Skip to navigationSkip to content

'Way too little, way too late': Facebook's factcheckers say effort is failing

By the Guardian

Journalists fighting spread of fake news raise concerns over possible conflicts of interest and say site has refused to disclose needed dataRead full story

Comments

  • Also share to
  • Of course this is failing. People don't care whether something is fact or fiction. The idea that giving people all the right information will prevent them from suffering massive cognitive dissonance has been debunked for a long time. The only way to solve this problem is to take an editorial stand and remove false information, along with lowering the score for the person who sends it around or reposts it when it comes to who gets seen in the news feed.

  • The bright side: fake news forces us to be skeptical about what we see and hear. Let’s realize that even real news isn’t guaranteed to be 100% accurate!

  • This is becoming more and more ridiculous - a “Facebook spokesperson said that once an article had been labeled as false, its future “impressions” dropped by 80%.”

    Brilliant - we now have a lessening in future impressions on identification of falsity as a workaround!

    Here’s a thought - don’t let it happen in the first place. This underlines why News should be cherished and burnished not demeaned and disrupted.

  • SocialFlow ran analysis on this; in a nutshell, thousands upon thousands of fake news articles would have to be published and have decent reach to be a real problem.

    Not to say FB and fact checkers shouldn't try to snag the made up stuff.

  • The awkward reality of Facebook’s fact-checking efforts.

  • This is exactly the area where NewsPicks should fight into with its platform.

  • The horse bolted — and took the stable with it. Good luck with that!

  • < Media >

    Modern media theory suggests that information popularity has more to do with who stated the fact than the reliability and content of the fact itself. I personally see this not as something that sprouted because of Trump, but rather a natural phase of the tech revolution. The internet is now more than a tool for communication, it is a platform for one to find facts (either real or fake) to fuel one's argument. In other words, people only see what they want to see. And that is facilitated

    < Media >

    Modern media theory suggests that information popularity has more to do with who stated the fact than the reliability and content of the fact itself. I personally see this not as something that sprouted because of Trump, but rather a natural phase of the tech revolution. The internet is now more than a tool for communication, it is a platform for one to find facts (either real or fake) to fuel one's argument. In other words, people only see what they want to see. And that is facilitated now by the internet.

    For that reason, NewsPicks will be an essentially tool that brings together unbiased opinions of professionals and a variety of news sources.

  • The Editor please! Some accountability

  • Wow. Who knew journalism was so difficult? Oh wait...

  • Even if you weed out fake news, people will still look for what they want to see and hear. Fake news will never die.

    Rather than employing hundreds of fact checkers for the endless task, it would be far more effective to address the source of the problem—the need to use fake narratives to defend self in dichotomous, winner-take-all, Hobbesian settings.

Want more conversations like this?

Join the Quartz community for all the intelligence, without the noise.

App Store BadgeGoogle Play Badge
Leaderboard Screenshot

A community of leaders, subject matter experts, and curious minds bringing nuance back to how we talk about the news.

Editors' Picks Screenshot

No content overload: our editors will curate the most notable and discussion-worthy pieces for you every day.

Share Screenshot

Don’t just read the story, tell it: contribute your ideas and experience to the dialogue.