Curated Resource ( ? )

America’s always-on partisan goggles hurt meaningful evaluation of fact-checking on Facebook | Poynter

my notes ( ? )

The tension between literalism and contextualism is one fact-checkers face every day... Swing too far towards literalism and you’re a bone-headed bean counter. Get too contextual and you’re taking wild leaps of interpretation — something fact-checking was explicitly set up to avoid...
This interpretative license can be heavily colored by personal biases... It’s easy to be forgiving of imprecision in arguments we agree with, to argue that they should be evaluated in context... we’re usually slavish literalists when it comes to ideas we reject.”...
Facebook doesn’t really have an answer to a fundamental question: What is its fact-checking for?...How literal should their fact-checking on Facebook be? What should it primarily target? How can it be effectively appealed? And how can all these rules work across the more than 15 countries the tool is currently active in?... common rules about fact-checking might help combat the fragmenting media ecosystem. Clearly, not everyone agrees.

Read the Full Post

The above notes were curated from the full post

Related reading

More Stuff I Like

More Stuff tagged facebook , factchecking

See also: Content Strategy , Online Strategy , Social Media Strategy , Psychology , Social Web , Media

Cookies disclaimer saves very few cookies onto your device: we need some to monitor site traffic using Google Analytics, while another protects you from a cross-site request forgeries. Nevertheless, you can disable the usage of cookies by changing the settings of your browser. By browsing our website without changing the browser settings, you grant us permission to store that information on your device. More details in our Privacy Policy.