SOZIAL
Facebook Adds Additional Fact-Checking Resources via ‘Community Reviewers’

Facebook continues its confusing approach to fact checking with a new program that will see the appointment of a team of ‘community reviewers’, a diverse group of non-Facebook employees who will be called upon to check potentially false reports.
Wie erklärt von Facebook:
“The program will have community reviewers work as researchers to find information that can contradict the most obvious online hoaxes or corroborate other claims. These community reviewers are not Facebook employees but instead will be hired as contractors through one of our partners. They are not making final decisions themselves. Instead, their findings will be shared with the third-party fact-checkers as additional context as they do their own official review.”
The process will work like this:
First, Facebook’s machine learning process will identify potentially false claims and misinformation in posts, as it does already. When content is tagged as potentially false, Facebook’s system will then send the post in question on to the new team of community reviewers. The community reviewers will be prompted to check the post, and if they, through their own, additional research, find that the post is, in fact, incorrect, they’ll be able to attach their findings, which Facebook’s fact-checkers will then be able to refer to in their official assesment.
The process essentially adds a broader spectrum of input into the fact-checking process, which could improve the accuracy of the outcomes, and lessen accusations of bias.
Facebook has partnered with data company YouGov to select its new community review panel, after YouGov conducted research into how to best build such an input group.
As per Facebook:
“YouGov conducted an independent study of community reviewers and Facebook users. They determined that the requirements used to select community reviewers led to a pool that’s representative of the Facebook community in the US and reflects the diverse viewpoints – including political ideology – of Facebook users. They also found the judgments of corroborating claims by community reviewers were consistent with what most people using Facebook would conclude.”
Note the specific mention of political ideology. By enabling more people to provide input into its fact-checking process, Facebook’s working to improve both the relative accuracy of its findings, and to lessen accusations that its favoring one side of politics over another. Which has become a key sticking point in its various fact-checking and political transparency processes – which brings us to the confusing part of Facebook’s broader fact-checking improvements: its stance against fact-checking political ads.
Honestly, with every improvement, with every expansion of its overall fact-checking program, Facebook’s decision not to fact-check political ads seems less and less logical, or viable as a long-term measure.
The company continues to invest significant resources into its fact-checking program, underlining its importance – just this week, Facebook expanded its fact-checking program on Instagram.

So its clearly important, Facebook clearly acknowledges that it needs to do what it can to limit the spread of misleading information and false claims on its platform, especially when it comes to concerning movements like anti-vaxxers and the like.
Misinformation is a problem – so why allow politicians, a group which has huge influence over public opinion, share false claims within their ad content?
Facebook has previously noted that it doesn’t want to be the referee on political speech, and that the public has a right to know what’s being said by political leaders.
As per Mark Zuckerberg, in his speech announcing Facebook’s political ads stance:
“Political advertising is more transparent on Facebook than anywhere else — we keep all political and issue ads in an archive so everyone can scrutinize them, and no TV or print does that. We don’t fact-check political ads. We don’t do this to help politicians, but because we think people should be able to see for themselves what politicians are saying. And if content is newsworthy, we also won’t take it down even if it would otherwise conflict with many of our standards.”
But the problem, as noted, is that political leaders carry significant sway. For example, if a recognized political figure were to come out and say that, yes, vaccines are dangerous, that would add serious weight to that movement, and embolden them to push harder in their campaigning. And under Facebook’s current rules, a political leader could do just that, via Facebook ads.
Does that seem like the right approach? And given Facebook’s broader efforts to stop the spread of misinformation, including this new update, does that not seem out of step with its overall effort?
Confusing. Unclear. But, for what it’s worth, Facebook is adding in a new way to improve the accuracy of its general fact-checking by running content by a more diverse collection of reviewers. So that’s something, I guess.
SOZIAL
Companies Using Twitter Tools to Keep Ads Away From Musk’s Tweets: NYT

While Elon Musk claims that “almost all advertisers have come back to Twitter,” some still don’t want anything to do with the company’s CEO.
The New York Times, citing four people familiar with Twitter’s advertising situation, reported that certain brands that have returned to advertising on the platform are using Twitter’s adjacency controls to keep their content clear of increasingly troubling content — including Musk’s own tweets.
Jason Kint, chief executive of Digital Content Next, told the Times that Twitter is “unpredictable and chaotic” adding that, “Advertisers want to run in an environment where they are comfortable and can send a signal about their brand.”
Announced in December 2022, just a few months after Musk took control of the company, adjacency controls aimed to enable advertisers to prevent their ads from appearing adjacent to Tweets that use keywords they’d like to avoid.
“Empowering brands to customize their campaigns to prevent their ads from appearing adjacent to unsuitable content is an important step towards increased ad relevance on Twitter,” said an undated December blog post written by Engineering Lead Nina Chen and Head of Brand Safety AJ Brown.
Both Chen and Brown are no longer with the company. Neither immediately responded to Insider’s request for comment.
Insider previously reported that Brown attempted to counter the growing perception that Twitter wasn’t safe for brands with a later blog post about the company’s partnerships with adtech companies DoubleVerify and IAS, which were meant to help with brand safety.
One individual at the company who seems unconcerned with brand safety is Musk himself.
He has deployed an array of bizarre tweets, from antisemitic conspiracy theories to anti-transgender content and anti-vaccine misinformation.
—Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 5, 2023
Citing a series of Musk tweets about financier George Soros, Ted Deutch, the chief executive of the American Jewish Committee, told the Times that “the lie Jews want to destroy civilization has led to the persecution of Jewish people for centuries.”
He added, “Musk should know better.”
Twitter responded to Insider’s request for comment with a poop emoji.
SOZIAL
Snapchat Reaches 15 Million Monthly Active Users in Germany

Snapchat has reported another growth milestone, with the app now reaching 15 million monthly active users in Germany.
The ephemeral messaging app, which reached 750 million total monthly actives in February, continues to steadily expand its global footprint, with EU users now making up around 25% of its total audience. The majority of Snapchatters now actually come from India, which reached 200 million monthly actives last month, while North America makes up around 190 million of its global audience.
Snapchat has been working to build its European audience, with the company also reporting 21 million monthly active users in the UK two weeks back. It’s not expanding in the region as fast as it is in India, which is rapidly rising with the rate of mobile adoption, but Snapchat is still growing, despite being a relatively smaller player in the global social media market.
At one stage, it seemed that Snap would be killed off entirely, after Instagram stole its mojo by copying Stories back in 2016. That led to a significant drop-off in Snap usage, but since then, the app has continued to double-down on its niche of being a more private connective app for friends, which has helped it maintain and maximize its growth momentum.
And now it’s firming its footing in Europe, while Snap has also shared some trend notes on German app usage.
- Although we are loved by Generation Z, almost 40% of Snapchatters in Germany are 25 years or older
- In Germany, Snapchatters open the app an average of 30 times per day – to chat with friends and family, watch highlights of their favorite shows, or share moments from their lives
- 75% use our augmented reality lenses daily to express themselves creatively, have fun, and even try on and buy clothes.
Most of these are fairly universal Snap trend notes, though it is interesting to note the aging user group, as Snap continues to investigate more ways to maintain relevance as its audience ages up.
That’s a key challenge, because while Snap is a valuable connector for teens, it hasn’t, historically, held the same appeal for older users, who end up focusing more of their time in other apps instead.
If Snap can capitalize on this element, that could be a valuable growth path, as it continues to expand its global network.
SOZIAL
California law would make tech giants pay for news

A bill making its way through the California state legislature would mandate that internet giants pay news agencies monthly ‘journalism usage fees’ based on viewing of stories via their platforms – Copyright AFP SEBASTIEN BOZON
Glenn CHAPMAN
A proposed law requiring internet giants to pay for news stories moved forward in California on Friday, despite Facebook owner Meta threatening to pull news from its platform if it passes.
The California Journalism Preservation Act (CJPA), which cleared the state assembly on Thursday and was in the hands of the state senate, would mandate that large online platforms pay a monthly “journalism usage fee” to news providers whose work appears on their services.
The bill is designed to support local news organizations, which have been decimated in recent years as ad revenue bled away to Google and Facebook, both advertising behemoths.
Meta spokesman Andy Stone on Friday told AFP that if the bill becomes law, Meta “will be forced to remove news from Facebook and Instagram rather than pay into a slush fund that primarily benefits big, out-of-state media companies.”
The bill has to make its way through the state senate and be signed by Governor Gavin Newsom to become law.
The CJPA is like other legislative texts pending across the globe.
In Australia, Facebook in 2021 briefly blocked news articles over a similar law and Google threatened to pull its search engine from the country before they made deals to pay several media groups.
In the European Union, tech giants can be asked to pay a copyright fee to publishers for links posted in search results or feeds.
“The CJPA is riddled with holes, the biggest of which is that the bill primarily funds national media outlets that spread misinformation,” said Chamber of Progress chief executive Adam Kovacevich.
“It’s sad the Assembly is passing the buck to the Senate rather than fixing the bill’s problems.”
The chamber is a trade group with a list of partners that includes Amazon, Apple, Google, and Meta.
A study posted by the chamber concluded that “disinformation outlets” including Fox News would benefit most from the California law.
The bill defines online platforms as those having at least 50 million monthly active users in the United States; a billion monthly users worldwide, or be valued at more than $550 billion based on its stock price.
– Money for reporters? –
Fees paid would be based on the number of views and news providers would be required to spend it on journalism and support staff, according to the text of the bill.
Stone noted that the wording of the bill means revenue from the law would not have to be spent on reporters covering news.
The California state assembly website indicated the bill was sent to a senate committee responsible for scheduling debates and votes on legislation, with no indication of when it would go to a vote.
“Meta’s threat to take down news is undemocratic and unbecoming,” trade group News Media Alliance said in a posted statement.
“We have seen this in their playbook before.”
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau last month slammed Meta after executives said it would block news for Canadian Facebook and Instagram users in response to the proposed law there.
The Canada law builds on Australia’s New Media Bargaining Code, which was a world first, aimed at making Google and Meta pay for news content on their platforms.
-
SUCHMASCHINENVor 4 Tagen
Google aktualisiert das Richtliniencenter für Shopping-Anzeigen und das Richtliniencenter für kostenlose Einträge
-
SEOVor 4 Tagen
So nutzen Sie KI zur Verbesserung Ihres SEO-Content-Schreibens [Webinar]
-
SUCHMASCHINENVor 4 Tagen
Google Local Service Ads verschickt massenhaft Hinweise auf Richtlinienverstöße
-
SUCHMASCHINENVor 4 Tagen
Google-Suche mit detaillierteren Autovergleichstools
-
SEOVor 4 Tagen
Das Search Relations-Team von Google untersucht die SEO-Auswirkungen von Web3
-
PPCVor 4 Tagen
49 Instagram-Untertitel und vorgefertigte Bilder zum Vatertag
-
WORTPRESSEVor 6 Tagen
Benutzerdefinierte Theme-Designs sind jetzt noch einfacher – WordPress.com-Neuigkeiten
-
MARKETINGVor 7 Tagen
Was Unternehmen im Content-Marketing im Jahr 2023 falsch machen [Expertentipps]