Back in June, Facebook rolled out an a new feature that tells her users of mobile app as an article they are to be shared more than three months old. While users are not occur of sharing an older article, Facebook said at the time that it was a trying to stop people from thinking and thinking about what they were sharing – so hopefully users would actually read and analyze the article if it came from a legitimate source or if it provided the most up-to-date information on a particular topic or event.
Now Facebook goes one step further. David Gillis, a designer at Facebook, tweeted that it is the social media company that notification changes to include information about the source of the link, when the website was first registered, and when the article was first shared on Facebook. Even if the post contains all information related to covid-19, there will also be a link to an official covid-19 information page curated by Facebook.
However, if a user shares information from a trusted health authority, such as the World Health Organization, they will not receive notification. According to Facebook, this is to ‘ensure that people have access to credible information about covid-19 from worldwide health authorities. ”
Listing when a website was first registered is designed to help slowly the dissemination of incorrect information, but if someone does not understand the relevance of that registration date, it will not be so useful. Domain age is one of several determining factors of a website ‘s credibility, but without actually reading the text, checking backlinks and digging into original sources, domain age does not mean much on its own.
G / O Media can get a commission
What’s more is that some users may be confused the ‘registered’ time frame with the original publication date of the article, or confuse the ‘first shared’ date with the original publication date.
there are many pages that rewrite years old news stories, rewrite them with little or no attribution in recognition of the original publication date of the original source, and then publish—All about staringa controversy. Those stories can go viral on Facebook, and I’m not sure the source link if the domain name will contain the spread will be prevented.
There are also instances of “news” or “opinion” websites, which also maintain a Facebook page, which violate Facebook’s rules about sharing sponsored or paid partnership content. In short, sharing of sponsored content should be disclosed to Facebook users and content can only be considered sponsored if a payer is paid to create something to promote a brand, for example. A news outlet cannot pay another news outlet to share news stories on its Facebook page and call it a “paid partnership”. This happened recently with the Facebook page Mad World News, which demoted the social network.
Which can be helpful in limiting the spread of misinformation is online if any algorithm Facebook uses to generate these notifications is also deletedes the page to view as it cites an original source, and what that original source is. “This news story originally came from X or Y publication ” is somewhat easier to understand and more useful then domain age, especially if the website reporting is newer but legitimate publication and still has a ways to go to build some clout.
Or, you know, eachone could actually read The Facebook tip page about how to look at a fake news story, which actually has good strategies on how to properly analyze a news source.
.
