Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Facebook Social Networks Politics News

Facebook Takes Out Full-page Newspaper Ads To Help UK Citizens Detect Fake New (venturebeat.com) 82

An anonymous reader writes: Facebook has today taken out full-page ads in U.K. newspapers ahead of the general election that's scheduled to take place next month. These ads are designed to educate the public about how to spot fake news online. Appearing in nationwide publications, including the Guardian and the Telegraph, Facebook's "Tips for spotting false news" ad is similar to the one it published in France last month and covers such areas as being skeptical of misleading headlines, spotting manipulated images, and checking the URL of the story. The advice offered may not always help, however -- under "Consider the photos," for example, the text reads: "You can search for the photo or image to verify where it came from." But anyone requiring advice on how to spot fake news through a newspaper ad likely isn't tech savvy enough to know how to do that or to even understand what it means. Alongside these ads, Facebook also revealed that is has deleted "tens of thousands" of accounts that it believes were deliberately spreading fake news and that it is also updating its algorithms to demote articles it suspects of carrying dubious messaging.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Facebook Takes Out Full-page Newspaper Ads To Help UK Citizens Detect Fake New

Comments Filter:
  • by karnal ( 22275 ) on Monday May 08, 2017 @03:32PM (#54379211)

    Thank $diety they're not detecting fake old!

  • In other words (Score:4, Insightful)

    by sl3xd ( 111641 ) on Monday May 08, 2017 @03:34PM (#54379233) Journal

    In other words... to spot fake news, users have to expend actual effort and thought.

    Sounds like a non-starter for most of Facebook.

    • It's a good thing the fakers don't know the techniques people will use to identify their stories.

      • by Maritz ( 1829006 )
        They know they have to do basically nothing. Preconceived biases, unwillingness to listen to contradicting evidence (cognitive dissonance), the furthering of an existing narrative - these all do their work for them. They know probably around 1% might check veracity of news. The rest go "I knew it!".
    • Re:In other words (Score:5, Insightful)

      by AthanasiusKircher ( 1333179 ) on Monday May 08, 2017 @03:51PM (#54379355)

      Yes, exactly. We have many documented cases where lots of people have shared satirical fake news articles without reading them. We had a number of high-level politicians and advisers in the last election sometimes tweeting these as well without reading them.

      How do we know they didn't read them? Because many of the articles turned into obvious nonsense or ridiculous crap that often made fun of the audience they were targeting in the 4th paragraph or so. Facebook users (and even public figures who should know better) have been shown to just "Like" things and forward or tweet them without even reading beyond the headline or 1st paragraph. And Facebook expects people to start examining details of URLs, where photos came from, etc.??

      LOL.

      • by TWX ( 665546 )

        TV stations have run images they pulled from the internet, like the now-infamous Krispy Kreme image with, "so good, you'll suck dick!" under the company logo.

        Or they've released the "names" of the Chinese flight crew that were involved in an airliner tail-strike crash, names like, "Mi Too Lo," and, "Ho Lee Fuk," reading them out on the air without questioning the veracity of their information.

        Unfortunately I do not know of an inexpensive way of fighting against the collective derp other than fundamentally c

        • by sl3xd ( 111641 )

          I do not know of an inexpensive way of fighting against the collective derp other than fundamentally changing democracy,

          "This, then, is the new illiteracy, the illiteracy of those who can read but don't. [...] ...] This new illiteracy is more pernicious than the old, because unlike the old illiteracy it does not debar its victims from power and influence, although like the old illiteracy it disqualifies them for it. Those long-dead men and women who learned to read so that they might read the Bible and John

        • Democracy's primary value is the drowning-out of the voices of the informed.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Instead of deleting the accounts, they could have tracked them for a while. It would not take long for them to map out the social network of such accounts and then to modify the frequency of said fake news getting into legitimate user streams. In this way, they could amplify the echo chamber of fake news within the fake news channels while hiding it from actual people.

    • Wrong.

      "Sounds like," should be, "It's."

      I vet news that shows up in my feed and when I detect fake news, I post how I determined it was fake.

      A lot of times it's right there at the bottom [undergroun...report.com] of the home page.

      Underground News Report is a news and political satire web publication, which may or may not use real names, often in semi-real or mostly fictitious ways. All news articles contained within Undergroundnewsreport.com are fiction, and presumably fake news. Any resemblance to the truth is purely coincidental, except for all references to politicians and/or celebrities, in which case they are based on real people, but still based almost entirely in fiction. Undergroundnewsreport.com is not meant for individuals under the age of 18.

