• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Fact-checkers AP, Snopes deal blow to Facebook, sever ties with the network (1 Viewer)

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
63,616
Reaction score
19,881
Location
Lower Mainland of BC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
From The Business Standard

Fact-checkers AP, Snopes deal blow to Facebook, sever ties with the network

Two leading fact-checking agencies have ended their partnerships with Facebook, striking a significant blow to the network's efforts to fight fake news, media reports said.

The social network had paid the Associated Press and Snopes to combat its misinformation crisis. But both confirmed they stopped checking articles at the end of 2018, and will not renew their contracts, the BBC reported.

The Associated Press confirmed to TechCrunch that it was "not currently doing fact-checking work for Facebook".

An AP spokesperson told the BBC: "AP constantly evaluates how to best deploy its fact-checking resources, and that includes ongoing conversations with Facebook about opportunities to do important fact-checking work on its platform."

The AP representative contacted TechCrunch to say that although it was not doing fact checking work for the program, it was not leaving it altogether.

COMMENT:-

There is absolutely no need for any so-called "fact checkers" on Facebook because no one ever posts anything that is not 100% accurate and truthful on Facebook.
Right?​
 
From The Business Standard

Fact-checkers AP, Snopes deal blow to Facebook, sever ties with the network

Two leading fact-checking agencies have ended their partnerships with Facebook, striking a significant blow to the network's efforts to fight fake news, media reports said.

The social network had paid the Associated Press and Snopes to combat its misinformation crisis. But both confirmed they stopped checking articles at the end of 2018, and will not renew their contracts, the BBC reported.

The Associated Press confirmed to TechCrunch that it was "not currently doing fact-checking work for Facebook".

An AP spokesperson told the BBC: "AP constantly evaluates how to best deploy its fact-checking resources, and that includes ongoing conversations with Facebook about opportunities to do important fact-checking work on its platform."

The AP representative contacted TechCrunch to say that although it was not doing fact checking work for the program, it was not leaving it altogether.

COMMENT:-

There is absolutely no need for any so-called "fact checkers" on Facebook because no one ever posts anything that is not 100% accurate and truthful on Facebook.
Right?​

Too bad the context of your news article remains behind the paywall because you've sure mangled context above.
FB is too thin-skinned to take criticism, hence why the two fact checkers mentioned above will no longer will work for them.

Snopes, the popular myth-busting website, has said it was ending its partnership with Facebook as part of a "difficult, but necessary change".

A Snopes statement on Friday said it was "evaluating the ramifications and costs of providing third-party fact-checking services" and wants the efforts to be "a net positive for our online community, publication, and staff", the Guardian reported.

Late last year, the Guardian had published a report that suggested fact-checking firms were frustrated by Facebook's lack of transparency.

The article had quoted former Snopes managing editor Brooke Binkowski as saying: "They've essentially used us for crisis PR. They're not taking anything seriously. They are more interested in making themselves look good and passing the buck. They clearly don't care."
 
Last edited:
From The Business Standard

Fact-checkers AP, Snopes deal blow to Facebook, sever ties with the network

Two leading fact-checking agencies have ended their partnerships with Facebook, striking a significant blow to the network's efforts to fight fake news, media reports said.

The social network had paid the Associated Press and Snopes to combat its misinformation crisis. But both confirmed they stopped checking articles at the end of 2018, and will not renew their contracts, the BBC reported.

The Associated Press confirmed to TechCrunch that it was "not currently doing fact-checking work for Facebook".

An AP spokesperson told the BBC: "AP constantly evaluates how to best deploy its fact-checking resources, and that includes ongoing conversations with Facebook about opportunities to do important fact-checking work on its platform."

The AP representative contacted TechCrunch to say that although it was not doing fact checking work for the program, it was not leaving it altogether.

COMMENT:-

There is absolutely no need for any so-called "fact checkers" on Facebook because no one ever posts anything that is not 100% accurate and truthful on Facebook.
Right?​

The political stuff that gets passed around and reposted on Facebook is best ignored. Hardly any of it is true.

Facebook is for news posted by and about family and friends. Those posts can be accepted.

Then, there are posts not intended to be taken seriously, just meant to amuse. Examples:

51057079_10213802858001069_7652010684850372608_n.jpg


49327485_10214007858697980_3956922274241576960_n.jpg


I sometimes post pictures from Facebook in the Funny Pictures thread, and vice versa.
 
Too bad the context of your news article remains behind the paywall

What pay wall? I accessed the entire article and provided a link that had the whole of the article.

The general rule for "Fair Comment" is that a "small" (generally considered to be four paragraphs or less) of an article can be freely used to initiate discussion PROVIDED that a link to the whole of the article is included. My practice is to use the FIRST three (for very short articles), four, or five (infrequent but sometimes necessary) paragraphs. If you think that that violates the DP rules, feel free to request a ruling from the moderators and I will be happy to (attempt to) comply.

FB is too thin-skinned to take criticism, hence why the two fact checkers mentioned above will no longer will work for them.
Which isn't at all what the article said.

PS - Did you know that when you C&P from an article you are supposed to give credit to the source of the article as well as providing a link to the article because not doing so violated the "Fair Use" rules?

PPS - If you couldn't access the article because it was behind a "pay wall", how did you manage to access the article? You do know that "Facebook" is NOT a "pay wall", don't you?
 
What pay wall? I accessed the entire article and provided a link that had the whole of the article.

The general rule for "Fair Comment" is that a "small" (generally considered to be four paragraphs or less) of an article can be freely used to initiate discussion PROVIDED that a link to the whole of the article is included. My practice is to use the FIRST three (for very short articles), four, or five (infrequent but sometimes necessary) paragraphs. If you think that that violates the DP rules, feel free to request a ruling from the moderators and I will be happy to (attempt to) comply.

Which isn't at all what the article said.

PS - Did you know that when you C&P from an article you are supposed to give credit to the source of the article as well as providing a link to the article because not doing so violated the "Fair Use" rules?

PPS - If you couldn't access the article because it was behind a "pay wall", how did you manage to access the article? You do know that "Facebook" is NOT a "pay wall", don't you?

I have an App which allows me to get through, and yes, they have a paywall, and yes, you mangled the context of the article to add your own inane comment beneath a paragraph or two of the article.
 
Too bad the context of your news article remains behind the paywall because you've sure mangled context above.
FB is too thin-skinned to take criticism, hence why the two fact checkers mentioned above will no longer will work for them.

They're in a pickle because they grew too fast and didn't scale their growth in other areas to deal with these potential issues. A part of it may be ego driven, but I suspect it's mostly wanting to deflect from being perceived as compromised platform.
 
I have an App which allows me to get through, and yes, they have a paywall,

Well, I DON'T "have an App which allows me to get through" I just used Google and Hey Presto" there I was.

and yes, you mangled the context of the article to add your own inane comment beneath a paragraph or two of the article.

Did you happen to notice the tiny little insignificant "COMMENT:-" bit?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom