Facebook Moves to Stem Fake News

Facebook yesterday announced that it was testing steps to stem the flow of “fake news” through its platform. This was announced in an online posting, and company executives also gave us at the ACLU a quick briefing. Under the new policy, postings that are flagged by users as false will be referred to a “third-party fact checking organization” such as Snopes, and if that third party decides the piece is false, Facebook will put a small banner on it saying, “Disputed by Snopes,” or whatever 3rd party has checked it, with a link to an explanatory piece by that 3rd party on why it is regarded as false.

As we wrote about earlier this week, we do not think Facebook should set itself up as an arbiter of truth. While we still have questions, of all the proposals that have been publicly discussed since the election first sparked widespread focus on the problem of fake news, this may be the best, most carefully crafted approach for the company to take. It is an approach based on combatting bad speech with more speech. Instead of squelching or censoring stories, Facebook includes more information with posts, telling people, in effect, that “this party here says this material shouldn’t be trusted.” That does not create the censorship concerns that more heavy-handed approaches might take. We applaud Facebook for responding to the pressure it is under on this issue with a thoughtful, largely pro-speech approach.

That said, some questions and concerns do remain about those details. Crowdsourcing has proven to be a very useful and successful model for many forms of information-sifting online, but it can also be problematic, mainly because of the risk of a “heckler’s veto,” in which people who do not like a post gang up to mark it as “false” to suppress the point of view it represents. At the ACLU we have received many complaints from people whose posts have been removed because political opponents have falsely flagged it as “offensive” or otherwise violating Facebook’s terms of service. Indeed, it’s happened to us! Here Facebook is seeking to avert that problem by referring flagged pieces for manual determinations by the 3rd party fact checkers.

Facebook indicated that posts that are flagged will be downgraded by “The Algorithm,” which the company uses to decide which of the many posts by our Friends will actually appear in our newsfeed. That means that Facebook is, in fact, effectively endorsing those fact checkers in a formal way. The executives we spoke with indicated that The Algorithm would not downgrade stories that have received a lot of fake news flags but not yet been reviewed by a fact checker. We were glad to hear that, because otherwise there would be no protection against the heckler’s veto.

One issue we are not clear on is what relationship Facebook will have with these 3rd party fact-checking organizations—whether it will pay them, or simply rely upon those organizations’ self-interest in attracting the traffic that an analysis of a trending news item, and consequent link from Facebook, will bring. Snopes, for example, is advertising-supported, and so would have an interest in drawing traffic from controversies over questionable viral news pieces.

Perhaps the biggest question is what the boundaries will be for how this system is applied. As I discussed in my prior post, the question of what is fact and what is fiction is a morass that is often impossible to neutrally or objectively determine. Armies of philosophers working for over two thousand years have been unable to come up with a satisfactory answer to the question of how to distinguish the two. And there is an enormous amount of material out there fitting every gradation between the most egregious hoax and the merely mistaken and badly argued. What if a piece is largely true, but includes a single intentional, consequential lie?

Facebook’s answer is that it is, for now at least, focusing its efforts on “the worst of the worst, on the clear hoaxes spread by spammers for their own gain.” From what we were told, it also sounds like whatever algorithm they use to refer stories to the 3rd party fact checkers will not only incorporate the number of fake news flags received from users, but also focus on pieces that are actually trending.

That may be all they are able to do, because this system is not very scalable. Facebook says it will only flag a story if one of the fact-checking organizations has determined it’s false, and has produced a written explanation as to why. That is a very labor-intensive process, one that presumably cannot be applied beyond a few of the most widely circulating pieces.

It’s inevitable that the company will quickly be thrown into controversies over particular pieces and whether or not they should be flagged. To cite just one possible example, would a piece denying the reality of climate change count? No matter where the company sets the bar for what pieces they refer to the fact checkers, they will be met by persistent criticism for not flagging all the stories that are just below that bar.

When Facebook tells users that Snopes has declared a piece as false, that is not going to go far for those who are part of a political movement that, as I argued in my prior post, has extremely robust intellectual defenses against factual material that challenges its political beliefs. Facebook will likely find it impossible to both enable fact-checking, and to be seen as neutral by those who reject those facts and any organizations that validate them. That said, this new attempt to fight fake news will no doubt give pause to at least some posters and re-posters of “clear hoaxes spread by spammers for their own gain,” and dampen the spread of such material by naïve, non-politically motivated users. That still leaves a lot of room for non-mercenary political propaganda that includes widespread falsehoods.

We will be very interested in following the details of how this new approach is implemented.

Add a comment (23)
Read the Terms of Use

DL

You are calling a well articulated, cautiously qualified review of a proposal that might address a serious problem "repulsive".

William Forrest

Fake news is at least as old as the Battleship Maine. Follow the money. More serious is the diminishing access to real news. Brain dead social media won't help here.

Anonymous

The only relevant part of this story is that The Algorithm won't downgrade stories until a human fact-checking organization gives a verdict. This is not going to put the creators of fake news out of business. Facebook, if the company is serious, needs to find a way to choke the ad revenue stream, not tweak The Algorithm.

Jim Lee

I've seen items saying, e.g., that Bill Clinton had just died. Some things are simply untrue. I don't think saying that "Snopes thinks this is untrustworthy" is an adequate solution. It would be nice if people simply stopped relying on Facebook for everything, but I suppose that's not going to happen.

Anonymous

Facebook should have done this 6 months ago. It's too late now. All the BS has already been flung.

Anonymous

My ultra-right son said Snopes is a fraud, etc. How can you dispute this when they have been brainwwashed for years?

Anonymous

Chump regularly regurgitates fake news

Anonymous

Glad to see efforts to address fake news. So many DT supporters believe his outrageous lies, even though they have been widely disproven - it's a travesty to democracy and all that is good in this country. In the meantime, since fair and balanced reporting was done away with during the Reagan era, hopefully people will learn to listen to different sources of information and remain open to alternate views. There are still credible sources of information out there. However, those who blatantly lie need to be exposed for what they are. Hopefully, they will return to the side of truth.

JJ

When Snopes, a very well known extreme liberal site is one party in charge of deciding what is real is a complete one sided view point once again. Mark is a globalist and he will make facebook into his political dream. That is censoring and is against my FREEDOM of Speech. I am done with these elites shoving their views through their social sites and I will go to seenlife.com where our freedom is recognized as it should.

Anonymous

With PPC, you effectually skip over the middle circle which cost you. By avoiding your prospects’ inboxes, you’re only companies with marketers on a SERP, a pertinent website on the GDN, or Facebook / Instagram. You’re also getting a leg up on your contestants, who are probably only using an automatic email funnel to nurture prospects (if they’re doing it at all).

Pages

Stay Informed