      A lot of times, the responses to my posts produce *facepalm* as in, "Well, if it isn't true, it should be."

  • .. one picture.
    "Alternative" media is painting another.

    Just because it's factually correct doesn't make it correct really.
    Then again it's often complete lies too.

    The lies is ~always about what have some political connection, close to always immigration here in Sweden but could also be budget and economy.

    If one read both one would likely get close to the truth but the lying establishment want people to trust THEIR lies so the idea is that one shouldn't read the alternative opinion, numbers and opposition con

  • by s.petry ( 762400 ) on Monday May 08, 2017 @03:38PM (#54379259)

    And to that I say "ha ha!". Companies who have been found to be manipulating data and messages, censoring opinions that they dislike, and lying about the whole thing.. You have no place telling people what's Fake or True.

    Reality displays that Politics and Political views are opinion, not a fact. You do not have True/False, you have probabilities. The way to make a political views is to study probables, which means you must have opposing viewpoints.

    TO anyone claiming purity in knowledge, Fact You!

    • Close.

      But it's not "opinion." it's "faith."

      Politics is religion.

    • Every story in the world has bias; some of the stories have implicit falsity; and some stories have explicit falsity.

      Bias is not a reason to limit the dissemination of a story. Implicit Falsity sometimes might be. Explicit falsity is. Highly likely falsity is at least a reason to flag it for the reader. For example, when "vaccines cause autism" claims appear on Facebook, someone should not see the claim without a flag that the story is almost certainly false.

      I'm not claiming the line drawing is easy, but i

    • by Maritz ( 1829006 )
      Post-modern "there is no objective truth" hogwash. Real journalism exists, and wankers making up fictitious stories exists. If you can't tell the difference, it's on you.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    I wonder what constitutes fake news. If FB had anything to do with it, anything pro-Trump likely would be marked as fake news, similar with anything against the Merkel Doctrine of unfettered immigration.

    • by Maritz ( 1829006 )
      Yes mate. Anything that contradicts your opinion is fake news. Carry on as you were, dumbass.
  • FB vs Bias (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Chas ( 5144 ) on Monday May 08, 2017 @03:44PM (#54379293) Homepage Journal

    Basically, as long as it moves in lock-step with what major media and a bunch of heavily biased corporations tell you, for your own good of course, it's not fake news.

    However, if it dissents in any way with the popular narrative, it's GOTTA be fake!

    See! We even have Snopes and FactCheck.org looking into it for us! Because none of their fact-checkers would EVER exhibit ANY sort of bias!
    And any stories to the contrary MUST be fake news right?

    Now to get real here.

    Any time you see "news" from ANY outlet whatsoever, assume that the outlet has some sort of sociopolitical axe to grind.
    Apply skepticism in liberal amounts.
    Do your OWN fact-checking.

    Well, unless you like looking like an idiot later on if you're parroting something incorrect...

    • Re:FB vs Bias (Score:5, Insightful)

      by SumDog ( 466607 ) on Monday May 08, 2017 @04:18PM (#54379577) Homepage Journal

      I hate all this "fake news" garbage. Back in my day, we had it too, but it went by a different name. We just called it "News."

      It's all bullshit. Every network from the BBC to NPR to ABC all have tons of bullshit sprinkled throughout their feeds. Some of it is just blindly reciting government press releases, others are intentionally planted stories from government propaganda groups (both in the US and the UK. If you don't think this is happened you need to take a good hard look at the past several decades).

      It's all fucking bullshit all the way. Turn off your TV. Go outside.

      • I tried that and a goddam banner-plane came by with "Make America Great Again."

      • by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

        I hate all this "fake news" garbage. Back in my day, we had it too, but it went by a different name. We just called it "News."

        No, there's a difference between the news, what's reported, and fake news. The first two can be subject to "alternate facts" which really are just different interpretations of events, often having errors by omission.

        Fake news, though is fiction. Like how climate change is fake, and how Breitbart did it using Weather Network's reports and graphics to spin a tale of fantasy. This is co

    • by Maritz ( 1829006 )

      Basically, as long as it moves in lock-step with what major media and a bunch of heavily biased corporations tell you, for your own good of course, it's not fake news.

      However, if it dissents in any way with the popular narrative, it's GOTTA be fake!

      See! We even have Snopes and FactCheck.org looking into it for us! Because none of their fact-checkers would EVER exhibit ANY sort of bias! And any stories to the contrary MUST be fake news right?

      Now to get real here.

      Any time you see "news" from ANY outlet whatsoever, assume that the outlet has some sort of sociopolitical axe to grind. Apply skepticism in liberal amounts. Do your OWN fact-checking.

      Well, unless you like looking like an idiot later on if you're parroting something incorrect...

      Warms my cockles to see this kid having so much fun with his strawman.

    • by mjwx ( 966435 )

      Well, unless you like looking like an idiot later on if you're parroting something incorrect...

      Whilst this statement is completely true, it's also utterly irrelevant.

      We now live in a society that celebrates ignorance and stupidity. Its no longer an insult to be an idiot and become popular to be ignorant. Blindly re-posting an obvious lie is 100% acceptable as along as the lie is popular. Opposing it with fact gets you labelled as "fake" and any number of other disparaging remarks made about your character.

      It's become popular to "fat-shame". I have to ask why it's unpopular to "stupid-shame".

      • by Chas ( 5144 )

        It's not unpopular to stupid shame.

        The main problem is, stupid shaming doesn't work.

        You have to have some modicum of intelligence to experience shame.

        This is why stupid people are effectively shameless.

  • by DatbeDank ( 4580343 ) on Monday May 08, 2017 @03:47PM (#54379315)
    The same entity that curated their "trending" algorithms. These elites will stoop to any level to maintain there control.
  • It seems Mark Zuckerberg took 1984 to his heart and decided to make it real.
    • Yeah, the shit they do with rats in cages is what really stops me from using Facebook too much.

  • They only covered one type of fake news. The second type is far more common. Stuff that is accurate, but not NEWS. Half the articles are now opinion, not news. Or old crap recycled. Or totally true, but totally misleading (like talking about the dangers of sharks without mentioning how rare shark attacks are.)

    All the news sources are now talking about Obama's instructions to Congress to "have courage." He is a former President, all the people that like him already are going to vote the way he wants t

  • by OrangeTide ( 124937 ) on Monday May 08, 2017 @04:10PM (#54379495) Homepage Journal

    We should probably start requiring a formal certification and licensing system to operate a computer or smart phone without supervision.

    The lack of critical thinking is as damaging to democracy as a lack speed limits and stop signs near schools would be to grammar school students.

    (won't someone please think of the children?! Because they'll be managing our pensions and healthcare one day, and they may be very cross with us.)

  • I don't know which idea is more laughable, that Facebook is the altruistic corporation truly concerned about the greater good or that Facebook has any credibility as an authority on "news". Facebook (and Twitter for that matter) knowingly and willingly turned a blind eye to many of the anti-vaxxer, 9-11 truther, etc. groups in pursuit of the almighty subscriber count and the ad revenue. Fake news is now the cause celeb and they are shocked, shocked that there is gambling going on in here [youtube.com].

  • It's nice that they've killed tens of thousands of accounts, now how about the advertisers? Like the ones that claim to be ESPN [deadspin.com] but aren't that I see constantly.

  • by daveywest ( 937112 ) on Monday May 08, 2017 @05:37PM (#54380259)
    First clue to spotting fake news: the source is a print newspaper. Nobody reads newspapers anymore. Real journalists work for websites like Breitbart, Infowars, and Perz Hilton.
  • ... because no one really reads that shit on Facebook, anyway.

    Members just share out confirmation of their political faith.

    The goddam shit is better than the right wing batshit crazy Evangelical Christian white trash memes popping up all over the feed.

    The way to stop fake news is to block the asshats who share without thinking.

  • I just consider everything I see on Facebook to be fake, including the pictures of my sister-in-law's dinner before, during and after she eats...

    Not to mention, why on earth would you bother with a newspaper ad? Most news papers I know are putting out fake news themselves... I know the local paper sure is... It's sort of like the pot calling the kettle black if you ask me.

    Oh well, I guess it's to be expected given we live in a day where most folks get their hard news from the nightly comedy shows anyway.

  • If anyone's delivering and promoting fake news, it's Facebook with these ads and their self-approving news process.

  • It took a whole page to say, "Don't participate in Facebook"?
  • You've brought it on yourselves.

    After decades of feeding the public sanctioned fake-news, people are unable to distinguish it from un-sanctioned fake-news.

    Now what?

  • Someone needs to remind Sarah Hanson Young that Sea Patrol isn't real

If you hype something and it succeeds, you're a genius -- it wasn't a hype. If you hype it and it fails, then it was just a hype. -- Neil Bogart

Working...