Facebook Begin Flagging Fake News with 4 Fact-checking Partner Organizations
Facebook is the famous social media and news website in these no doubt. The news on Facebook is fake and misleading sometimes as there is no checking method to check that a news is fake or not. Now after the US presidential election results questions are rising that how viral hoaxes may have contributed to Donald Trump’s victory in the elections. Now Facebook is going to introduce some tools that are especially designed to make the users report a link easily if they find a news fake. Facebook is going to work with 4 independent face-checking organizations to check that how accurate this viral story is. A warning message will be shown to those users who want to share a false or fake story as “independent fact-checkers have disputed its accuracy.”
Facebook is going to work with these four independent face-checking organizations and have plans to add more in the future. The followings are the member of the Poynter International Fact Checking Network and they have agreed to put up with a common set of principles. See the four organizations list below:
1 – Snopes
2- ABC News
Fact/reality checking groups can stamp stories as disputed and link to their own particular articles clarifying why.
Facebook will be using some other signals to verify and identify the stories that are expected to be false or fake. The posts deleted and lots of comments on a post being a fake post are the signals that Facebook is going to use. With the help of these signals Facebook will make a dashboard of the doubtful stories. The fact-checking partners will have the right to access to this dashboard. The Facbook partners will investigate the article’s claim and they can mark it as a disputed in their own articles.
Now what will happen to a story marked as a false story in Facebook by its fact-checking partners? If a story or a news is marked as disputed by at least two of the fact-checking organizations then the Facebook users will be seeing a banner under the story if the it is in the News feed. The banner will contain the text: “Disputed by 3rd Party Fact Checkers.” The Links to articles deflating the posted news will appear under it. This fake story will be penalized by Facebook and will be shown lower in the News feeds.
The false story can be shared but the user will get a pop-up dialog that will warn the user that the article contents are declared disputed by the fact-checking partners of Facebook. The user still has the choice to tap the “continue” button if he/she wants to share it anyway. In any case, debated articles won’t be able to get promoted by Facebook’s advertising tools.
Facebook employees will be checking the status of a disputed story and will not be allowed to make judgments. They just have to check the field of the contents gets the surety of post being a personal post.
“We believe in giving people a voice and that we cannot become arbiters of truth ourselves, so we’re approaching this problem carefully,” said Adam Mosseri, leader of the product management for the News Feed, in a blog post. “We’ve focused our efforts on the worst of the worst, on the clear hoaxes spread by spammers for their own gain, and on engaging both our community and third party organizations.”
“We’ve focused our efforts on the worst of the worst.”
There is a three step process in Facebook to report a link by selecting the “I think it shouldn’t be on Facebook” option, and then selecting “It’s a false news story” from the other options given. It is better to detect more false stories with the help of users says Facebook.
The elimination of the misinformation from the News Feed can’t be done in just one day. As Mark Zuckerberg said, that even articles from famous publications still have errors. The links such as “Hillary Clinton is a lizard person” will be stopped at least.
It’s a start. “We know there’s more to be done,” Mr. Mosseri wrote in his blog post. “We’re going to keep working on this problem for as long as it takes to get it right.”
Update, December 15th, 1:33PM ET: Mark Zuckerberg had some thoughts as well: