Open Search

Facebook Flagging Fake News as Disputed

March 7, 2017 1:24 pm
Categorised in:
Reading Time: 2 minutes

From The Next Web:

“Following up on its promise from December, Facebook has begun to flag fake news stories on news feeds in the US. Questionable stories may now show a “disputed” tag underneath, with a link to a source countering the article’s claims. Facebook said it works with ABC News, Politifact, FactCheck, Snopes, and the Associated Press to verify stories back in December.”

Excellent first steps. I’d like to see Twitter take a similar step, maybe at an account level somehow? Twitter is a bit of a different beast though.

“It’s a welcome step, but there are caveats. Mainly, the process is too slow. Users have to report a story as fake, or Facebook’s software needs to notice something fishy. It can then take several days before a fake news story is assessed by fact-checking organizations, and at least two of them have to agree before the label is applied.”

Whoa, whoa, whoa nelly. This can/should be automated. I’d just jump on this one now, Zuck. We know who a lot of these sites are, if it’s a story coming from that domain, flag it automatically and then remove the flag IF the story gets verified. The onus should be on the content creators to not publish false stories, and shaming them like this will help if only because of the knock on effect of users constantly having their stories flagged as fake. As a society we need to be a lot stronger on this.

Wikipedia and the Daily Mail is a strong example of pre-emptive bans. Quite frankly, good. They should not be cited in places where users are researching information. Their stories are often flawed.

Also flag satirical sites like The Onion as well, because certain users do/will get confused, but they should be flagged as satire. It’s the fair way to do things.

***Quick update*** Re: Wikipedia and the Daily Mail, looks like the Daily Mail are going on a holy crusade to prove they aren’t full of the brown stuff. Wikipedia are still in the right and that lead-in paragraph could be about the Daily Mail itself. The important thing to note here is that this is damaging the Daily Mail or they wouldn’t be crying about it.

This joint was penned by @elmarko