back to article Facebook hires Hillary Clinton to lead assault on fake news*

Facebook's revealed its plans to tackle fake news. Days after the United States election Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg pooh-poohed the theory that fake news spreading on his site influenced the United States Presidential election. But a handful of days later Facebook announced it would make it harder to turn a quid with …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Mushroom

    Damn you, vulture !!!

    I fell for that clickbait headline.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Damn you, vulture !!!

      >I fell for that clickbait headline.

      Shirley a spelling mistake!

      You probably meant either:

      "I feel for that clickbait headline"; or,

      "I felt for that clickbait headline".

      FTFY

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Damn you, vulture !!!

      Such a believable headline too, given the amounts Tony Bliar, George Osbourne, Bill Clinton have made on leaving office from after dinner speeches.

      Fcuk, anyone would think these were slippery payments/bribes for 'swinging deals while in office', to be paid on leaving office, but made to look like they are been paid to make After Dinner Speeches. But that would be too obvious. No?

      Yet, the current Government's priorities are chasing (over stay) Immigrant's Children out of UK schools, to be disruptive to their 'UK lifestyle'. Read that as holding down an exploited minimum wage/cash in hand job.

      Neither of these are the 'British values' I was taught by my Parents. Which one is worst?

  2. Notas Badoff
    Thumb Down

    Gravity attracts dense matter

    "We’ve found that if reading an article makes people significantly less likely to share it, that may be a sign that a story has misled people in some way."

    Oh that's going to help! Hmm, these three people didn't share the article. Ahh, this person shared it with 100 of their friends, who shared it with 20 of their friends, so it's just fine. "Obama confesses: Hillary's tail is longer and blacker!"

  3. Magani
    FAIL

    (Long) way to go, FB

    In the last few days on FB (only used due to globally spread family members), I've seen:-

    * Clint Eastwood's death

    * Richard Branson's death (was a scam for a purported wealth creation scheme)

    * A 'suggested post' about how to keep your PC safe, which was the most blatant garbage I've ever seen.

    All I can say is they have a lot of work ahead of them.

  4. Your alien overlord - fear me

    I'm suprised everyone is falling for that fake news by Mosseri. Jokes on you.

  5. allthecoolshortnamesweretaken

    "Which is interesting, but perhaps also a bit creepy because it shows Facebook seems to have sentiment analysis capabilities based on user activity."

    Nah, just statistical analysis, based on sharing rates and data like that. Which is just a little drop of creepyness in that big ocean of creepyness that is FB.

    Nice to see they are addressing the problem, though.

    Would be nice to know what changed Mark's mind; did Marc give him a few pointers again?

    1. MT Field
      Boffin

      Is there anything about facebook that isn't creepy? Inquiring minds need to know.

  6. Olivier2553

    Not sharing what tends not to be shared

    If I understand their 3rd technique, they will use articles that are not shared to test if they are not shared?

    It looks very promising.

    I have a simpler algorithm, you don't want fake news, don;t read facebook.

    1. Pompous Git Silver badge

      Re: Not sharing what tends not to be shared

      I have a simpler algorithm, you don't want fake news, don;t read facebook.
      I sincerely hope you don't have a patent/copyright on that. It's what I've been doing for quite some time.

      1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

        Re: Not sharing what tends not to be shared

        "I sincerely hope you don't have a patent/copyright on that. It's what I've been doing for quite some time."

        I claim prior art. I've been doing that since Facebook was invented (or stolen, depending on who you believe)

    2. Dan 55 Silver badge

      Re: Not sharing what tends not to be shared

      The problem with fake news is it is shared, just as much as normal news or even more so.

      Do they really understand the problem?

      1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

        Re: Not sharing what tends not to be shared

        "The problem with fake news is it is shared, just as much as normal news or even more so."

        If my wifes comments about some of her online "friends" is anything to go by, not only do some of these people believe the fake news and scams, but they actively fight/argue back in the face of the facts when pointed out to them. In some cases, to the extent of blocking my wife account. Some of the stuff she's had passed on/shared to her is stuff that was debunked years ago and it's still doing the rounds.

        I have little faith that anyone can stem the flow of fake news. After all, Sky/Fox News are both still broadcasting.

        1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

          Re: Not sharing what tends not to be shared

          Is that you Rupert? Don't you have minions to do your downvoting?

  7. Alan Mackenzie

    What about the mainstream media?

    Suddenly Facebook, Google and so on have caught up with the mainstream media in fake news stories. And the MSM do not like it, previously having had a monopoly on such "news". There is little doubt that the MSM's lies have influenced elections, and politics in general, to the detriment of democracy (or what now remains of it).

    If you have any doubt about the MSM's lies and distortions, just read Stuart Campbell's blog at http://www.wingsoverscotland.com for a few days.

    So, when are we going to get a facility for flagging up fake news in the Daily Mail, or the Daily Express, or even the Guardian?

    1. Pompous Git Silver badge

      Re: What about the mainstream media?

      So, when are we going to get a facility for flagging up fake news in the Daily Mail, or the Daily Express, or even the Guardian?
      Er, is one really necessary?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: What about the mainstream media?

        Have you read the shit the grauniad has published recently? And I'm sure the mail has been doing clickbait since before the click part became a thing.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: What about the mainstream media?

          Have you read the shit the grauniad has published recently? And I'm sure the mail has been doing clickbait since before the click part became a thing.

          They are much of a muchness (other than that the DM appears to make money, and the Graun doesn't), but I wonder if the key thing here is that these are the last vestiges of free-to-web news by the old barons of news, and the problem with "free" is that it doesn't pay for journalism (and advertising revenues all disappear into Google's uncreative maw).

          Telegraph is now behind a paywall, Times and FT have been for years. Indy sadly stands for nothing these days.

          Where do you turn for decent journalism? Even behind the paywalls, those publications have such low readership and low income that there's no depth, and you're getting good quality curation of Google and Facebook news.

          Welcome to the sharing economy.

    2. small and stupid

      Re: What about the mainstream media? False equivalence bullshit

      Youre part of the problem, equating the biases of the MSM with total crazy nonsense.

    3. Mike G

      Re: What about the mainstream media?

      Wingsoverscotland is hardly a unbiased publication; it's a foaming cesspit of screeching wild-eyed ultra nationalists, tin-foilers babbling about 'MSM', a sort of Scottish Breitbart where the the quivering paranoid rage-frenzy is stoked by a high calorie fuel of fried mars-bars and irn-bru.

  8. Pompous Git Silver badge

    Say what?

    Facebook gives a big thumbs down to fakes and will throw engineers and ideas at to “for as long as it takes to get it right.”
    Is that anything like dwarf throwing? Does being thrown at a "to" cause bruising and is it severe or mild? Curious minds...

  9. paulashene

    Bogus Reasoning Lockouts

    And then there are us that get kicked off of face book for no apparent reason other than this explanation: Identity Not Confirmed

    We currently can't verify your identity. Please try again later. Looping me back to this - We’ve detected suspicious activity on your Facebook account and have temporarily locked it as a security precaution.

    It’s likely that your account was compromised as a result of entering your password on a website designed to look like Facebook. This type of attack is known as phishing. Learn more in the Help Center.

    Over the next few steps we’ll walk you through a security check to help secure your account, and let you log back in - Hahaahahahahahahahahahahaahha

    That message after looping around again and again and again - I am locked out without recourse so maybe now it's time to move off Facebook and into the real world where adults are reading real stories not FAKE stories PRETENDING to be REAL stories and REAL stories being LABELLED as FAKE

  10. Fruit and Nutcase Silver badge
    Joke

    Yahoo! hires Hillary Clinton to advise on email security

    Fake news headline alert!

    (Is that enough to fend off a lawsuit? Joke icon, just in case)

  11. Olius

    "We’ve found that if reading an article makes people significantly less likely to share it, that may be a sign that a story has misled people in some way."

    But what's that saying... "Lies are right round the block before the truth has got its boots on" ?

    I'm not convinced this is a good metric, or a useful one, because there's an interesting flip side: if it is fake news which isn't being shared, is it a problem?

    Perhaps this can be seen as an admission that Facebook still loves widely shared and read items, and isn't planning on giving up the ad revenue they generate.

    1. Olius

      Also, isn't the point here that with "fake news", people don't know they have been misled?

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    No Hillary?

    Never mind. Jonathan Pie is available

  13. PhilipN Silver badge

    End of the Internet as we know it? No

    Does this mean from now on the Net will start to become accurate but boring?

    No thanks.

    Everyone loves to read scurrilous rumours and of course we consciously suspend discrimination, the same as we do when watching Tom and Jerry.

    Or when reading about a gay liaison between Hillary and Yoko Ono (yup there was such a report)

    Or watching Smith & Jones sniggering about Rowan Atkinson smearing himself with peanut butter before riding in his sports car (sorry, can't find the link on Youtube).

    Same with the gutter press.

    And of course daily life whether it is gossiping in the office about a lass (or lad) of low morals or the C of E matrons peering from behind their net curtains at those new neighbours ....

    Welcome to Planet Earth.

    Seems to me the user needs guidance, not (as much as I hate to say it) FB.

  14. fpx
    Boffin

    Sharing is not Believing

    The fake news hype keeps assuming that when a story is shared a million times, then a million users will be influenced. But that is nonsense. I might identify a story as fake and share it with my friends because I find it funny, and I will assume that my friends will also identify the story as obviously fake.

    Arguing that only I am smart enough to tell real news from fake, but that other people are too dumb to do the same is disingenuous as well.

