tweaking their content and their business models to try to live off the traffic Facebook sends them." Is this not then the "slippery slope" that "real journalism" has begun to slide down? And an "occasional error" in mainstream journalism is forced to admit bespeaks volumes about journalism's greedy attempts to please the public's insatiable desire for celebrity-style politics.
If Facebook did no fact-checking in the past, now is an excellent time to start. I agree heartily with the comments made by rab in that it is entirely possible to label postings with a rating scale determined by a team of Facebook editors using valid algorithms (a rating is given for both the suspected factuality of a report and for the assessed quality of the source of the information). The reader could decide on the truthfulness of the reports by seeking additional information.
I sincerely doubt that FB users who freely post things about their personal lives would be horrified by this kind of rating scale - in fact, I doubt whether millions of celebrations of a graduations or birthdays would even be flagged for review. We need to hold ALL sources of news, FB & mainstream media, accountable for the proliferation of lies that abound on the Internet.
She states that "Publications have been suckered into tweaking their content and their business models to try to live off the traffic Facebook sends them." Is this not then the "slippery slope" that "real journalism" has begun to slide down? And an "occasional error" in mainstream journalism is forced to admit bespeaks volumes about journalism's greedy attempts to please the public's insatiable desire for celebrity-style politics.
If Facebook did no fact-checking in the past, now is an excellent time to start. I agree heartily with the comments made by rab in that it is entirely possible to label postings with a rating scale determined by a team of Facebook editors using valid algorithms (a rating is given for both the suspected factuality of a report and for the assessed quality of the source of the information). The reader could decide on the truthfulness of the reports by seeking additional information.
I sincerely doubt that FB users who freely post things about their personal lives would be horrified by this kind of rating scale - in fact, I doubt whether millions of celebrations of a graduations or birthdays would even be flagged for review. We need to hold ALL sources of news, FB & mainstream media, accountable for the proliferation of lies that abound on the Internet.
1
"For the company, business can come before truth."
Isn't that the entire problem, right there, in one sentence?
Does anyone remember when the news divisions of major media outlets--radio and TV networks, newspapers, magazines--did NOT have to earn a profit? When reporting and investigating was considered a "loss leader", because it was part of the mission, because getting the actual news out there, and calling out lies, was the raison d'etre of that part of the organization? And--an outlet with a reputation for factual honesty might actually expect to attract more eyeballs on THAT basis, because it was a trusted source?
The logic of sales dollar volume ultimately debases everything it touches.
Yes, Donald Trump's candidacy, as Les Moonvees said, may have been very good for CBS' bottom line. But there was a time when that would have not been the overriding consideration.
Perhaps the only solution is to do a Pro Publica--for large media companies to break out their news gathering operations into separate non-profit entities (who may have to run public broadcasting-styles funding drives).
One can only hope that in a universe of blind aggregating sites, organizations that develop reputations for zealous fact publishing will stand out enough, and attract enough funding, to survive.
Isn't that the entire problem, right there, in one sentence?
Does anyone remember when the news divisions of major media outlets--radio and TV networks, newspapers, magazines--did NOT have to earn a profit? When reporting and investigating was considered a "loss leader", because it was part of the mission, because getting the actual news out there, and calling out lies, was the raison d'etre of that part of the organization? And--an outlet with a reputation for factual honesty might actually expect to attract more eyeballs on THAT basis, because it was a trusted source?
The logic of sales dollar volume ultimately debases everything it touches.
Yes, Donald Trump's candidacy, as Les Moonvees said, may have been very good for CBS' bottom line. But there was a time when that would have not been the overriding consideration.
Perhaps the only solution is to do a Pro Publica--for large media companies to break out their news gathering operations into separate non-profit entities (who may have to run public broadcasting-styles funding drives).
One can only hope that in a universe of blind aggregating sites, organizations that develop reputations for zealous fact publishing will stand out enough, and attract enough funding, to survive.
4
Time has come to give this responsibility to "Watson" or its AI friends. We can not give this responsibility to human being that is inherently biased. There are many problems in our data enriched social media that will require Jumbie editor - an editor who only depends on data and emotion should not come in the editorial decision. We as common citizen also will have more confidence on these Jumbie editors. Facebook can easily design this AI software.
Facebook?
I suppose I am one of the stupid people on Facebook. I take a lot of the quizzes that pop up which are psychological testing in nature and those on various subjects and would probably take them more often if they did not often jam up, freeze the computer for some reason as some of them almost always do, knowing full well that all this testing is probably not going to improve life for the average citizen but rather just give the more powerful entities in society more information about how best to control people, but I hope for the best anyway...
The best part about Facebook for me is receiving posts about subjects I'm interested in like guitar playing or nature hikes or Mars stuff or pictures of cool cars...The worst part is fake news stuff or plainly off the wall right or left wing stuff, the right wing stuff being the most vicious...Actually the worst thing about Facebook is people posing as your friends; at times I receive a post on something from a friend, but the language written by the friend does not seem in style (language construction) or substance of the friend.
So much of being on computers period is an experience of depressing lack of control. You are told you have a voice but in actuality it seems the worst people and powers are triumphing, doing everything from fake news to spying on you to posing as friends to loading fake pages to blocking/censoring you to stealing from you and on and on...
I place little hope in the internet period.
I suppose I am one of the stupid people on Facebook. I take a lot of the quizzes that pop up which are psychological testing in nature and those on various subjects and would probably take them more often if they did not often jam up, freeze the computer for some reason as some of them almost always do, knowing full well that all this testing is probably not going to improve life for the average citizen but rather just give the more powerful entities in society more information about how best to control people, but I hope for the best anyway...
The best part about Facebook for me is receiving posts about subjects I'm interested in like guitar playing or nature hikes or Mars stuff or pictures of cool cars...The worst part is fake news stuff or plainly off the wall right or left wing stuff, the right wing stuff being the most vicious...Actually the worst thing about Facebook is people posing as your friends; at times I receive a post on something from a friend, but the language written by the friend does not seem in style (language construction) or substance of the friend.
So much of being on computers period is an experience of depressing lack of control. You are told you have a voice but in actuality it seems the worst people and powers are triumphing, doing everything from fake news to spying on you to posing as friends to loading fake pages to blocking/censoring you to stealing from you and on and on...
I place little hope in the internet period.
1
Ms. Lessin provides a solid and thoughtful admonition that should be heeded by Facebook and similar organizations. An algorithm that generates a warning about content is something reasonable. Major internet browsers all do this.
Having some "neutral review board" is wishful thinking. We do not even get that with our Supreme Court. Why should Facebook be in the position to be "right because they are final?" There are problems with "facts" even with double-blind peer review systems, done by subject experts, for major scientific journals. This is not Facebook's business function or obligation. And there would be little reason to trust them with such responsibilities.
We have enough trouble trusting our courts, or the "factual" statements of major newspapers. This is, in part, because facts are mutable. Facts can mislead or can be aggregated to form larger, disparate (and sometimes conflicting) "truths."
Anonymity of posters has little to do with this and is not the major concern in such circumstances. Some major journals keep their editorial pages anonymous.
Having some "neutral review board" is wishful thinking. We do not even get that with our Supreme Court. Why should Facebook be in the position to be "right because they are final?" There are problems with "facts" even with double-blind peer review systems, done by subject experts, for major scientific journals. This is not Facebook's business function or obligation. And there would be little reason to trust them with such responsibilities.
We have enough trouble trusting our courts, or the "factual" statements of major newspapers. This is, in part, because facts are mutable. Facts can mislead or can be aggregated to form larger, disparate (and sometimes conflicting) "truths."
Anonymity of posters has little to do with this and is not the major concern in such circumstances. Some major journals keep their editorial pages anonymous.
1
Let’s get real here. Mark Zuckerberg, an American billionaire who has publicly expressed anti-income-tax sentiments, who couldn’t care less about contributing to the greater good of this country, has created a forum for American idiots (myself included) to waste enormous amount of time sharing what they had for lunch with each other. He couldn’t care less if those same American idiots want to share some hate-filled false-news click-bait nonsense. Any idea that Mark Zuckerberg feels a responsibility to help with this problem is laughable.
Now, before commenters start having a fit, what Zuckerberg has done is set up a perfectly legal system of “investment vehicles” which allows him not to pay federal income taxes. He’s one of those silicon-valley “geniuses” who think government is irrelevant and incompetent, and that they personally know better how to spend their great wealth in service of the common good. To sum it up: Zuckerberg has created a social media cesspool from which he makes an enormous amount of money which he tries as hard as possible to keep from going into U. S. Government coffers. Plain and simple.
So don’t expect anything from Mark Zuckerberg. Americans: Please Wake Up! Facebook is a colossal waste of your time. Stop logging in, and stop believing, posting and reposting nonsense like a mindless idiot. Start thinking rationally before it’s too late.
Now, before commenters start having a fit, what Zuckerberg has done is set up a perfectly legal system of “investment vehicles” which allows him not to pay federal income taxes. He’s one of those silicon-valley “geniuses” who think government is irrelevant and incompetent, and that they personally know better how to spend their great wealth in service of the common good. To sum it up: Zuckerberg has created a social media cesspool from which he makes an enormous amount of money which he tries as hard as possible to keep from going into U. S. Government coffers. Plain and simple.
So don’t expect anything from Mark Zuckerberg. Americans: Please Wake Up! Facebook is a colossal waste of your time. Stop logging in, and stop believing, posting and reposting nonsense like a mindless idiot. Start thinking rationally before it’s too late.
14
If most Americans are political sheep, truth or lies don't matter because they're merely herding tactics, which is all Zuckerberg cares about because it's how he makes billions.
Truth or lies is a Trumpish zig zag diversion that obscures the real concern: Facebook has become a de facto broadcast spectrum that's supplanted public airwaves and community regulated cable as the dominant communications pipeline.
Like airwaves of legacy TV/radio or fiber/wire of cable networks, Facebook is the transmission system, the entire superhighway, the national lifeblood river delivering buyers to sellers. Content producers and advertisers pay Facebook (FCBK) to aggregate attention and form mass markets. No single person has ever had the power Zuckerberg is amassing, accountable to no one except his shareholders (which is to say himself).
But unlike legacy pipelines, FCBK isn't just the connecting medium that data moves across. FCBK collects every bit that flows through, sorts, filters, analyzes, aggregates and for a price manipulates it for any purpose whether commercial, political, techno-utopian (e.g. billionaire tech cults prepping for Singularity and hybrid humanoids). FCBK can profile a job applicant based on data use and sell it to employers. Individual health reports sold to insurers. NRA blacklists of likely gun control supporters. A Big Lie machine for rent.
Truth will set us free. But for FCBK...only if it sells.
The real solution is smarter sheep.
10
This is yet another negative consequences e of the consumerization of the internet. If the sum of what these social accounts are allowed to do is share pictures of the family picnic or someone frenching their boyfriend then fine and dandy. However it isn't, it's main function is generating revenue and, as they, Facebook and the ilk, are where the bulk of millennials hang out this is where they get their information about what's happening in the world. It is imperative information on world events be as accurate as humanly possible if we are to enjoy a healthy society and democracy. Where we know salacious fake news sells better than facts it is up to the entity actually publishing that information to ensure the accuracy of it or, in the absence of that, disallow news sites if they cannot control the accuracy of it.
5
Seems to me that if something is labeled "News", then the organization providing it is representing it to be true. In that sense, FB should indeed vet its news feed, most easily by employing trusted sources. Does FB still want to provide junk? No problem, call it "Trending" or some such.
Also seems to me that many Americans are unwilling, unable or ininterested in discerning what is fake and what is not. It is not the duplicity of FB that worries me, it is the American people that make me tremble for my country.
Also seems to me that many Americans are unwilling, unable or ininterested in discerning what is fake and what is not. It is not the duplicity of FB that worries me, it is the American people that make me tremble for my country.
5
RE: Also seems to me that many Americans are unwilling, unable or disinterested in discerning what is fake and what is not.
In MO, that is not true of people who live outside their FB. In any event, I think that people should be required to link to a site, if the site is nothing more than a conservative or Liberal bias spewing machine, then it should be not be allowed to spread misinformation.
In MO, that is not true of people who live outside their FB. In any event, I think that people should be required to link to a site, if the site is nothing more than a conservative or Liberal bias spewing machine, then it should be not be allowed to spread misinformation.
While the mainstream media may get it wrong sometimes, at least they have some sort of editorial board or policy or something. The policy at many of these sites is all about what will generate clicks/revenue/etc. One way to monitor the flow is to ensure that the contributors actually monitor themselves (for more than profitability).
2
Ms Lessin should review the history here. Facebook (as it has every right in the world to do) employed a small team of human editors to review trending news on the site. In the interest of providing a high-quality experience to users, these people removed news stories that were taken from websites that promote phony news stories. There are many of these, and often they appear to be genuine sources. Some, like Breitbart, mix fact and fiction in a toxic blend. The problem is that the vast majority of the phony stories they were culling were conservative memes because, as Stephen Colbert noted, "reality has a left-wing bias." Liberals tend not to bite on clickbait news so there's no profit in pushing it. When this was discovered, it was hugely embarrassing to conservatives and Congressional Republicans threw a hissy fit - causing Facebook to do away with human news curation. That's how it went down.
16
Credible news outlets should stop calling it Fake News and call it by its more familiar (and more ominous) label - propaganda. The point of propaganda is not to persuade anyone but to confuse and alarm everyone. The goal is to separate the public from trusted sources of information by casting doubt on all of them and raising suspicions about their motives. Trump is especially effective at using propaganda, today's tweet controversy is a prime example.
244
"... today's tweet controversy is a prime example. "
as will be tomorrow's and the one the day after, and the day after that, and so on
as will be tomorrow's and the one the day after, and the day after that, and so on
1
Agreed. The Daily Show was initially billed as a fake news site!
I agree. Facebook is, almost by definition, a subjective source of information - most of it personal in nature.
I don't want a world where people look to social media for hard news. That gets tougher to sort out when traditional news outlets go to the internet more and more. But traditional news organizations are held to a journalistic standard that they have to earn, and outside of the op-ed and Letters sections, do not traffic in social media.
As it always has, let FB's users decide what to like and not like, based on their subjective standards. It's easier, and doesn't require FB to try to morph into something it never intended to be.
Think of FB as an online equivalent of the gossip mags in checkout lines. No one calls that news, and no one fact checks it, or has to.
I don't want a world where people look to social media for hard news. That gets tougher to sort out when traditional news outlets go to the internet more and more. But traditional news organizations are held to a journalistic standard that they have to earn, and outside of the op-ed and Letters sections, do not traffic in social media.
As it always has, let FB's users decide what to like and not like, based on their subjective standards. It's easier, and doesn't require FB to try to morph into something it never intended to be.
Think of FB as an online equivalent of the gossip mags in checkout lines. No one calls that news, and no one fact checks it, or has to.
4
The bright ones at Facebook pretty quickly can identify sources of fake news and deny their access. Vetting every detail is not the way to go - just look at the track record of the publisher.
They could go farther in revising the echo-chamber aspect of their "liking" algorithms.
Of course, as with every other news source, Facebook will exhibit bias and make mistakes. And their own reputation is at stake if they are caught deliberately accenting or blockading. The present furor is a case in point, and Facebook is responding in a very limited fashion. How their response is received will decide how responsible they become.
In the meantime, we readers do the same assessment with The Times, which has not covered itself with glory in its depth of election coverage, nor in some other matters such as going to war in the Middle East, nor in the drug war problems at home.
They could go farther in revising the echo-chamber aspect of their "liking" algorithms.
Of course, as with every other news source, Facebook will exhibit bias and make mistakes. And their own reputation is at stake if they are caught deliberately accenting or blockading. The present furor is a case in point, and Facebook is responding in a very limited fashion. How their response is received will decide how responsible they become.
In the meantime, we readers do the same assessment with The Times, which has not covered itself with glory in its depth of election coverage, nor in some other matters such as going to war in the Middle East, nor in the drug war problems at home.
1
My web browser warns me when I visit a site that it considers dangerous or false , allowing me to choose to go back without the risk of endangering my system with viruses and malware. The author allows that Facebook might consider such a move, but then waves a red flag about the possibility of "policing the truth".
This is a false equivalence. The alternative is for Facebook to continue to enable false information to be widely distributed , literally computer viruses. Facebook does not even have to label it as false, merely as suspicious or as the source of many complaints. A warning is not censorship.
When the news is being evidently manipulated for fun and for profit and for political gain, lies and false stories are harmful to the society the WWW is supposed to serve.
This is a false equivalence. The alternative is for Facebook to continue to enable false information to be widely distributed , literally computer viruses. Facebook does not even have to label it as false, merely as suspicious or as the source of many complaints. A warning is not censorship.
When the news is being evidently manipulated for fun and for profit and for political gain, lies and false stories are harmful to the society the WWW is supposed to serve.
5
Facebook shouldn't fact-check because it shouldn't become the de facto profit-seeking ministry of truth for 1.8 billion people. People should fact-check because it is their responsibility, to themselves and to society, to make informed decisions in their lives. The consequences of believing in alternate realities are unfortunately not limited to the individuals deluding themselves.
That doesn't mean that Facebook shouldn't take steps to help their users assess the quality of the content they receive through their feeds. On the one hand, individuals don't always have the time nor the resources to fact-check themselves every information that's presented to them. On the other hand, the world is much more complex and subtle than a thumbs-up, like it or not. Considering its predominance, I believe Facebook has a responsibility to provide additional context to the content circulating on its network. Part of this context could be retrieved automatically from its user and content data. There's the rub, of course. All the relevant information is unlikely to become public, due to its monetary value.
That doesn't mean that Facebook shouldn't take steps to help their users assess the quality of the content they receive through their feeds. On the one hand, individuals don't always have the time nor the resources to fact-check themselves every information that's presented to them. On the other hand, the world is much more complex and subtle than a thumbs-up, like it or not. Considering its predominance, I believe Facebook has a responsibility to provide additional context to the content circulating on its network. Part of this context could be retrieved automatically from its user and content data. There's the rub, of course. All the relevant information is unlikely to become public, due to its monetary value.
25
I have news for you... All our respected news organizations are "for profit". Being a profitable news organization and a responsible purveyor of veritable information are not mutually exclusive functions.
3
I agree, Facebook shouldn't fact check. But here's the rub: all too often people believe whatever they see without checking the facts. It's a sad comment on our educational system that so many Americans believed that the Clintons killed Vince Foster or that the Clinton Foundation is corrupt, or whatever the lie of the moment is. It's sadder still that the GOP, Trump, and others such as the Koch Brothers spread lies that are just factual enough that disentangling the truth from the lies is almost impossible.
The truth is that when we get all our news from a source like Facebook that uses algorithms based upon our previous actions we shouldn't trust what we see. We should go to other sites and sources for news. We ought to try to read what the other side is saying. But we rarely do this. Why? Because it pushes us outside our comfort zones. Yet it can give us a feeling for what the other side believes. Half the battle is understanding even if it's alien to us.
The truth is that when we get all our news from a source like Facebook that uses algorithms based upon our previous actions we shouldn't trust what we see. We should go to other sites and sources for news. We ought to try to read what the other side is saying. But we rarely do this. Why? Because it pushes us outside our comfort zones. Yet it can give us a feeling for what the other side believes. Half the battle is understanding even if it's alien to us.
5
When a majority of people no longer approach the world with a minimum of critical thinking and healthy skepticism I don't think much can be done - short of censorship. And I think that's essentially what you are saying. Increasingly, we choose our sources of information based on our biases, and unfortunately we're far more biased today - because too many of us have suspended with critical thinking. And the sources are far more numerous, and driven as never before by the profit motive.
13
I'm not sure that we have ever had a majority that had more than a minimum of critical thinking. What we have lost is something more basic, is a majority in which the individuals think the other side has something worth saying and that the side they are on can have flaws.
36
Ms. Lessin may not trust Facebook or any one entity with the responsibility for determining what is true, but it appears that millions and millions of people take anything posted on Facebook as fact - sugar-coated cardboard fed as real food. As a country we could work harder to instill basic critical thinking skills and civic responsibility to use them through our public education system, assuming we still have a public education system left.
4
"Such editorial power in Facebook’s hands would be unprecedented and dangerous."
What's unprecedented and dangerous is the effortless elevation of a professional liar and breezy sociopath, Donald Trump, to the highest office in the land (and in the world) based on a trail of repeated lies, "I am your (stunted IQ) voice" populism, and celebrity public policy descent into an intellectual dungeon.
Donald Trump's election is confirmation that the truth is irrelevant to American governance and public policy.
If Facebook doesn't stand for the basic honesty of the truth in deference to Greed Over People, then the angels of darkness - money, lying, selfishness, conceit and unapologetic power - will surely crush - and probably already have crushed - democracy in a real-life knockout.
Everyone, including Facebook, needs to stop aiding and abetting Big Lies.
There is a national emergency and epidemic of propaganda, prevarication and psychopathic profit that just consumed the American body politic.
Sitting still while the Devil consumes you is not a great a survival tactic.
What's unprecedented and dangerous is the effortless elevation of a professional liar and breezy sociopath, Donald Trump, to the highest office in the land (and in the world) based on a trail of repeated lies, "I am your (stunted IQ) voice" populism, and celebrity public policy descent into an intellectual dungeon.
Donald Trump's election is confirmation that the truth is irrelevant to American governance and public policy.
If Facebook doesn't stand for the basic honesty of the truth in deference to Greed Over People, then the angels of darkness - money, lying, selfishness, conceit and unapologetic power - will surely crush - and probably already have crushed - democracy in a real-life knockout.
Everyone, including Facebook, needs to stop aiding and abetting Big Lies.
There is a national emergency and epidemic of propaganda, prevarication and psychopathic profit that just consumed the American body politic.
Sitting still while the Devil consumes you is not a great a survival tactic.
200
Socrates..."Donald Trump's Election is confirmation that the truth is irrelevant to American governance and policy." Brilliant and cogent... Thank you for your Presence!
1
Maybe. But in the world you describe, we should be pulling gossip mags from supermarket checkout lanes. Where do you draw the line? We are all responsible for deciding what is true for ourselves. We don't fact-check our friends, at least not often!
As for DT, he has been called out repeatedly for lying. If people choose to believe (or ignore) him, that remains their prerogative. Something isn't true because you, or anyone else, simply tells me so.
As for DT, he has been called out repeatedly for lying. If people choose to believe (or ignore) him, that remains their prerogative. Something isn't true because you, or anyone else, simply tells me so.
Post-Truth Amerika. I read that somewhere on the internet and I BELIEVE everything I read on the internet! I just wish I could change the channel, but alas, I can't so let us just get the show on the road. Even though it is yucky outside: on the chilly side, overcast and raining here in the Champlain Valley I am going to take the dog, who lives in the moment like el Trumpolini, for an extra long walk.
FB owns a platform that they certainly have every right (responsibility ?) to control in such a manner to keep it from being corrupted by false information, same as the NYTimes can control what appears in its pages, same as TeeVee networks have editorial discretion as to what they pipe to our small screens.
Indeed, the very reason we are having this discussion is because the fake news purveyors get filtered out (mostly) of other media platforms; they exploited that loophole in social media - bigly.
FB has no obligation to serve as a propaganda outlet for fake news anymore than it is obligated to be a platform for porn.
The only question is how FB will administer its editorial discretion.
Indeed, the very reason we are having this discussion is because the fake news purveyors get filtered out (mostly) of other media platforms; they exploited that loophole in social media - bigly.
FB has no obligation to serve as a propaganda outlet for fake news anymore than it is obligated to be a platform for porn.
The only question is how FB will administer its editorial discretion.
97
But who will ensure that people don't share false information in face to face conversations, by email, or over the phone?
Might I suggest they disallow any site purporting to be conveying factual information. We must not allow out society to enter the post fact era.
It's different in one-to-many relationships as FB is a 'broadcast' entity given a singular address (domain name). Just as broadcast / cable stations have a responsibility to not only report news but report it accurately else loose their frequency allocation so too should internet sites be held to the same standards. Phone, email, f2f are all, primarily, one to one conversations.
This is missing the point. Unless Twitter, Facebook requires you - the average Joe and Josephine, and even organization - to reveal your identity. While corporations are people is a debatable statement, Every Facebook entity should be authentic and not some kid writing fake news for clickbait in Russia. Or else Facebook will become the Wild West. People on Twitter understand the Wild West mentality with the among of skepticism but Facebook assumes differently. Therefore, Facebook may not be the ultimate arbiter of facts but it does have certain obligations, to itself if not its users, to defend its reputation as an authentic social network
22
correction: "Unlike Twitter" instead of "Unless Twitter"
Next time try writing in English with whole sentences.
This is ridiculous. Facebook won't let me change the year I was born so my profile can always list me as 29 years old. Why shouldn't it apply the same rules of truth to the content it promotes?
61
For that matter, why are we having this discussion? Facebook is a social networking site. Let it go back to people sharing whether their laxative worked or not. Why would anyone depend on a networking site for news? As a non-Facebook user it is a true head scratcher.
