Note from Erin: I am obviously not happy about this breaking news. Why? Just months ago, Snopes attempted to “debunk” us, changing our correct information to false information and got caught doing it on their site. We aren’t really sure who anointed them as the gods of what’s true and false- that still remains a mystery.

Anyway, we called them out in this Youtube video and they had to quietly change their article with false info. They didn’t debunk as at all. The sad part? They listed the wrong location for a missing doctor. He’s still missing over a year later, no thanks to them. Some experts say they may have even hindered the investigation. Sadly they are a sold out, politically biased couple who’ve admitted they aren’t professionals- they just use Google. But for some reason, they are in charge of vetting sites/stories for the second biggest site in the world?

To add insult to injury. They’ve updated their article on the doctor deaths but still keep it at only 5 dead, when it’s well over 60. That’s what you call yellow journalism.

This is Snopes. Yep. I think the cat is the least biased of the 3.

This is Snopes. Yep. I think the cat is the least biased of the 3.

Just reading the title of this article should anger you enough to start a petition to get Facebook to stop this nonsense before they even start. The very idea that they are going to actively work CONTRARY to the First Amendment is bonkers. But, that’s our new reality. In our day and age, if you don’t like what someone is saying it’s totally acceptable to talk over them, call them liars, or just totally silence them. For the mainstream media, truth is what they say it is.

Facebook announced this week that they will begin fact-checking, labeling, and then burying fake news and hoaxes, in their News Feed. Re-read that sentence. If you read a story about vaccines, from a medical doctor who doesn’t support them because they have done the research, and you want to forward the story along- Snopes may call bully and the story will be buried.

This ridiculous decision comes as a reaction to the criticism Facebook received for their role in “spreading a deluge of political misinformation during the US presidential election”.

From the article:

“To combat fake news, Facebook has teamed up with a shortlist of media organizations, including Snopes and ABC News, that are part of an international fact-checking network led by Poynter, a nonprofit school for journalism in St. Petersburg, Florida.

Starting as a test with a small percentage of its users in the US, Facebook will make it easier to report news stories that are fake or misleading. Once third-party fact-checkers have confirmed that the story is fake, it will be labeled as such and demoted in the News Feed.”

The fate of ‘fake news’

Facebook will use a team of researchers to review website domains and send sites that appear to be fake or spoofed (like “washingtonpost.co“) to third-party fact-checkers. While 42 news organizations committed to Poynter’s fact-checking code of ethics, Facebook will begin with the following four: Snopes, Factcheck.org, ABC News, and PolitiFact.

In addition to that, they plan to use algorithms that can detect a story that might be fake (who decides that is an important question) and is going viral, in order to determine if it should label the story as fake and then bury it in people’s feeds.

And, if a website is determined to be a fake news organization or a spoofed domain, they won’t be able to sell ads on the social network, either.

Lastly, people can report the stories THEY think are fake (or maybe truth they just don’t like). This is the top of the slippery slope.

A fearful reaction from the top

Many politicians on the left, including President Barack Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, expressed concern about the prevalence of misinformation on social media, especially during the presidential election. In fact, Obama called it a “dust cloud of nonsense” and Clinton called it “an epidemic.”

Really?

To punctuate these feelings, I’ll share part of Mark Zuckerberg’s statement with you, “…but I recognize we have a greater responsibility than just building technology that information flows through. While we don’t write the news stories you read and share, we also recognize we’re more than just a distributor of news.

…and that means we have a new kind of responsibility to enable people to have the most meaningful conversations, and to build a space where people can be informed.”

I find it impossible to believe (although it’s true) that Facebook feels it has the right to decide what I should or shouldn’t read, believe, have access to, etc. And yet, this is where we find ourselves. The question is, what are we going to do about it?

Source: Business Insider