    Sure, some people might, but I'd be willing to bet that the majority is not. So when a fake news story is shared a million times, how many people will swallow the crap and accept it for real? One percent? 10 Percent? I don't know but would be interested in research on the subject.

    Also, what will happen to humor and sarcasm, will that be outlawed as well?

    1. Mark 85

      Re: Sharing is not Believing

      I think you'd be surprised at how many people will buy into a fake story either because of pre-conceived notions, the fake news being repeated enough, or because someone they "trust" has passed it along.

      There's a saying attributed to Goering (I believe) about 'repeat a lie often enough and people will believe it's the truth'.

      1. Just An Engineer

        Re: Sharing is not Believing

        You also forget that Darwinism has been put on hold by the Nanny state. Which means there are millions out there with their uneducated preconceived notions, that believe these to be absolutely true. If the evolution of the human race had not been put on hold for the last 30 years, this may not be the case. The "weakest" or "weakest minded" among us would have been eliminated from the gene pool years ago.

        And if you doubt what I say about Millions. How do you explain the ~63 Million who voted for Trump. I could excuse about half that number, but not all of it.

        1. Pompous Git Silver badge

          Re: Sharing is not Believing

          You also forget that Darwinism has been put on hold by the Nanny state.
          Really? The government passed legislation that brought natural selection (and presumably artificial selection too) to a screeching halt? Whoda thunkit? And why do you think they did it?

          1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

            Re: Sharing is not Believing

            "Really? The government passed legislation that brought natural selection (and presumably artificial selection too) to a screeching halt? Whoda thunkit? And why do you think they did it?"

            I think he may be alluding to various health and safety legislation, medical care etc. such that idiots are protected from their stupid actions and allowed to procreate rather than die of own stupidity.

  15. Jason Bloomberg Silver badge

    Hand on heart ...

    I was recently caught out not believing a story which was actually true.

  16. TomChaton

    What about satire?

    I have yet to come across a piece of fake news yet. Either that or I'm such a sucker I wouldn't be able to tell, but that would be an epistemological matter.

    What concerns me is that good satire is almost indistinguishable from that which it satirises.

    1. Pompous Git Silver badge

      Re: What about satire?

      What concerns me is that good satire is almost indistinguishable from that which it satirises.
      What concerns me is that it has become incredibly difficult to satirise what's actually happening. I do miss That Was The Week That Was

      1. Vic

        Re: What about satire?

        What concerns me is that it has become incredibly difficult to satirise what's actually happening.

        I read an interview with the guys behind Spitting Image a few years ago.

        They were bemoaning the fact that they'd had to give up the show because the lampooning they were giving the politicians couldn't live up to what the pols were *really* up to...

        Vic.

        1. Pompous Git Silver badge
  17. Dave 13

    MOT

    So glad the Ministry Of Truth has arrived. Been expecting them for some time now..

  18. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Be funnier if t'were Kellyann Conway.

  19. YARR
    Big Brother

    Problem - Reaction - Solution & fake v false

    All TBTB have to do to introduce soft censorship is plant some fake news stories of their own. So be very suspicious - demand Hillary explain exactly which "fake news" she means so we can trace their origin.

    Secondly - what is a clear definition of "fake news" as opposed to "false news" (which the MSM is full of when it parrots news from one source). If fake news is defined as intentionally false (like satire), then will fake-news censorship permit unintentionally false news or cases where the facts are in dispute? How can you tell if news is deliberately false?

    Often the first reporter on a scene will report what they or others witness, but these "facts" are later "corrected" with what we are told to believe. The original news story is then false. The facts concerning many events like acts of terrorism or the downing of MH17 often remain in dispute - so will "fake news" filtering block alternative news articles that cover events from a different perspective?

    1. Michael Thibault
      Alien

      Re: Problem - Reaction - Solution & fake v false

      How much protection is there against gaming of the mechanism? Is there a public audit trail? What model of humanity underlies how it will work?

      To the extent the machinery isn't a completely arbitrary mechanism from one day to the next, people will be tempted to game it in various ways (e.g. to influence traffic, or to influence discourse broadly via the mechanisms of labeling and reputational taint).

      Regardless, this will generally increase engagement with FB, though, and that's never a bad thing for MZ and toadies. Apparently.

      I can't wait to see what happens when our eventual alien overlords do make first (official) contact.

  20. EvadingGrid

    Just do a search for anyone quoting "Syrian Observatory for Human Rights"

  21. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

    A Fake News button?

    Will this apply to everything or just "news"? Will be it removed once people start "mis-using" it, like the Dis-Like button that died a death leaving the option to "Like" or not offer an opinion. eg "oh wow, this article got 10,000 Likes." bot no one knows if a million people dis-liked it.

  22. Long John Brass
    Big Brother

    PIPPA and SOPA redux

    My guess is that they will use "Fake News" as a won't someone think of the children type excuse to finally bring the internet under control.

    Either way... The Russians did it.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like