Facebook's whole platform feeds your likes. I never hit like on anything political until after the election. I unfollowed 40 people who were sharing fake news. Then after I liked an article from NPR, ten other sites just like it were showed to me to "like". By selecting a few, my whole feed changed and now all I see are hundreds of sites and articles that feed my lefty point of view...which is fine for me - but gets exhausting...I just can't stay angry all of the time...
I can only imagine if I liked a alt-right website the garbage that would come my way. The platform is unfixable because it delivers the content you want which feeds ignorance. That is the revenue model...bread and circuses.
I can only imagine if I liked a alt-right website the garbage that would come my way. The platform is unfixable because it delivers the content you want which feeds ignorance. That is the revenue model...bread and circuses.
146
Amen. The revenue model of Facebook (like that of so many other companies, to be fair) is simply not socially responsible. If Facebook is concerned about this they need to change their entire approach to business. If they are not prepared to do that they should simply be honest and admit that they are not interested in actually being a news outlet.
yeah, that is the problem. FB is no fun if you don't interact, but if you do interact you enter the echo chamber.
The problem is, people believe whatever they read on Facebook. Mark has made kabillions on this forum, if the users can't stand the truth, shut it down.
20
Fake news can cause real harm to millions of people and the whole humanity. It is not joke. If Facebook becomes a media of fake, lies, fraud and destruction of norms, then it will heavy price in the long run. Zuckerberg should not be that selfish.
54
OTA news outlets must pay for a frequency assignment. Part of that assignment is to provide, for free, local and national news. If they violate the terms of the lease they lose the frequency. If social media cannot or won't control the content they should lose the functional equivalent of frequency spectrum, their domain name. The least expensive remedy would be to disallow 'news' feeds at all.
FIRE FIRE FIRE!!! In a crowded theater or a cowed populace you shouldn`t be able shout lies.
"But we are checked by the power of our competitors and, for news organizations with a subscription business, by readers who stop paying us if we fail them"
You are NOT checked by your competitors in the MSM because you have none--just six major corporations own/control the whole (liberal) news and entertainment business, and they share a liberal outlook. The internet provides the only alternative to the canned news seen in the MSM. A lot of it is junk, I'll agree, but a lot isn't. And I don't need a self-appointed censor to sort it for me, thank you very much. Let the buyer beware, let the reader be smart. As for the subscription business, the Times should know. How long before the doors close completely? Evidently, even your liberal base is leaving.
You are NOT checked by your competitors in the MSM because you have none--just six major corporations own/control the whole (liberal) news and entertainment business, and they share a liberal outlook. The internet provides the only alternative to the canned news seen in the MSM. A lot of it is junk, I'll agree, but a lot isn't. And I don't need a self-appointed censor to sort it for me, thank you very much. Let the buyer beware, let the reader be smart. As for the subscription business, the Times should know. How long before the doors close completely? Evidently, even your liberal base is leaving.
2
Facebook is free to readers. Its revenue comes from advertisers.
If I grant that you are speaking as one of the vanishingly few 'smart' consumers of media, I have also to ask when will people like you get over your poor-me "liberal media" cant.
The biggest and baddest media outlets are conservative.
The most influential media outlets are conservative.
The loudest individual mouths are conservative.
The most blatantly partisan and willfully inaccurate media are conservative.
No-one can begrudge you your choices, but I am truly tired and disgusted with your ever present need to feel put upon, ignored, and like some radical clandestine army of the last real patriots.
If your ideas are as brilliant and life changing as you claim, let them stand on their own. It's time to end the dumb show.
The biggest and baddest media outlets are conservative.
The most influential media outlets are conservative.
The loudest individual mouths are conservative.
The most blatantly partisan and willfully inaccurate media are conservative.
No-one can begrudge you your choices, but I am truly tired and disgusted with your ever present need to feel put upon, ignored, and like some radical clandestine army of the last real patriots.
If your ideas are as brilliant and life changing as you claim, let them stand on their own. It's time to end the dumb show.
It is amazing that people on the right consider that news organizations owner by major corporations are biased towards liberal ideas which some may be and many are not, unfortunately we have learned is that if Fox News says it it true enough times a large segment of the population believes it regardless of facts!
The author seemingly unwittingly stumbled upon the real issue..."For the company, business can come before truth." That is certainly the case for Fox and "death panels", CBS and "Trump may be bad for America, but he's good for CBS"' NBC when Andrea Mitchell reports on the administration, and the rest of the mass media outlets. She even tells us that if Facebook starts fact checking the news, they'll be the only one doing it, and we should be afraid when there's "only one". I agree. They all should be required to present factual news or face consequences for knowingly presenting falsehoods. Why should they be any different from Connie Chung, Dan Rather or Brian Williams?
50
What? Dan Rather?! One of the most biased reporters I can think of, given his supposed journalistic integrity. "The Killian documents controversy (also referred to as Memogate or Rathergate) involved six purported documents critical of U.S. President George W. Bush's service in the Air National Guard in 1972–73. Four of these documents[1] were presented as authentic in a 60 Minutes II broadcast aired by CBS on September 8, 2004, less than two months before the 2004 Presidential Election, but it was later found that CBS had failed to authenticate the documents.[2][3][4] Subsequently, several typewriter and typography experts concluded the documents were blatant forgeries.[5][6] No forensic document examiners or typography experts have authenticated the documents, and this may not be technically possible without the original documents.[7] The purveyor of the documents, Lt. Col. Bill Burkett, claims to have burned the originals after faxing copies to CBS"
It clearly would be trivial for Facebook to mark all postings with a 'This is Unverified' banner and then remove it for postings that have been fact-checked.
It is not like they can't afford the fact checkers.
It is not like they can't afford the fact checkers.
34
Maybe they don't even need to fact check. Just a banner that all news stories are unverified, and readers should take note of that. I don't believe random emails that are sent to me, and maybe people should use the same attitude with Facebook.
Fact checking and retracting erroneous news stories are things of the past. News aggregators are largely in it for the clicks (Lion Charges Baby! You'll Never Believe What This Mom Did Next! or 10 Things Successful People Never Forget!) but even news outlets like CNN don't bother to run corrections. Errors just disappear from the next cycle.
Wikipedia has a warning across dubious pages, letting readers know that the item is more advertising or propaganda than fact. Facebook could do the same.
But don't count on it making a difference. People choose what to believe and a disclaimer will merely feed the conspiracy theory that Big Social Media is hiding the truth.
Wikipedia has a warning across dubious pages, letting readers know that the item is more advertising or propaganda than fact. Facebook could do the same.
But don't count on it making a difference. People choose what to believe and a disclaimer will merely feed the conspiracy theory that Big Social Media is hiding the truth.
137
Fact-checking is pretty much useless in a post-truth world that no longer values critical thinking; where Four-Pinocchio journalism is comfort food for a gullible electorate that lives in a world of self-imposed ignorance.
6
I abandoned FB years ago because I found giving them my data, or life really, was a bad arrangement. So I am out of touch and find it surprising that people use it for news or information, which as a secondary source is inherently suspect.
Then I remembered that the real reason that people use FB is because they are lazy and find the "me-centric" illusion it provides to be a source of comfort.
In other words, FB has a huge flock of passive sheep whose care and feeding is of interest only if that support can be monetized.
Then I remembered that the real reason that people use FB is because they are lazy and find the "me-centric" illusion it provides to be a source of comfort.
In other words, FB has a huge flock of passive sheep whose care and feeding is of interest only if that support can be monetized.
15
While this article makes interesting points my hair stood up at this assertion, which to my experience is grotesquely untrue and highly unwarranted:
"Erroneous reporting by established organizations is a bigger threat than fabricated stories, and far more rampant."
That assertion alone destroys the article's credibility. Where is the evidence that established news organizations make even a significant fraction of the mistakes - and especially damaging lies - documented for the massively-documented fake news complex? Such evidence does not exist.
If you go to the author's organization website you also find this: "like other publications, we do sometimes do business deals with companies that we cover. "
What does that mean? Is it advertising, or something more? What, specifically, is your relationship with Facebook? And why did the New York Times not vet her ties and require that they be more transparently disclosed in identifying her?
"Erroneous reporting by established organizations is a bigger threat than fabricated stories, and far more rampant."
That assertion alone destroys the article's credibility. Where is the evidence that established news organizations make even a significant fraction of the mistakes - and especially damaging lies - documented for the massively-documented fake news complex? Such evidence does not exist.
