×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Facebook Tests "Satire" Tag To Avoid Confusion On News Feed

samzenpus posted about 3 months ago | from the I-can't-tell-up-from-down dept.

Facebook 131

An anonymous reader writes "In an attempt to keep you from having to explain to your crazy relatives that despite what they read, Vice President Biden *didn't* get a grow light delivered to the White House under a fake name, Facebook is testing a "satire" tag on news feeds. A Facebook representative issued the following statement to Ars Technica: "We are running a small test which shows the text '[Satire]' in front of links to satirical articles in the related articles unit in News Feed. This is because we received feedback that people wanted a clearer way to distinguish satirical articles from others in these units."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Will create more confusion (5, Interesting)

Livius (318358) | about 3 months ago | (#47691171)

...than it eliminates. Every time a politician opens their mouth, there will a headline tagged 'satire', and then they'll complain that Facebook is misrepresenting what they said, and then someone will have to explain to the politician what 'satire' actually means.

For example, every 'security' measure of the TSA is a cruel satire, but they are also actual rules that people are really subject to.

Re:Will create more confusion (1)

aNonnyMouseCowered (2693969) | about 3 months ago | (#47691581)

All politics is a joke, until you get whacked on the head with it. I mean what kind of insanity will force you to smile even when you want to strangle the guy you're smiling/shaking hands with?

Re:Will create more confusion (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47691619)

All politics is a joke, until you get whacked on the head with it. I mean what kind of insanity will force you to smile even when you want to strangle the guy you're smiling/shaking hands with?

Sex (hence the saying that "politics make for strange bedfellows"). If you need to stay PG, say Marriage.

Re:Will create more confusion (2)

WillKemp (1338605) | about 3 months ago | (#47692039)

No way! There are things on Facebook that aren't satire?

Re:Will create more confusion (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47692093)

Your satire about satire is filled with satire

Re: Will create more confusion (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47692339)

In other news, The Onion is testing a new Serious tag to be used for non- satirical articles.

Re: Will create more confusion (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47692351)

Now THAT, will be confusing.

Says who? (4, Interesting)

Dan East (318230) | about 3 months ago | (#47691177)

And who determines if the content at that URL is satirical in nature? Facebook? Looks like they've merely added that "tag" for all URLs from the Onion.

Re:Says who? (1)

leuk_he (194174) | about 3 months ago | (#47691353)

And failed to do so for De Speld [facebook.com] (dutch kind of union)

Re:Says who? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47691495)

if (url.indexOf("www.onion.com")!=-1) {tag("satire");}

Re:Says who? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47691577)

And who determines if the content at that URL is satirical in nature? Facebook? Looks like they've merely added that "tag" for all URLs from the Onion.

Let's face it, the Onion is a well known satyrical news site and there is no real confusion about it's satyrical nature for most open minded people with a well developed sense of humor. However conservatives, being rather closed minded and prone to panicking, seem to be unable to tell the difference between satyrical news sites like the Onion and real news. What originally tipped the scales and caused Facebook to launch this project was an incident during the Bush administration where the administration spent vast amounts of money planning the invasion Nukehavistan [theonion.com] . Eventually somebody clued the White House in on the joke but by then they had already invaded Afghanistan. Another interesting fact bit about the satire tag is that it has taken Facebook nine years of intensive development and testing to develop ... a 'tag'.

Re:Says who? (4, Funny)

Deadstick (535032) | about 3 months ago | (#47691753)

Let's face it, the Onion is a well known satyrical news site

Can't people just tell by the goat horns?

Re:Says who? (1)

cheater512 (783349) | about 3 months ago | (#47691857)

It must be true - I read it on the internet!

Re:Says who? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47691607)

There are many satire "news" sites. It is likely just a list of domains that are known satire sites. I have seen many satire "news" articles posted on FB by ppl that didn't realize it was satire. So this is good for those that don't read the fine print. It gets annoying having to post comments pointing ppl to the disclaimer on the satire site indicating it was satire, so this is good news so I can have less /facepalms in my life.

Re:Says who? (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 3 months ago | (#47692021)

Looks like they've merely added that "tag" for all URLs from the Onion.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of sites who are trying to be like the Onion, but with bad intentions and an ugly agenda. And no talent for satire, which is a problem when you're trying to create a satire site. (e.g., "Guns'N'Butter" and "The People's Cube"). And as we well know, there are people stupid enough to believe whatever they see on the Internet.

(*Never mind about Guns'N'Butter. It looks like they went off the air for sucking too much. They were sort of like the Vox Day of Onion impersonators.)

NO (1)

Sigvatr (1207234) | about 3 months ago | (#47691181)

PLEASE DONT

What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47691183)

This is the social media equivalent of a warning label.

Seriously?

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47691315)

Yes seriously, some people can't tell true from false, trusting everything they read, see or hear.

Why do think civilization is in decline?

Re:What? (1)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | about 3 months ago | (#47691461)

You've never encountered "trigger warnings"?

Trigger warning: the hero dies at the end.

Re:What? (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about 3 months ago | (#47692697)

it's not a warning label as such..
it's a label that "THIS IS A JOKE".

why? because people are stupid.

Re:What? (1)

michelcolman (1208008) | about 3 months ago | (#47693399)

I just hope that that article was satirical.

Some people are too stupid (1)

gander666 (723553) | about 3 months ago | (#47691185)

Some people are too stupid to breathe. Or breed.

Re:Some people are too stupid (4, Insightful)

hduff (570443) | about 3 months ago | (#47691291)

Some people are too stupid to breathe. Or breed.

The stupid people appear to breed quite well. It's the neckbeards with the Cheetos-stained fingers that are unsucessful at breeding.

Re:Some people are too stupid (1)

mjwx (966435) | about 3 months ago | (#47691667)

Some people are too stupid to breathe. Or breed.

The stupid people appear to breed quite well. It's the neckbeards with the Cheetos-stained fingers that are unsucessful at breeding.

It is a good thing that intelligence is not determined by genetics (pairing two geniuses wont produce a savant, its been tried before).

Re:Some people are too stupid (3, Interesting)

Dragon Bait (997809) | about 3 months ago | (#47691911)

It is a good thing that intelligence is not determined by genetics.

Citation needed --- and not to a stupid failed experiment that drew the wrong conclusion.

Yes. I know. It's politically incorrect to think that intelligence does have a genetic component. My anecdotal examples certainly leads my belief that there is a causal relationship.

And no. I'm not saying that genetics is everything; nor am I saying that all children of two intelligent people are intelligent. Anyone who has even the simplest understanding of genetics knows that not all children of brown haired parents have brown hair. But only someone who has baked their brain in a politically correct stew would think there is no genetic component.

Re:Some people are too stupid (1)

quenda (644621) | about 3 months ago | (#47692013)

It is a good thing that intelligence is not determined by genetics.

Citation needed --- and not to a stupid failed experiment that drew the wrong conclusion.

I think the GP was being ironic. Pretty sure, but if only there were some markup convention, some HTML tag equivalent to a sarcastic voice tone ...

Or we could just put a woosh tag on the parent post ... unless I am missing Dragon Bait's sarcam? Damn this written communication.

Re:Some people are too stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47692423)

Anyone who has even the simplest understanding of genetics knows that not all children of brown haired parents have brown hair.

What about the children of brown-haired parents whose (the modern equivalent of the) milkman is also brown-haired?

Re:Some people are too stupid (1)

m00sh (2538182) | about 3 months ago | (#47692703)

It is a good thing that intelligence is not determined by genetics.

Citation needed --- and not to a stupid failed experiment that drew the wrong conclusion.

Yes. I know. It's politically incorrect to think that intelligence does have a genetic component. My anecdotal examples certainly leads my belief that there is a causal relationship.

And no. I'm not saying that genetics is everything; nor am I saying that all children of two intelligent people are intelligent. Anyone who has even the simplest understanding of genetics knows that not all children of brown haired parents have brown hair. But only someone who has baked their brain in a politically correct stew would think there is no genetic component.

IQ has some heritability. However, intelligence can mean anything. If you measure intelligence by IQ, you are right. If you measure intelligence by achievements, then the original poster is right.

Re:Some people are too stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47692765)

Evolutionary biology must have been all about complete denial for you you circa 2010, 2011?

Humanity is not so singular as you seem to think, m00sh.

Re:Some people are too stupid (1)

KingOfBLASH (620432) | about 3 months ago | (#47693025)

Well that's not entirely true because of the way genes mix up (the whole idea of dominance and inheritance). This is what might allow two brown haired brunettes to have a blue eyed blonde child: the brown eyes and brown hair is dominant, and when the bits of the couple is mixed, you get two recessive traits (blonde hair / blue eyes).

Of course it's not even so simple as dominant / recessive because genes mix about in all kinds of other ways. So getting a true breeding pair from just one generation of people is not possible.

However, it's highly likely if we had a eugenics program whereby over a long period (say several hundred generations) we attempted to identify, and breed a "smart" race of people, it would happen (in the same way we've bred dogs that are smarter than other dogs).

Re:Some people are too stupid (0)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 3 months ago | (#47692059)

. It's the neckbeards with the Cheetos-stained fingers that are unsucessful at breeding.

Yeah, well someday, there are going to be millions of mutant Kleenex rising up to be our overlords.

(I don't know, something about all the DNA put there by geeks, you know? So go make up your own goddamn jokes.)

Re:Some people are too stupid (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 3 months ago | (#47692025)

Some people are too stupid to breathe. Or breed.

Rural Florida disagrees.

Re:Some people are too stupid (1)

Bite The Pillow (3087109) | about 3 months ago | (#47692263)

And they forward satire as news to their too-stupid-to-breathe friends, and it becomes this whole big thing.

If you were the largest social media site, wouldn't you just throw up your hands one day and say "Fine, if they can't tell the difference, we'll just tag everything from The Onion with a satire tag"?

I know I would. And I wouldn't want to send the message that "you're too stupid to tell the difference", so I would do it with internal tests, then small public tests.

So what happened here is first line tech support did not get the message because it was not a new feature - t was supposed to be targeted to a very small population. The population target screwed up and some reporter found it. FaceBook had to either claim it was a bug, to Wired, or commit to a plan. They chose the third option, calling it a "small test" they could either dismiss or build upon.

The real bug here seems to be in FaceBook's "related stories" widget. Visit one link to a satire site, and the "related links" fills up with at least one story from that site, and two other links which will probably also be satire.

Now FaceBook looks like it is pimping fake news stories. Or, to the stupid people, now you are looking at something just as unbelievable, but obviously FaceBook thought it was real or they wouldn't display it.

It is the belief of people in FaceBook, and FaceBook's intention of keeping peoples' faith, that is at issue.

People being too stupid to breathe won't change because you pointed it out. Obviously, they are able to breathe or they would have stopped. Similar for breeding. Now imagine that your audience is smart enough to breathe and breed, but smart enough for little else.what would you do?

Remember: most people are very much like insects: they notice input and react to it. Posts here on dotslash exemplify it, when they take a predictable news story and post an obvious but unrelated "conventional wisdom" without giving specific consideration to the context. Input, reaction, and little in between. I suppose you would agree that assholes like that post all the time here? So what do we do about these stupid people?

Re:Some people are too stupid (1)

gander666 (723553) | about 3 months ago | (#47692323)

So you agree with me? I fucking repost shit from Christians for Michelle Bachmann, a site that is so fucking over the top satire, that you have to be a fucking moron to not realize that. Alas, a lot (not a few, but fucking A LOT) of people can't figure that out. You think that Facebook using an automatic satire tag will help? The Fox News crowd will have kittens.

About time. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47691195)

I've been getting tired of having to explain that TheLapine.ca and Huffington Post are fake news sites.

Sad. (1)

Ayars (875441) | about 3 months ago | (#47691201)

It's a sad commentary on society that this is necessary. Where did we go wrong? Sure... "Facebook", but I think it goes back further than that.

Re:Sad. (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47691335)

Where did we go wrong? Sure... "Facebook", but I think it goes back further than that.

Indeed. [wikipedia.org] In other contexts it goes much further back, but for the internet, September 1993 has never been recovered from.

You forgot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47691213)

You forgot the satire tag on this article.

Re:You forgot (1)

jep77 (1357465) | about 3 months ago | (#47691333)

It's got be satire. Right? Reads like an April Fools' Day article.

[SATIRE] Huffington Post (1)

darkain (749283) | about 3 months ago | (#47691225)

I'm guessing they're implementing this after The Huffington Post ran that article months ago confusing the difference between what a "Terms of Service" is compared to "App Permissions" in regards to the Facebook Mobile Messenger. Now any "News" site that talks ill of Facebook will be labeled "SATIRE"! Perfection. This is ingenious marketing on Facebook's part! Now they'll never look bad ever again!

Why stop there? NSFW Tag badly needed! (1)

seoras (147590) | about 3 months ago | (#47691235)

I recently "Liked" a friends share from TheLadBible on Facebook and now my home page feed is NSFW.
Just can't bring myself to Un-Liking it. ;)

BRILLIANT (2)

grcumb (781340) | about 3 months ago | (#47691245)

[satire]That's a fucking brilliant idea! I really really really mean it. Sincerely.

But don't forget the [lies-all-lies], [am-i-boring-you-yet], [pandering-listery], [corporate-shilling] and [too-stupid-even-for-you] prefixes.

Re:BRILLIANT (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47691429)

[satire]That's a fucking brilliant idea! I really really really mean it. Sincerely.

I think that's sarcasm, not satire.

Stephen Cobert's show is satire of Bill O'Reilly.

Re:BRILLIANT (1)

grcumb (781340) | about 3 months ago | (#47691713)

[satire]That's a fucking brilliant idea! I really really really mean it. Sincerely.

I think that's sarcasm, not satire.

Is it? I wasn't aware. Clearly sarcasm must have some association with satire, because making sardonic statements seems to be the first thing I want to do when I'm writing satire. Then I take someone's stupid idea, and extend it, by including absurd examples of where their (il)logic would/should take them....

... Which I did on the very next fucking line.

Stephen Cobert's show is satire of Bill O'Reilly.

Do tell. Next you'll be telling me that The Daily Show isn't real news.

Because Jon Stewart never uses sarcasm when he indulges in acts of satire.

-----------------
P.S. I'm still being sarcastic. And by aping your tone, satirical, too.

[Satire] (2)

MRe_nl (306212) | about 3 months ago | (#47691251)

Perhaps Slashdot could implement a [Facebook] tag for articles about or originating from [Facebook]?

What happens ... (1)

PPH (736903) | about 3 months ago | (#47691273)

... if you nest [satire]...[/satire] content?

Re:What happens ... (1)

q4Fry (1322209) | about 3 months ago | (#47691999)

... if you nest [satire]...[/satire] content?

This. [gocomics.com] (Thank you, Bill Watterson.)

Can't Fix Stupid (3, Informative)

hduff (570443) | about 3 months ago | (#47691281)

They will think that satires are some kind of automobile wheel.

Why the ridicule? (5, Interesting)

MacTO (1161105) | about 3 months ago | (#47691349)

Sometimes satire is obvious, sometimes it isn't. In the latter cases, you have to be familiar with the source or familiar with background information. When you are talking about a medium that supports a profound number of sources, it can be difficult to judge whether a source that you are not familiar with is satirical. When you are talking about a medium that can deliver news from all parts of the world from varying perspectives, it can be difficult to have the necessary background information to judge whether a portrayal is satirical. Sites like Facebook only compound that problem because it is not a news site in the traditional sense, nor is it a news aggregator. It is simply a site where people post links, links that may be informative or may be whimsical based upon their mood. Making matters worse, a lot of people don't even know their Facebook "friends" particularly well, which makes it means that you can't even use the source of the link as a guage.

While I do have deep concerns about how Facebook would go about vetting links, I can understand why some people would see this as a valuable feature.

Re:Why the ridicule? (2)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 3 months ago | (#47691431)

The problem is their algorithm has to be close to perfect or it makes things worse. Once people begin to trust the label, they'll fall harder for the stories that the algorithm misses.

I don't think Literally Unbelievable [literallyu...evable.org] has anything to worry about.

Re:Why the ridicule? (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | about 3 months ago | (#47691655)

Sometimes satire is obvious, sometimes it isn't.

Why Doesn't America Read Anymore? [npr.org]
April 01, 2014

Congratulations, genuine readers, and happy April Fools' Day!

We sometimes get the sense that some people are commenting on NPR stories that they haven't actually read. If you are reading this, please like this post and do not comment on it. Then let's see what people have to say about this "story."

Best wishes and have an enjoyable day,

Your friends at NPR

As you might expect, a lot of people commented on that without clicking through.

I consider satire to be something of a public service.
If you don't bother to check the source of your information,
you deserve the embarrassment (or misinformation) that follows.

TLDR: Credulity is not a virtue.

Tools for Censorship (2)

s.petry (762400) | about 3 months ago | (#47692521)

While I agree with your points about Facebook not being a News site, or a News aggregate site, who is providing the tag for satire? Facebook already sorts news it does not like away from people, and has been caught blocking content they don't like. If Facebook controls the tag then this will just be another tool for censorship, it's not even a question.

If a user chooses to label a post with said said tag, I have no issue with that. I personally would not use such a tag even if I used facebook (have not been there in over a year and even prior would log in every few months). In my opinion, people either get satire or they don't. If you don't get the joke you are the joke, and that is a big part of what satire is. Humiliate people into learning.

Censorship is already here and active, lets not pretend otherwise. Sites like facebook just make it easier to censor and shape public opinion.

A notsatire tag... (1)

Etherwalk (681268) | about 3 months ago | (#47692989)

A "seriously" tag should also exist. It's not the satire that's problematic--it's the real news that is so absurd it seems to be satire. This pops up with amazing frequency.

hey, it could work. (1)

turkeydance (1266624) | about 3 months ago | (#47691359)

satire.

Daily Currant (4, Insightful)

Cowclops (630818) | about 3 months ago | (#47691391)

I just wish people would stop linking to Daily Currant articles. Their version of "Satire" is posting articles that aren't funny, but ARE plausible, just to incite a reaction. Its not like The Onion where the humor is usually right in the headline.

I wouldn't have a problem with it if they were skilled writers and I cracked up laughing while reading the article. Except its crap like "Sarah Palin: âEat Less Chinese Foodâ(TM) to Reduce Trade Deficit" or "Hilary: I'm running!"

I wouldn't be surprised if Sarah Palin said something like that, and I wouldn't be surprised if Hilary Clinton was running for president. Except there's no humor in fabricating plausible stories.

Re:Daily Currant (1)

cascadingstylesheet (140919) | about 3 months ago | (#47691865)

I wouldn't be surprised if Sarah Palin said something like that, and I wouldn't be surprised if Hilary Clinton was running for president. Except there's no humor in fabricating plausible stories.

They are designed to basically confirm people's existing biases. "Well, she would say something like that, she's so stupid." That she inconveniently didn't is no barrier anymore.

They are designed to bash, not to be funny.

Re:Daily Currant (1)

tverbeek (457094) | about 3 months ago | (#47693717)

Yeah, there are too many click-bait hoax sites that justify themselves by calling it "satire".

That's sad (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47691395)

It's sad that grown adults have to be helped in determining if something is satirical or serious.

Re:That's sad (2)

Ol Olsoc (1175323) | about 3 months ago | (#47692279)

It's sad that grown adults have to be helped in determining if something is satirical or serious.

Tragedy of the commons. There are a lot of people out there that are just about smart enough to work a computer. Problem is, they don't know the difference between real and self affirming echo chambers. So if something comes along that seems plausible, they hop right on it.

We shouldn't complain though, because some dork getting pranked by The Onion is almost always as funny as the original satirical article.

Re: That's sad (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47692453)

How is this a tragedy of the commons?

The New Media (1)

Seumas (6865) | about 3 months ago | (#47691435)

This is the new media. Clearly label satire; obfuscate native advertising.

Programming for the stupid factor... (1)

Squallop (3500093) | about 3 months ago | (#47691437)

What a complete waste of time and resources to be developing for stupid people..

Re:Programming for the stupid factor... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47691529)

Why? 90% of all people are stupid. 50% are below average and average isn't very bright. Where do you draw the line for stupid? It has to be at least at the 80% level, but I'd really put it around 90%. Only 17% of the population has an advanced degree, and some of those are bullshit, so yea, I think my 10% of people are smart definition holds. So yes, most products need to be targeted towards stupid people.

no critical thought required? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47691439)

When reading information online (especially news) it's important to question material, and potentially follow up on the provided sources. By trying to say "if it doesn't have a satire tag, it's real" you're removing some of the incentive for average users to think about what their reading and not just accept it as fact. When someone gets "burned" for posting an obviously satirical article to Facebook they may think twice the next time they read any article. I wish more people would ask themselves "who wrote this? where did they get this information from? does this site have a good track record of posting solid stuff?"

Sometimes unknown satire is a powerful tool when it comes to making you realize your own bias and tendency to cherry-pick data. When you've gone half-way through the article nodding your head with conviction until you realize it's all a joke and none of the information you blindly accepted was true.

Lets not dumb it down for those who just post shit because it conforms with their views without actually reading it themselves.

Faux news? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47691473)

If they would do this for anything coming from any organization owned by Rupert Murdoch, THAT would be a public service.

East end subway (4, Insightful)

SternisheFan (2529412) | about 3 months ago | (#47691519)

There are two types of people in this life, those who 'get' satire, and those who don't.

On the east end of Long Island, NY, there's a free magazine called "Dan's Papers". A running article series has been written over two years on the subway system that connects several east end towns, from Southampton to Montauk. It's very well written, with continuous updates. say, about how the suggestion box at the Southampton station has been moved to an area where people will not bump against it anymore. And it is completely a goof. Still, I've met a few people who truly believe that an east end subway exists because, "It's in Dan's Papers! I've read all about it!" These people have asked me, with complete sincerity, if I know where the subway entrance is in their town. When I tried to tell one woman how I truly doubted that a subway exists (I didn't want to make her feel dumb), she left still sure of this subways existence. These are the same type of people who a few years back fell for the deer/lion hunt planned on the east end in order to help 'thin out the herd', another one of 'Dan's Papers' classic jokes.

http://danspapers.com/category... [danspapers.com]

Labeling an article as satire would take all the fun out of it for those of us who 'get it'.

Re:East end subway (0)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about 3 months ago | (#47691859)

There is a difference between 'satire' and 'outright lies'. Ridiculing people because they're not the same as you is despicable. Oh, but it's so important to have fun at the expense of others, because if everyone got it, then there would be no fun.

Re:East end subway (1)

SternisheFan (2529412) | about 3 months ago | (#47692027)

There is a difference between 'satire' and 'outright lies'. Ridiculing people because they're not the same as you is despicable. Oh, but it's so important to have fun at the expense of others, because if everyone got it, then there would be no fun.

And how was I ridiculing anyone? If I‘d said to that woman, "You‘re a complete idiot! Don't you realize that it's all made up? Jeez!", that would have been acting superior and would have been wrong to do. There are gullible people in this world, that's a fact. Pointing that out doesn't mean I think I'm better than them. I didn't try to convince her the subway story was true and secretly enjoy mocking her. In fact I was trying to find a way to let her know it was highly unlikely, some people will continue to believe whatever they choose to believe no matter what you tell them, you can't always convince them otherwise. She'll figure out the truth one day. Or not.

I've known people who think that their 8 years of college, or their inherited money, or their skin color make them better than other people, when in truth a sheetrock wall has more common sense than that person does. According to your logic, I'm in the wrong when I relate a story about them? Give it a rest, okay?

