Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Mike Friedman

Google and Facebook to restrict advertising on fake news sites

11 posts in this topic

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/15/technology/google-will-ban-websites-that-host-fake-news-from-using-its-ad-service.html?_r=1

I understand their reasoning for this, but they may be biting off more than they can chew.

How do you differentiate fake news from opinion pieces? Are habitual liars like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, and Rachel Maddow going to be considered part of the "fake news"?

Or are they only going to target the click bait headline grabbers?

I know there are people making a ton of money with these sort of sites. You see them in Facebook all the time. Not sure how many are actually using AdSense though. 

I don't think this crackdown will change much as far as the distribution on Facebook. Most of those site owners don't actually pay for Facebook ads. They make agreements with popular pages to share their posts and pay them. 

 

HeySal likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Mike Friedman said:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/15/technology/google-will-ban-websites-that-host-fake-news-from-using-its-ad-service.html?_r=1

I understand their reasoning for this, but they may be biting off more than they can chew.

How do you differentiate fake news from opinion pieces? Are habitual liars like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, and Rachel Maddow going to be considered part of the "fake news"?

Or are they only going to target the click bait headline grabbers?

I know there are people making a ton of money with these sort of sites. You see them in Facebook all the time. Not sure how many are actually using AdSense though. 

I don't think this crackdown will change much as far as the distribution on Facebook. Most of those site owners don't actually pay for Facebook ads. They make agreements with popular pages to share their posts and pay them. 

 

If you have read the wikileaks  - you'll find that our whole media is paid for and owned.  We do not have a free press - so even the news from "reputable" mainstream media is no longer trustable.  When you have a politician paying a corporate conglomerate to report certain "opinions" and spins - that's what is going to pass as "real news". 

What we have right now and need to cut through is a replica of Goebbel's media.  Read up on the techniques used and look at the consolidation of our over 2,000 media outlets into only 6 corporations.  NONE of it can be taken to be factual.  Need proof?  Watch C-span, then go to different news outlets and look at their spin on it.  What will happen is your head will end up spinning.

Then add in the click bait sites.........and they are not just one side.....there are such sites on both the left and the right.  There are only a few non-corporate owned "free" presses left globally.  One is wikileaks and the other that seems to still be fairly free is Reporters Without Borders. If they are Wikileaks sponsors they're most likely to be unbiased or just outright liars than anyone else.  

CNN  most outrageous lying news outlet globally.  They just plain make stuff up. At least most of the other channels just spin stuff to their own side of issues.  

 

 

Rocco likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They don't care about poor reporting or any conspiracy theories around who controls the news.

What they are targeting is blatantly obvious fake news with titles designed as click bait.

For example, I remember seeing stories floating around on Facebook pre-election about how Hillary Clinton was racist with a bunch of made up quotes she never said. Or there was one about how Obama secretly wanted Trump to win. Again all made up. Another example I remember seeing pre-election were videos with headlines like Trump Supporter Brutally Beat Up or Clinton Supporter Brutally Beat Up portraying the opposing supporters in a negative light. These videos were videos of fights from several years ago and had nothing to do with their headlines. 

That is the kind of stuff they are after.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Believe it or not - I saw the same type of sites on the left as well as the right.  Fake quotes - edited videos, speculation wildly beyond what was actually said.................all for click bait.  

Hillary wasn't the only one that got ripped a new one by these sites.  I don't think there's a rep in the US that was in the news before elections that didn't have fake news about them............as if the real news wasn't just disgusting enough. 

I HATE linkbait sites.  I don't care if they're political, environmental, or even some benign subject that has no real impact on anything.  To get onto a site just to have to start clicking "close" buttons because your view of what your reading is blocked - or see misleading titles and pictures up and down the side and the bottom to entice you to click - or to find you have to click endlessly to finish a story just makes me sick.  Yeah - I wanted to see that article about the rescued puppy - but I didn't want to have to click 10 damned pages just to read it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, HeySal said:

Believe it or not - I saw the same type of sites on the left as well as the right.  

I wasn't trying to make it a left or right thing. That's why I mentioned the one about the Trump supporter getting beat up. It certainly happens on both sides. 

I happen to see the ones from the right spread around a lot more because of where I live and the people in my Facebook feed. I have seen plenty from the left too though and have no doubt they are numerous on both sides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Mike Friedman said:

I wasn't trying to make it a left or right thing. That's why I mentioned the one about the Trump supporter getting beat up. It certainly happens on both sides. 

I happen to see the ones from the right spread around a lot more because of where I live and the people in my Facebook feed. I have seen plenty from the left too though and have no doubt they are numerous on both sides.

Wasn't reacting to just what you said.  I've seen a tremendous amount of people thinking that all news is correct unless it's from the right - and group all alternative news into "conspiracy theory" or click bait -- which is not the case.  At all. 

Click bait sites don't really care what the subject is - or what lies they spread.  They are just looking for anything that will draw the traffic for their clicks.  Election year that is politics.  There's also a lot of animal rescue click bait sites.  People globally are getting in line with stopping animal abuse.  Now you get these stories about rescues........and they are all "click these following 10 pages and you'll get the full story.   

Once the new president gets settled and life goes back to normal.......a LOT of click bait "news" sites will just disappear on their own with or without regulation. The money's only really good in trending areas. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent question. I'm not sure how these companies would know the "fakeness" of any piece - even if it had stuff that was clearly false. Facebook reportedly laid off their content verification team, and fully relies on the algorithm. This has probably increased the "echo chamber" effect. Google seems to go by pagerank as usual, so if there's a network of sites writing about a topic they can dominate the results for a search term.

I'm a bit skeptical about this announcement. Could be just lip service because none of this matters for their bottom line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/28/2016 at 8:41 AM, Mike Friedman said:

How do you differentiate fake news from opinion pieces? Are habitual liars like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, and Rachel Maddow going to be considered part of the "fake news"?

They're not lying, they just live in a different reality.

I have no idea how an algorythm would evaluate truthfulness, people can't do it, so how would an algorythm be superior?

As far as banning the sites who are intentionally spreading baseless lies, I don't see how an algorythm can separate opinions based upon facts and fabrication.

The penalty should be pretty stiff though.

But for example: take an issue like Climate Change... Both sides are twisting facts or withholding information... How do you sort that out, even as a person?

What people believe is very far off reality as it is... On both sides...

The deniers want to tell you facts like "Scientists once believed the world was flat, how can you trust them?"

And the alarmists will neglect to tell you that "Carbon Dioxide reacts with water and is also absorbed by trees."

The real issue is determining what the acceptable emission levels are and what exactly needs to be done when we are exceeding those levels.

Ever read that in the news? They're all misrepresenting the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Big shame is, the originsa the internet are super noble — plentya freedom, sharin' an' exchangea info.

Was always gonna be spoiled sumhow, an' in order to flourish, demand policin' not ideally suited to its original purpose.

Gotta figureya need a regulatory body count big enoughta match the fakirs pumpin' alla the garbage — alla which is such a wastea hooman effort an' time.

I would want for peopleta have a more incisive eyeball on what is gowin' on — but plenty don't.

One thing is for sure — alla us are parta history right now cos nuthin' on this scale has ever happened before.

Makes me proudta post kitty pix.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.