If you go to the author's organization website you also find this: "like other publications, we do sometimes do business deals with companies that we cover. "
What does that mean? Is it advertising, or something more? What, specifically, is your relationship with Facebook? And why did the New York Times not vet her ties and require that they be more transparently disclosed in identifying her?
37
Facebook activity probably shouldn't even be counted as economic product.
2
A few decades ago, if someone cornered you to discuss the two-headed alien baby they read about in the Enquirer, they were essentially ignored or ridiculed.
Today, nonsense is replicated and propelled as efficiently as honest attempts at reporting the truth. I can't quite put my finger on it, but it seems that too many people have lost their ability to identify likely nonsense or have ceded that function to "others".
Somehow, people need to realize this and restore this ability to recognize probable trash on an individual basis. Can this even be done?
Today, nonsense is replicated and propelled as efficiently as honest attempts at reporting the truth. I can't quite put my finger on it, but it seems that too many people have lost their ability to identify likely nonsense or have ceded that function to "others".
Somehow, people need to realize this and restore this ability to recognize probable trash on an individual basis. Can this even be done?
11
if we start now it will still take several generations
1
Facebook is really more like a "cyber" version of the "back fence", office "water cooler", or neighborhood bar.
It is a place where gossip and "common sense", become fact and axiom.
I continue to be amazed by how many ostensibly intelligent people believe that anecdote is to be believed and that "facts" are merely opinion, salted to taste.
Is that a Revelation to anyone?
It is a place where gossip and "common sense", become fact and axiom.
I continue to be amazed by how many ostensibly intelligent people believe that anecdote is to be believed and that "facts" are merely opinion, salted to taste.
Is that a Revelation to anyone?
5
Journalism is dead. The effect of endorsements by newspaper editors is just one demonstration of the passing of an era. People are not only skeptical about "mainstream media," they are ignoring it.
Writers of fiction have taken the place of serious journalists who have deep knowledge of a subject and experience in sorting out what's most credible. The news media have succumbed to the need to be edgy, to attract eyeballs and to entertain. It's very hard for them to compete in the world of ideas, especially when they are forced to put up paywalls to survive.
Facebook has both responsibilities and challenges in this new environment, but few seem to assume that Facebook has an evil agenda. That does not mean the unscrupulous will not find ways to exploit Facebook and other sources of social media.
When a president-elect tweets news from fake news sites, it ought to be a wake-up call. Facebook is an important player, but hardly the only one that needs to think about reforms.
Writers of fiction have taken the place of serious journalists who have deep knowledge of a subject and experience in sorting out what's most credible. The news media have succumbed to the need to be edgy, to attract eyeballs and to entertain. It's very hard for them to compete in the world of ideas, especially when they are forced to put up paywalls to survive.
Facebook has both responsibilities and challenges in this new environment, but few seem to assume that Facebook has an evil agenda. That does not mean the unscrupulous will not find ways to exploit Facebook and other sources of social media.
When a president-elect tweets news from fake news sites, it ought to be a wake-up call. Facebook is an important player, but hardly the only one that needs to think about reforms.
2
There is a better reason than a vote recount for the Electoal College to declare Trump's candidacy invalid. It is his unconstitutional conflicts of interest. These conflicts are unprecedented sand make the Electoral College's duty clear. They must declare his candidacy invalid.
there will be rioting in trailer parks!
It is a problem, and with no solution. Potentially a bigger problem is that the good content at the reputable agencies is increasingly behind firewalls. We subscribe to two papers (print on weekends and electronically during the week), one of which I can't seem to log onto from my iPad. How many more subscriptions is reasonable for me to have? For a less affluent person to have?
I truly understand that unless the Times makes money (or at least only loses it at a manageable rate) you can't pay reporters and editors etc, but it can't be good for the country if the joy way to get good news is to pay for it.
P.S. In the "old days" you could pretty much read yesterday's paper for free, which was sufficient to keep a person informed,
I truly understand that unless the Times makes money (or at least only loses it at a manageable rate) you can't pay reporters and editors etc, but it can't be good for the country if the joy way to get good news is to pay for it.
P.S. In the "old days" you could pretty much read yesterday's paper for free, which was sufficient to keep a person informed,
4
Thank God the Times' finally published a common sense editorial that comes down on the side of free speech. If I write fiction, should Facebook edit it or worse yet, censor it? It's up to readers and platform/application users to decide what is or isn't real. So sick of the desire to enforce other people's determination of "correctness" (term intended) on others.
2
Facebook feeds on people's narcissism - the need to project a curated life story to show to family, "friends" and many many strangers. Personally, I can't imagine a worst waste of time.
As for the privacy issues involved - I work in an advertising agency and it is unimaginable the way advertisers can now target groups on Facebook - they know everything about everyone using Facebook. Amazing that all this personal information has been turned over to Facebook by its users.with very little consideration for the consequences.
As for the "faux" news now spreading on Facebook - no surprise there. Of course it's a source of false, racist stories delivered to those living in an information echo chamber & for those who easily disregard the facts.
Facebook is a parasite - feeding on the global population all under the guise of connecting the world. It's all about making money through selling personal informations access
Quick suggestion - if you want to say in touch with family & friends .....make a phone call to catch up or actually schedule some one on one in person or via skype to catch up,
Honestly, I can't imagine anything worse than Facebook or what's it's doing to our culture and now political system.
As for the privacy issues involved - I work in an advertising agency and it is unimaginable the way advertisers can now target groups on Facebook - they know everything about everyone using Facebook. Amazing that all this personal information has been turned over to Facebook by its users.with very little consideration for the consequences.
As for the "faux" news now spreading on Facebook - no surprise there. Of course it's a source of false, racist stories delivered to those living in an information echo chamber & for those who easily disregard the facts.
Facebook is a parasite - feeding on the global population all under the guise of connecting the world. It's all about making money through selling personal informations access
Quick suggestion - if you want to say in touch with family & friends .....make a phone call to catch up or actually schedule some one on one in person or via skype to catch up,
Honestly, I can't imagine anything worse than Facebook or what's it's doing to our culture and now political system.
45
Connecting with family hits a high note. Would you invite someone to your extended family dinner to develope rumors, innuendo and and outright lies and selling this information. One of the reasons , but not the only one, I support teachers unions is because at one time rumors, innuendo and outright lies were used to control or dismiss teachers who ran afoul of the local gossip mills. Our ability to recognize and keep in check these gossip mills has been lost and lost solely because of our abdication to King George ( the dollar ).
Thank you for making such a clear statement that matches my view completely. People need to wake up.
Can't believe there is even discussion on this. The true problem is that we are failing miserably as educators and parents in teaching readers how to use critical thinking to determine for themselves what is valid. This ignorance also is demonstrated in our elections because there are too many stupid people who follow the herd without question. As a citizen it is a moral responsibility to understand what you are voting for. Civics education and the teaching of critical thinking skills are needed to save our democracy. If not, fools like Trump will continue to be the pied piper as we are evidencing now.
81
Yes and yes. Lack of discrimination is the result of the dumbing down of the country, a major aim of the Republican Party Donors such as the Koch brothers and the Cato Institute. And we are to have Betsy DeVos, a wealthy, right wing evengelical as Secretary of Education?
2
Yes, we must also teach people to see the world not in black and white, but in shades of grey (no, not like the book). By which I mean, everything these days is so split into polar opposites - black vs white, right vs. left, conservative vs liberal, all bad vs all good....few people seek the middle ground or even believe there is one. Something is either really really great or very very terrible - which is exactly the way Donald Trump describes everything. It's not a very intelligent way to look at the world.
2
Facebook may not lie otherwise they could have a slander/libel lawsuit. It is very dangerous (and does a grave disservice) when lies and false information is revealed and someone must take the blame for it.
1
The truth of the matter is that "journalists" such as this author are running scared of the role of social media as the new news source, making mainstream media increasingly irrelevant. So their natural reaction is to start demonizing like, just like the liberal media tried to demonize Trump. Unfortunately, the public is not buying it any more. Social media has become a "peer-reviewed" source for news that interests people, and like the market, competition will ensure that its course is self-correcting.
In fact, it's already too late for mainstream media. It's lost the battle for the internet, and is dying an inexorable and painful death. It's apparent that some death throes will result, and articles such as this that "warn" us about using social media as a news source are just a symptom of that.
As for the other liberal commenters here who blame fake news and all manner of factors for bringing Trump in: if you want to know the REAL reason Hillary lost, just listen to liberal UK journalist Johnathan Pie's excellent summary of the situation. Search for "president trump: how & why" on YouTube and prepare to have your eyes opened.
In fact, it's already too late for mainstream media. It's lost the battle for the internet, and is dying an inexorable and painful death. It's apparent that some death throes will result, and articles such as this that "warn" us about using social media as a news source are just a symptom of that.
As for the other liberal commenters here who blame fake news and all manner of factors for bringing Trump in: if you want to know the REAL reason Hillary lost, just listen to liberal UK journalist Johnathan Pie's excellent summary of the situation. Search for "president trump: how & why" on YouTube and prepare to have your eyes opened.
1
There can be no "peer review" if those providing the material, and those doing the reviewing are equally ignorant of reality. Just like the myth of the self-correcting market, this thesis is objectively bankrupt.
1
The journalist is also very much socially and financially connected to FB. Her husband's company was acquired by FB and he worked there until 2014... Google her. Clearly nobody at the Times did.
Highly incorrect conclusions. Withdraw your comment to prevent further embarassment. Or alternately, acquaint yourself with the term 'paper of record'.
1
The problem with the accuracy of information is not to be solved within the cube farm at Facebook. It needs to be solved between our own ears.
The primary value of education is not learning to read or write or do math. It is the development of skills of critical thinking. In my working life as a doctor, this was of life and death importance as I needed to evaluate claims for new drugs or treatments and put them into practice. For the average and engaged citizen, critical thinking is vital in weighing political claims and policies. (Sure we can build a thirty foot wall over hundreds of miles, but where do we get the concrete? Deport 12 million? Even the transportation would require months.)
In our current K-12 educational patchwork system, increased emphasis on "results", i.e. test scores, diminishes emphasis on things which are more difficult to test. Critical thinking is just such an area. That which is measurable drives out that which is important.
Critical thinking is just that--critical--both to the individual and to society. Leaving it all to Facebook is an abrogation of responsibility.
The primary value of education is not learning to read or write or do math. It is the development of skills of critical thinking. In my working life as a doctor, this was of life and death importance as I needed to evaluate claims for new drugs or treatments and put them into practice. For the average and engaged citizen, critical thinking is vital in weighing political claims and policies. (Sure we can build a thirty foot wall over hundreds of miles, but where do we get the concrete? Deport 12 million? Even the transportation would require months.)
In our current K-12 educational patchwork system, increased emphasis on "results", i.e. test scores, diminishes emphasis on things which are more difficult to test. Critical thinking is just such an area. That which is measurable drives out that which is important.
Critical thinking is just that--critical--both to the individual and to society. Leaving it all to Facebook is an abrogation of responsibility.
16
Even critical thinking makes use of facts. And the issue is: "Are we getting the facts?" Facebook is just an extreme example of the "echo-chamber" engineered into all news media, including The Times and the Post.
People watch Fox News because it supports their world-view. Facebook takes that choice out of their hands and feeds them stuff that fits their "likes". Amazon does the same thing in targeting their ads by tracking items you buy and browse.
But Facebook is dangerous because it programs the user, limits their awareness of facts, dumbs down their critical abilities by narrowing what they know. Softens them up and lowers their defenses against Facebook advertisers' pitches. That is the mainspring of Facebook's business model and is why they attract advertisers.
People watch Fox News because it supports their world-view. Facebook takes that choice out of their hands and feeds them stuff that fits their "likes". Amazon does the same thing in targeting their ads by tracking items you buy and browse.
But Facebook is dangerous because it programs the user, limits their awareness of facts, dumbs down their critical abilities by narrowing what they know. Softens them up and lowers their defenses against Facebook advertisers' pitches. That is the mainspring of Facebook's business model and is why they attract advertisers.
1
This conflates many issues and ends in mush. First, FB's business model is to attract eyeballs and to sell them to vendors, that's advertising. If FB is judged untrustworthy i.e. It doesn't deliver truth and facts, then its business model is in jeopardy because people will abandon it and then advertisers will. So FB has a business problem first and foremost and it's not for journalists to figure out. That's FB's responsibility. FB doesn't have to vouch for the veracity of all the content shared on its site but it could easily represent fact as such via branding. Content from a reputable source could easily be labeled as such and the company could easily brand other content as unverified and let readers provide the verification. FB didn't ask for the job but its users and customers have decided that's what it is good for and it is up to the company to satisfy customer demand or risk losing market share, eyeballs and ultimately profits.
1
The problem with saying you will fact check is that anything left up is implicitly endorsed.
There is no way they can check facts to a degree that guards against the worse outcome of endorsing, albeit unintentionally, lies.
There is no way they can check facts to a degree that guards against the worse outcome of endorsing, albeit unintentionally, lies.
6
Why shouldn't Facebook ensure that what goes out under its banner bears some minimal resemblance to the truth? Should it not aspire to give out only accurate, and not terabytes of false and misleading, information? It is not a government entity, so it owes no one but itself anything, and if wants the public to see it as a billboard for fact based news, and not fantasy filled ginned up screeds meant to stir up hatrers, good, for once, for Mark Zuckerberg.
12
FB and other low-truth platforms should be legally required to clearly state on absolutely every page that the information contained is of a dubious nature and should not be taken as fact.
Furthermore, they should remind users on a regular basis, that they are being continually spied upon by FB and that the information extracted is being sold to the highest bidder.
Is there a WikiFB? One with no profit motive? One that doesn't change its interface every week? One where movie stars are not dying in the right column on a daily basis. One which just posts posts and connects people?
Furthermore, they should remind users on a regular basis, that they are being continually spied upon by FB and that the information extracted is being sold to the highest bidder.
Is there a WikiFB? One with no profit motive? One that doesn't change its interface every week? One where movie stars are not dying in the right column on a daily basis. One which just posts posts and connects people?
16
Dear Ms. Lessin,
Or the public receiving their news on "Facebook" or the "NYT" or "The Wall Street Journal" could do as an investigative reporter once said;
"If your mother says she loves you, check it out".
Unfortunately, as our latest election demonstrates, most people believe what they want to believe and if the "news" dovetails with their beliefs it's accepted as fact whatever the source.
I assume that the driving force behind all the fake news, or "real" news for that matter, is profit and if the "bottom line" is the energy behind such news sources, just expect the problem to get worse.
But, hey, if you believe a Bigfoot drives a flying saucer or that "millions of people voted illegally" because the commander in chief tweeted such, it's your perogative. But it's also an individual's responsibility to sort out "truth" from "fiction", a responsibility that truly shouldn't belong to a "news" organization presenting the "facts".
Alas, most of us do not, hence the power of Facebook, indeed the Internet at large, will just continue to grow with facts, numbers and statistics being left behind in the dust.
Or the public receiving their news on "Facebook" or the "NYT" or "The Wall Street Journal" could do as an investigative reporter once said;
"If your mother says she loves you, check it out".
Unfortunately, as our latest election demonstrates, most people believe what they want to believe and if the "news" dovetails with their beliefs it's accepted as fact whatever the source.
I assume that the driving force behind all the fake news, or "real" news for that matter, is profit and if the "bottom line" is the energy behind such news sources, just expect the problem to get worse.
But, hey, if you believe a Bigfoot drives a flying saucer or that "millions of people voted illegally" because the commander in chief tweeted such, it's your perogative. But it's also an individual's responsibility to sort out "truth" from "fiction", a responsibility that truly shouldn't belong to a "news" organization presenting the "facts".
Alas, most of us do not, hence the power of Facebook, indeed the Internet at large, will just continue to grow with facts, numbers and statistics being left behind in the dust.
9
The issue is not whether Fakebook posts are true or not, but Zuckerberg's refusal to admit as much or even consider that a platform of his size has any impact.
When confronted with the idea that Fakebook affected the election he dismissed it as rubbish. On the other hand, when selling ads, his platform is transformative and with an unparalleled reach.
We certainly do not want Fakebook to be the arbiter of truth, but we should acknowledge that they have an impact on society - just like smoking has on our lungs. Force them to deliver a warning with every package.
When confronted with the idea that Fakebook affected the election he dismissed it as rubbish. On the other hand, when selling ads, his platform is transformative and with an unparalleled reach.
We certainly do not want Fakebook to be the arbiter of truth, but we should acknowledge that they have an impact on society - just like smoking has on our lungs. Force them to deliver a warning with every package.
74
The problem with a 'warning' is the low information individual will choose to disbelieve the warning. Negative advertising works better than positive advertising. Salacious news is more interesting than factual news. The only effective way to control it is disallow it.