Re:East end subway (-1)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about 3 months ago | (#47692213)

Funny how it's OK if you ridicule them online, but you're too chicken to do it to their face.

when in truth a sheetrock wall has more common sense than that person does.

I think you and the wall have something in common, but it's doubtful you'll ever see it. It's not surprising you're anti-intellectual. Educated people are frequently more informed than you and it gets under your skin, doesn't it? This is your way of getting back at them. Fuck you, and fuck your anti-intellectual friends. Go back to your friend Sarah Palin, retard.

Re:East end subway (1)

SternisheFan (2529412) | about 3 months ago | (#47692315)

Funny how it's OK if you ridicule them online, but you're too chicken to do it to their face.

when in truth a sheetrock wall has more common sense than that person does.

I think you and the wall have something in common, but it's doubtful you'll ever see it. It's not surprising you're anti-intellectual. Educated people are frequently more informed than you and it gets under your skin, doesn't it? This is your way of getting back at them. Fuck you, and fuck your anti-intellectual friends. Go back to your friend Sarah Palin, retard.

Okay..., "retard"? Right...

Either I'm dealing with a teenager who's not too well thought out yet, or you must have forgotten to 'tag' your posts as 'satire'. Have a nice night.... :^)

Re:East end subway (1)

penguinoid (724646) | about 3 months ago | (#47691909)

Labeling an article as satire would take all the fun out of it for those of us who 'get it'.

Boy have you got it wrong... it is going to be totally AWESOME to tag actual news stories with the "satire" tag, and watch the morons who believe everything they read be certain it's all fake. (Yes, I know it's not a user-generated tag, but automatic tags can still be applied since they won't judge content.)

Re:East end subway (1)

dcollins (135727) | about 3 months ago | (#47692265)

I have/had certain acquaintances who would fall for almost every conspiracy theory and faux-news story that came down the pipe on FB. The first thing I thought about this feature is, "Oh god, now D--- will start railing about the Facebook conspiracy to de-legitimize these critical alternative news stories."

Re:East end subway (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47692999)

sounds a bit like http://scarfolk.blogspot.co.uk/ but less creepy :-)

Re:East end subway (1)

Dan Askme (2895283) | about 3 months ago | (#47693157)

Labeling an article as satire would take all the fun out of it for those of us who 'get it'.

And for those of us who :
- "get it"
- value their time
- Dont want to have their time wasted, sifting through pages of crap to find its satire.
- Dont want the world to be full of non-sense, unlabelled crap.

are grateful.

Re:East end subway (1)

tverbeek (457094) | about 3 months ago | (#47693727)

I don't get any enjoyment out of seeing "the ones who don't" spreading misinformation because of it.

Sounds good (5, Funny)

Indigo (2453) | about 3 months ago | (#47691531)

Can they add a "blatant politically motivated lie" tag while they're at it?

Re:Sounds good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47691997)

That'd be on the wrong side of the lobbying isle.

Re:Sounds good (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47692345)

Most papers already have that. It is an (R) beside the name.

Now we need ... (1)

PPH (736903) | about 3 months ago | (#47691559)

... [allegory], [hyperbole], [parody], [rhetoric], [pathos], [irony], and possibly a few others.

Instead of labelling content (2)

FatLittleMonkey (1341387) | about 3 months ago | (#47691563)

Couldn't they just put a label on the sort of people who not only believe satirical news, but, outraged, spread that "news" to everyone they know.

[Idiot] MagicBob97 shared [link].
[Idiot] catpiss wrote "typical fukink obamu!!!!!! [link]".
[non-idiot] sumdude wrote "uh, guys, teh onion is a satire site".
[Idiot] imtoorealforu shared [link].

What's the point of satire then? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47691747)

Although the post of most satire is to make a statement about something through humor, the best thing about satire I find is that so many people often believe it to be true, because it sounds either so much like real life that it's believable, or because they're so arrogantly biased that the satire reinforces their existing misconceptions, making them look even more like idiots. Making an Onion article as satire basically ruins the effect.

