Facebook will allow users to flag articles as fake news

Facebook is making good on its promise to try to eradicate "fake news". One of the techniques Facebook will use for doing so is a tool that will allow users to flag anything that they consider to be fake news.

The 1.8 billion users of Facebook will be able to click the upper right-hand corner in any post to flag the content as fake news. There is one huge problem right off the bat according to an article in Zero Hedge. Not all posts can be flagged, only those not from "legitimate news sources". Which outlets are legitimate news sources and why? Even if a new source has an excellent reputation it can still carry fake news especially if the news is produced by the government as in the coverage of the issue of Hussein's having WMD. Zero Hedge asks of the list of legitimate news outlets: ".. does it include the likes of NYTs and the WaPos, which during the runup to the election declared on a daily basis, that Trump has no chance of winning, which have since posted defamatory stories about so-called "Russian propaganda news sites", admitting subsequently that their source data was incorrect, and which many consider to be the source of "fake news". " Who exactly would make the determination of which sites are legitimate news sites? The elimination of legitimate news sites from flagging blocks users from identifying any fake news reports on these sites. Yet these are the very sites that people have become more skeptical about.

The many remaining sites will be subject to a type of "crowd sourced" censorship in which as a result of flagging by members of the crowd of Facebook users a post can then be reviewed by Facebook researchers and then relayed to a fact-checking organization for further verification or it could be marked as false. Zero Hedge wonders what this process could evolve into in practice: ".. how much good will checking will take place considering that these "researchers" will be bombarded with tens of thousands of flagged articles daily, until it ultimately become a rote move to simply delete anything flagged as false by enough disgruntled readers, before moving on to the next article, while in the process not touching the narrative spun by the liberal "legitimate news outlets", the ones who would jump at the opportunity to have dinner with Podesta in hopes of becoming Hillary Clinton's public relations arm. " As I understand it, flagged articles are not deleted.

Adam Mosseri, Facebook vice-president of News Feed said in a blog post: "We believe in giving people a voice and that we cannot become arbiters of truth ourselves, so we're approaching this problem carefully." Yet in selecting "legitimate news sources" as not subject to crowd-sourced flagging, Facebook has been already an arbiter of truth.

If a story is determined by fact-checkers to be fake the item will still appear and can even be shared however there will be a warning and you can connect through a link to know why. The stories cannot be promoted or turned into advertisements and will no doubt appear lower in News Feed.

The fake news issue trended just days after the election. At the time, Facebook head Zuckerberg said that it was "pretty crazy" to think that fake news could have influenced the election. He said that Facebook "must be extremely cautious about becoming arbiters of truth". However as pointed out earlier by eliminating the legitimate news services from flagging, Facebook is already an arbiter of truth. The Facebook team claims it does not want "censorship" but it is carrying out something similar in a crowd-sourced vetting process supplemented by fact-checking. While posts are not deleted they are clearly downgraded.

The fact-checkers are working under the banner of the Poynter International Fact-Checking Network, a group that also owns the Tampa Bay Times. However, the Tampa Bay Times in no doubt a legitimate news outlet so they need not worry about being fact-checked. Those working as fact-checkers will follow the Poynter principles. Facebook's plans can be found here.

After finishing this article. I checked some of the articles about the new techniques being used by Facebook. I found no reference to legitimate news sources being an exception to the flagging. I then read the Zero Hedge article and it actually gives a link to NBC news as mentioning that legitimate news sources would not be flagged. However, I could find no place in the article that claimed this. Perhaps, this is partially fake news. Lets see! If all posts are included, the system could be a great job creator for fact-checkers.

.

Big Brother bills passing through US Congress

One recent bill in the U.S. Congress is designed to crack down on websites suspected of spreading Russian propaganda. However, another more extensive bill goes even further establishing what Zero Hedge calls a de facto Ministry of Truth.

The two bills are discussed in a recent article in Zero Hedge. The first bill H.R. 6393 the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 can be found here. I put in the reference since Zero Hedge is among those listed as a "fake news" site peddling propaganda in a source cited by a recent Washington Post article discussed in a Digital Journal Op Ed.. The bill passed with a large majority according to Zero Hedge but you can verify this fact on the GovTrack website, which shows the official count! The bill seeks to crack down on websites that are promoting Russian propaganda without indicating they are funded by Russian authorities.

However, a second bill that is likely to affect the Internet even more and tries to control what Americans will read, hear, or view passed the House just recently. The bill H.R. 5181 calls for a "whole-government approach without bureaucratic restrictions" and is designed to counter foreign disinformation and manipulation which is believed to threaten global "security and stability". When introduced into the Senate the bill was called the Countering Information Warfare Act of 2016 (S. 2692). The Zero Hedge article claims that the bill represents a return to Cold War-era propaganda battles. Where has Zero Hedge been? The battle has been going on for some time now in news coverage of the Crimea, Syria, eastern Ukraine etc.

Senator Rob Portman notes that countries such as Russia spend enormous sums funding political movements and other efforts to influence key audiences and populations including generous funding of news organizations such as RT. Of course, all countries do this — as exemplified by Iran's Press TV, France 24, Deutsche Welle, and China's CCTV. The U.S. has its own Voice of America. Apparently the U.S. does not like the competition.

What the U.S. needs is a single agency "charged with the national level development, integration and synchronization of whole-of-government strategies to counter foreign propaganda and disinformation". Perhaps as Zero Hedge suggests it should be called the Ministry of Truth. The House bill H.R. 5181 speaks of establishing a "Center for Information Analysis and Response" which would find sources of misinformation and then develop and disseminate "fact-based narratives' to counter the propaganda. This sounds fine except that we know that government itself is a prime source of propaganda and misinformation as discussed in a recent Digital Journal article. We need protection against the government which is provided by counter-narratives.

The "Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act" was quietly included in the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). This was passed in Senate December 8. The bill is described as follows:The bipartisan bill, which was introduced by Senators Portman and Murphy in March, will improve the ability of the United States to counter foreign propaganda and disinformation by establishing an inter-agency center housed at the State Department to coordinate and synchronize counter-propaganda efforts throughout the U.S. government. To support these efforts, the bill also creates a grant program for NGOs, think tanks, civil society and other experts outside government who are engaged in counter-propaganda related work. This will better leverage existing expertise and empower local communities to defend themselves from foreign manipulation.

The role of U.S. mass media in Manufacturing Consent is obviously not sufficient in an age where different narratives on the Internet are ubiquitous and the public are becoming skeptical of not only government narratives but of the mainstream media in general. Legislation is needed to better control the flow of information. Senator Portman's bill increases the authority, resources and mandate of the Global Engagement Center to include not just violent extremists but state actors such as Russia and China:The Center will be led by the State Department, but with the active senior level participation of the Department of Defense, USAID, the Broadcasting Board of Governors, the Intelligence Community and other relevant agencies. The Center will develop, integrate, and synchronize whole-of-government initiatives to expose and counter foreign disinformation operations and proactively advance fact-based narratives that support U.S. allies and interests.

The legislation would also help fund local journalists, provide grants to NGO's, think tanks, private sector companies, media organizations and other experts in identifying and analyzing latest trends in foreign government disinformation techniques:This fund will complement and support the Center’s role by integrating capabilities and expertise available outside the U.S. government into the strategy-making process.

The U.S. being a competitive country will no doubt use the latest successful foreign disinformation techniques to produce a superior American Truth version of fake news. Should these new attempts to control the flow of information not work the government may attempt to imitate the techniques of countries such as Egypt or Turkey and simply make anti-government news promotion a crime while trying to restrict public access to alternative outlets.