FB did not affect the election. And to keep saying it did makes me wonder about whether the left has lost it's direction. Completely.
I agree completely with the author. While certain blatantly false stories can be labeled as such, the history of "fact checking" shows quite a bit of bias in determining the truth of a given statement.
One example is the claim Chris Christie made when he said he was "appointed" as US Attorney on 9/10/2001. That claim was rated "mostly false" by Politifact because Christie was not formally confirmed by the Senate until that December. But he was nominated by President Bush on 9/10/2001.
There are many similar examples. That's the kind of fact checking that minces words and does nothing to preserve the truth.
One example is the claim Chris Christie made when he said he was "appointed" as US Attorney on 9/10/2001. That claim was rated "mostly false" by Politifact because Christie was not formally confirmed by the Senate until that December. But he was nominated by President Bush on 9/10/2001.
There are many similar examples. That's the kind of fact checking that minces words and does nothing to preserve the truth.
2
The difference in your example is sort of a triviality, not the difference between the absurdist, "Bussed in protestors" and actual facts, like for example "17 women accuse Trump". The former, twenty minutes of fact checking finds to be false and nonsense. The latter, that same twenty minutes finds to be verifiably true. FB and the NYT have the same responsibilities in vetting these.
That's a bad example, Jim. Being "nominated" is objectively different than being "appointed." Words have meaning. There's no bias involved in recognizing that.
I'm sorry to say it, but if the American people are foolish enough to trust social media, we deserve Trump.
Even before the Internet, Mena Airfield was touted in newsgroups as a Clinton scandal in the Freenets. A quick search demonstrated the falsity of the accusation, but few of us were willing to stand the personal abuse from users who posted from HP, IBM and Compaq.
There is no solution. The next generation will not be able to trust anyone.
Even before the Internet, Mena Airfield was touted in newsgroups as a Clinton scandal in the Freenets. A quick search demonstrated the falsity of the accusation, but few of us were willing to stand the personal abuse from users who posted from HP, IBM and Compaq.
There is no solution. The next generation will not be able to trust anyone.
20
Actually, what you are seeing is not because of 'fake news' and it's observed across Europe these days - citizens are not willing to give up their history and culture for an immigrating group that does not agree with their culture. Muslims are like anyone else - most want to live in peace and practice their religion or culture. However, many, at the urging of egocentric clerics, are willing to follow hate speech, buy into the black and white 'truths' (as if truth was really ever black and white). So, while they welcomed with open arms, now many want closed borders. It took less than 2 years for the pendulum to swing. People that voted for Trump, for the most part, do so because they were unhappy with bringing in more immigrants and granting amnesty when the country doesn't have the jobs to support the citizens. Sadly, like everything else, it's not that simple. But people look for simple solutions and politicians offer simple solutions because it's easy, and effective. Just like 'fake news' that supports your bias. Frankly, I am astounded by the Clinton supporters here when just 6 months ago she was touted as a rich, dishonest politician and folks wanted Bernie. I guess everyone has 'fake news' bubbling into their minds, whether it's on FB or in the NYTimes.
It's amazing to me that people are ok with allowing an algorithm to spoon-feed a list of curated "news" items based on a person's likes or connections or other criterion. What about individuality and freedom of choice, as well as the critical thinking that goes with that choice? I have subscriptions to a range of reputable news sources including NYT, Wapo, WSJ, the Atlantic, among others. I choose which articles I read, not some algorithm. Nor do I read articles that are "recommended" just for me. I get my news from these websites directly, rather than from some other curated source. (I'm not on FB). I choose which articles I read. I critically assess the plausibility of that news. Yes, my way is harder and takes more time, but I take seriously my responsibility for being an informed citizen.
245
People relying on curated news feeds has proven to be dangerous in that I think it said the nationalism bigotry and misogyny that resulted in the election of Donald J Trump. How much more dangerous does fake news need to get before it gets peoples attention
1
Topaz, I agree, and I find there is another advantage - I spend less time online. Constant clicking on recommended links can eat up time with little reward. Quality content is satisfying; junk news is not. It's like eating proper meals versus snacking on junk food all day.
3
good for you topaz but you must realize that you are exceptional in the real meaning of the word.
Disagree.
Of course Facebook can not do a fact-checking, and this is not what we do request. But some things are a crime, like insults, like discrimination. And SocialMedia could help indentifying the suspects. It shouldn't be so difficult to identify the source of fake news or an hate posting. Mostly there are just a few hate-preacher and many who just share the content, we just need to identify the source, the spreaders.
Of course Facebook can not do a fact-checking, and this is not what we do request. But some things are a crime, like insults, like discrimination. And SocialMedia could help indentifying the suspects. It shouldn't be so difficult to identify the source of fake news or an hate posting. Mostly there are just a few hate-preacher and many who just share the content, we just need to identify the source, the spreaders.
5
i think there are more than a few hate filled liars out there and then there are those that are paid by hate filled liars and don't mind what they do to collect a buck. i don't know what it's like in germany but over here our media is corrupt. sometimes it is corrupt by design i.e. fox news, rush limbaugh and a few dozen other lesser haters. by creating this storm they have corrupted CNN, NBC etc. there hate is loud enough and pervasive enough that they feel obligated to report what is being said...... and that's not even talking about steve bannon and his center for government responsibility....
1
I agree. The "truth" is a slippery thing. There are, as you note, some facts which are easily verifiable - the Pope either did or did not endorse Trump. That said, there is much else upon which various factions disagree. Case in point is Trump's current claim that millions voted illegally. I have no doubt that his fans believe him, just as they believe that he won the Electoral college by "a landslide" (he didn't). We will soon have a President who has little to no regard for the truth whose supporters hear only what he says, which is amplified by right-wing media. Any attempt to challenge their "truth" is believed to be some great conspiracy against "real Americans."
All of that says only that much of what I would consider "fake news" circulating on FB and elsewhere is "the truth" to another segment of society. Sadly, it is the general public which must become more discerning; which must care more about fact-checking. Yet, we have retreated into our bubbles where "the truth" is often that which supports our own biases. FB cannot effectively straighten out the mess we are in. To try would be costly and, in the end, useless.
All of that says only that much of what I would consider "fake news" circulating on FB and elsewhere is "the truth" to another segment of society. Sadly, it is the general public which must become more discerning; which must care more about fact-checking. Yet, we have retreated into our bubbles where "the truth" is often that which supports our own biases. FB cannot effectively straighten out the mess we are in. To try would be costly and, in the end, useless.
28
You're joking of course. Had Hillary won we would have had a president that cared nothing for the truth. It doesn't matter who won the popular vote. The Electoral College is the deciding factor. The NYT's is often fake news. They ignore what they want and spin what they do publish. Right now they're busy making Fidel Castro a hero.
4
jacrane. You must not actually read the articles you are criticizing. Not one article is trying to make Castro a hero. If you want a better informed point of view, I suggest you go to Cuba, talk to local people and see something of the country. Many, many Americans have and more continue to do so. And you need to stop listening to FOX News and Limbaugh. Even Glen Beck is finally seeing the light. In the meantime, you might want to learn a few facts about your new president. How he just paid 25 million dollars to settle a lawsuit for fraud, how many contractors he stiffed over the years and why American banks will no longer lend money to him. Now he will have the whole US Treasury to raid. Happy days ahead!
3
No, jacrane, they simply publish facts that don't support your particular belief system. That's an issue with the validity of your beliefs, and your inability to tell factual articles from editorials.
Truth is often ambiguous or contradictory, seldom one-sided. You prefer binary simplicity. It's the equivalent of turning the Mona Lisa into a manga-style black-and-white cartoon.
Truth is often ambiguous or contradictory, seldom one-sided. You prefer binary simplicity. It's the equivalent of turning the Mona Lisa into a manga-style black-and-white cartoon.
3
I agree that Facebook is just the forum for people to express themselves. The problem is bigger than that. With freedom of speech comes responsibility and that responsibility is being ignored in educating people in our present day democracy. Families and schools can help with this problem. Truth should be our central focus. If a writer doesn't believe his/her message is true, don't post it. If it's an opinion, that should be stated. I believe the generation that grew up with the internet is much more savvy about not relying on what they read on Facebook, but I've been amazed at what some of my contemporaries will quote from the internet. Then again we grew up before the "post truth" era when you believed "all the news fit to print"!
