Thread. A lot of folks in a twist that I pointed this out. Do you really think that FB (or its former Liberal director) is going to allow a third party direct access to its algorithms that decide what you see or don’t see, or how a “fact check” rank of any sort affects the same?
Also, what constitutes a “fact check”? The Globe story I linked to didn’t even point out the guy made his mark working for the Liberals in a senior role. Does that matter? Does that omission make it fake news?
There’s some congruency to this example - fake food certifications. foodnavigator.com/Article/2017/0… You can have the best cerification in the world, but how the certification is applied matters. If this fact checking org can’t independently manage algorithms, what’s the point?
What I love is that pundits are now saying that it’s “dangerous” that I question the media. Yet, they’ve failed to think about these basic points. Also, FB is going to do what it’s shareholders and clients want. They’re a profit driven entity.
To that end, how many millions of dollars has Facebook received in GoC advertising or other grants this year? What is being promised down the road? Will there be a financial incentive for them to keep one party over another in power, since they now control the flow of the news?
Maybe none of these thing apply. Maybe they do. Point being, it’s ridiculous to think that FB policy, led up by a former senior Liberal policy maker, can police the news without bias towards something. Every outlet has bias. As such, it’s more about you.
What is your responsibility with regard to the news? Don’t you have the capacity to filter out what is true or not? Do you stop and ask “what’s their angle here” when reading? Do you confirm with another source before sharing? Do you have an inventory of bias of outlets?
What’s dangerous isn’t me questioning the ridiculousness of a former Liberal staffer trying to give credibility to a system for “fact checking” that’s going to be run by FB algorithms. It’s not questioning why it’s FBs job to critically think, and not our own.