Gotta say it (1)

msobkow (48369) | about 3 months ago | (#47691839)

<SATIRE>Facebook users are so smart!</SATIRE>

Re:Gotta say it (1)

Mr Z (6791) | about 3 months ago | (#47692051)

Sorry, dude, that's sarcasm. not satire.

Re:Gotta say it (1)

msobkow (48369) | about 3 months ago | (#47692301)

Details, details, details. :D

Because (1)

DougDot (966387) | about 3 months ago | (#47691841)

people are, you know, to stupid to get satire on their own.

Facebook users need as much help as they can get (1)

DaveyJJ (1198633) | about 3 months ago | (#47691875)

Ergo, not a bad idea.

What is a "grow light"? (1)

ayesnymous (3665205) | about 3 months ago | (#47691977)

Never heard of that.

Re:What is a "grow light"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47692745)

It's for penis enlargement.

If you have to point out satire... (1)

ayesnymous (3665205) | about 3 months ago | (#47691981)

then there's no point in having satire.

Catering to morons... (1)

frrrp (720185) | about 3 months ago | (#47692029)

... That is Facebook's entire business model.

obvious unintended consequences (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47692065)

Those unable to distinguish satire will be more likely to believe non-tagged satire as true. [not-satire]

Yeah right (1)

Solandri (704621) | about 3 months ago | (#47692421)

Like that's ever gonna work. /sarcasm

Mainstream news needs the tag more than anyone (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47692883)

First of all it won't do any good. Most people won't even pay attention to a 'Satire' tag and still believe everything they hear. It could be reported all over the news that someone in a high profile case was acquitted of all charges and the news media keeps saying they are guilty and people still believe what the hear/read. O. J. Simpson got away with murder despite being found innocent, Michael Jackson molested children despite never being convicted of it, Casey Anthony killed her daughter despite being found innocent, George Zimmerman racially profiled Trayvon Martin and killed him out of racial hatred despite being found innocent and despite there not being enough evidence for the police to even charge him with a crime, just as examples of people believing more of what the news says than the cold hard facts.

My opinion is that all mainstream news media needs the 'Satire' tag (especially Fox News and CNN) because they don't report facts, only their own twisted made up B.S. that some people are gullible to believe. So a 'Satire' tag on Face(palm)Book isn't going to do a damn bit of good. "Stupid is as stupid does" ~ Forrest Gump

Just tag the entire Internet (1)

istartedi (132515) | about 3 months ago | (#47692925)

Won't this just lead to the tagging of the entire Internet? After all, who really wants to stand behind what they say? The number of potential misinterpretations is virtually unbounded. As I've previously mentioned on Slashdot, just the few lines I've typed here have the potential to bring out some far-out inference. There's no way I can predict what it'll be.

So. Just tag the entire Internet as satire, not really true, nothing to get upset about, etc.

I'm thinking that we could just hand out Mr. Yuck stickers with every Internet-capable device that's sold.

Satire is a good way to clean up your friend list (1)

rebelwarlock (1319465) | about 3 months ago | (#47692991)

If you played GTA Vice City, you probably remember how utterly insane the political radio interviews were. I once posted as my status a chunk of one of those interviews, and watched people proceed to lose their shit in my general direction. If you don't realize I'm joking when you see me post, "It's simple: if you don't have a job, starve", we probably won't get along very well anyway.

Facebook failed to spot satire? (1)

abies (607076) | about 3 months ago | (#47693043)

I suppose that people who sent the petition forgot to put [satire] tag in front of it as well and now are bit scared of what they have started...

[Saltire] (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47693371)

Also, anything Scottish related will be tagged as above

Fishdicks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47693419)

Jimmy: Do you like fishsticks?
Cartman: Yeah.
Jimmy: Do you like putting fish sticks in your mouth?
Cartman: Yeah.
Jimmy: What are you, a gay fish [mtv.com] ?
(South Park)

TEST (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47693471)

Dear Facebook members, check this page and report if it's a satire or not.

http://members.shaw.ca/rlongpr... [members.shaw.ca]

These days (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47693607)

The Onion is probably the most accurate news source out there.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?