22
Betty - I'm a high school English teacher and have decided that this is THE issue of our time. I'm in the process of developing a way to teach students how to discriminate between legitimately reported news and, well, everything else - fake news, clickbait, distortions, misleading memes, material taken out of context, satire, etc. Current high school students may be digital natives who are "much more savvy" in SOME ways, but they still don't understand the extent to which online media can manipulate their thought process (or the extent to which profit-driven companies are actively trying to do that). They have to be taught. The problem is that our educational system is big, cumbersome, and slow to evolve, and these changes are happening incredibly rapidly. Still, I'm doing my best down here in the trenches!
20
"With freedom of speech comes responsibility"
can we please apply this to rupert murdoch's enterprises? although FB is a source of a lot of lies now? fox news has been out there for at least a couple of decades spewing misinformation and quite effectively dividing our country.
can we please apply this to rupert murdoch's enterprises? although FB is a source of a lot of lies now? fox news has been out there for at least a couple of decades spewing misinformation and quite effectively dividing our country.
3
This may be difficult, but the health of American democracy on their willingness to try. In military intelligence, a rating is given for both the suspected factuality of a report and for the assessed quality of the source of the information. Thus, an A-1 report means highly likely information coming from a very reliable source. Surely *some* algorithm or feedback could rapidly assign such values to what purports to be newsworthy social media posts. At some point, a dishonest story could be overprinted with the word FRAUD. Such action might save the country from catastrophic errors.
75
Yes FB should absolutely do fact checking and ban lying sites. In the last year I have read so many sites with out and out lies as to be mindboggling.
We are not talking opinion pieces but rather sites who do lies for no reason than to make clickbait money from the gullible right wing who slaver over these sites that feed their hate and anger. Several sites have already admitted making up stories knowing the right wing will devour them and pass them on. These things have consequences and the biggest is the one the conservatives just put into our White House. A man of low morals, no integrity, who has nothing but disdain for the Constitution, is a serial liar, racist, bigot and incredibly ignorant. One site tried to get lies about Trump spread but found liberals are not easily taken in by such antics.
Thanks to places like FB, the lies helping to make a major part of America hate Hillary, were mainstreamed. Even so called reputable news organizations would jump on them if it meant ratings.
So yes FB should police sites who propagate these lies, half truths and character assassination on a scale unheard of in modern history.
FB is a private corporation with their own rules in order to post and one of them should be the truth. You cannot claim hamburger will cure cancer so neither should any site on FB say Hillary stole 6 billion dollars from State or sold uranium to Russia for 100 million paid to the Clinton Foundation to name a few lies.
These lies divide America.
We are not talking opinion pieces but rather sites who do lies for no reason than to make clickbait money from the gullible right wing who slaver over these sites that feed their hate and anger. Several sites have already admitted making up stories knowing the right wing will devour them and pass them on. These things have consequences and the biggest is the one the conservatives just put into our White House. A man of low morals, no integrity, who has nothing but disdain for the Constitution, is a serial liar, racist, bigot and incredibly ignorant. One site tried to get lies about Trump spread but found liberals are not easily taken in by such antics.
Thanks to places like FB, the lies helping to make a major part of America hate Hillary, were mainstreamed. Even so called reputable news organizations would jump on them if it meant ratings.
So yes FB should police sites who propagate these lies, half truths and character assassination on a scale unheard of in modern history.
FB is a private corporation with their own rules in order to post and one of them should be the truth. You cannot claim hamburger will cure cancer so neither should any site on FB say Hillary stole 6 billion dollars from State or sold uranium to Russia for 100 million paid to the Clinton Foundation to name a few lies.
These lies divide America.
202
Another triumph of money over truth. Face Book is destroying truth for money of its advertizers, and incidentally enrich Mark Zuckerberg. Even the "harmless" bits on the site are the sorts of distractions that take time from lives that are already intellectually impoverished.
3
Constant and deliberate outright lying is the MO of the president-elect of the US. If you think truth is drowned out now, you haven't seen anything yet.
4
Guess you haven't seen the lies from the left. My concern is that people like you and FB will decide that any conservative opinion, or moderate for that matter, is really based on 'low information' people and red necks. Not true. While I didn't vote for Trump, I will say that those I know that did were not influenced by FB 'lies' or 'fake news' but instead the fact that she didn't reach them. Her words fell very short, and they didn't trust her. They felt marginalized, by Hillary, by their union leaders, and by DC - Reps and Dems alike. Trump won because he was an outsider, not because of 'fake news.'
1
"I’m not comfortable trusting the truth to one gatekeeper that has a mission and a fiduciary duty to increase advertising revenue..."
Nor am I, yet that pretty much describes every modern media company, the NYTimes included. For the past 18 months, the insanity that was the Trump campaign was covered endlessly, breathlessly, and sloppily, because nothing spells click bait like Donald J. Trump.
I would agree with your argument if Facebook and other social media platforms weren't considered a source of news by 62% of Americans, according to Pew.
We are seeing the result of what happens when the gatekeepers are dismissed and totally unfiltered information is circulated in voters' echo-chamber social media circles, i.e. that a demonstrably unfit-for-the-presidency crazy person will soon inhabit the Oval Office.
Like it or not, Facebook is now a major news source; why shouldn't they be any less responsible for the "news" on their platform than, say, Reuters? To say they aren't responsible for what users post on the behemoth they've created is like saying a porn platform shouldn't be held responsible for child pornography posted to its site.
For journalists like you to let Facebook off the hook is to further doom journalism (and truth) to further obscurity. I don't trust Facebook to determine what is true either, but I would much prefer they at least try instead of letting truth die a slow and painful death.
Nor am I, yet that pretty much describes every modern media company, the NYTimes included. For the past 18 months, the insanity that was the Trump campaign was covered endlessly, breathlessly, and sloppily, because nothing spells click bait like Donald J. Trump.
I would agree with your argument if Facebook and other social media platforms weren't considered a source of news by 62% of Americans, according to Pew.
We are seeing the result of what happens when the gatekeepers are dismissed and totally unfiltered information is circulated in voters' echo-chamber social media circles, i.e. that a demonstrably unfit-for-the-presidency crazy person will soon inhabit the Oval Office.
Like it or not, Facebook is now a major news source; why shouldn't they be any less responsible for the "news" on their platform than, say, Reuters? To say they aren't responsible for what users post on the behemoth they've created is like saying a porn platform shouldn't be held responsible for child pornography posted to its site.
For journalists like you to let Facebook off the hook is to further doom journalism (and truth) to further obscurity. I don't trust Facebook to determine what is true either, but I would much prefer they at least try instead of letting truth die a slow and painful death.
301
"Truth" in politics can be tricky. For instance, it is verifiable if someone is under FBI investigation. By the same token, it is verifiable if that person is running for office or not. However, it is a matter of opinion if such a person is fit for office. It gets even murkier concerning predictions about who is coming out as a the winner in all sorts of competitions, not just politics.
I agree that Facebook should be responsible for what "news" is on it's site and also certain posts. The analogy with porn sites and child porn is apt.
Also, the author said "I’m not comfortable trusting the truth to one gatekeeper that has a mission and a fiduciary duty to increase advertising revenue, especially when revenue is tied more to engagement than information" This comment, while meant to apply to Facebook, actually applies to mainstream media. That's been one of this country's biggest problems for almost 20 years now. The Fourth Estate is nothing more than corporate revenue streams now. They are more concerned with ratings and advertising revenue than they are at doing the job they need to do for our democracy to work. A good example is the coverage of this election and the debates. CNN for example turned the debates they held into a circus and were more than happy to let the debate turn into a school yard bully taunting a woman versus requiring a discussion on policy and exploring the differences between the two candidates.
Also, the author said "I’m not comfortable trusting the truth to one gatekeeper that has a mission and a fiduciary duty to increase advertising revenue, especially when revenue is tied more to engagement than information" This comment, while meant to apply to Facebook, actually applies to mainstream media. That's been one of this country's biggest problems for almost 20 years now. The Fourth Estate is nothing more than corporate revenue streams now. They are more concerned with ratings and advertising revenue than they are at doing the job they need to do for our democracy to work. A good example is the coverage of this election and the debates. CNN for example turned the debates they held into a circus and were more than happy to let the debate turn into a school yard bully taunting a woman versus requiring a discussion on policy and exploring the differences between the two candidates.
3
Facebook is not journalism and truth is elusive. Anyone who advocates Facebook screening has no appreciation for the problems of censorship. Assuming Facebook took the extraordinary step of screening content, then Facebook readers might assume that Facebook is true and that might be worse.
1