Satire moderated as misinformation - solutions?
August 29, 2022 1:19 PM Subscribe
A colleague recently started a new satirical website akin to The Onion. Time and again they have attempted to utilize Facebook, Google and Twitter to advertise and share articles, but moderators consistently flag content for policy violations, even though all content is satire and labeled as such on the website. Because the client is not allowed to monetize or advertise with major tech companies there is little web traffic and almost zero revenue.
Algorithms that would normally allow organic social media spread are likely suppressing and stifling satirical content spread, because the content is being misclassified as misinformation, triggering containment measures. Meanwhile, satirical content from other similar websites (theonion.com, thebeaverton.com, clickhole.com, etc.) appear to use Facebook, Google and Twitter services to advertise and monetize their content.
Is there any hope for new satirical website startups? Or is it a lost cause trying to fight mis-moderation by tech monopolies? Are there alternate routes to promoting this content?
(Note: It's almost impossible to reach a real person [one with discernment and authority] at these social media outlets.)
Site is thebrokenbadger.com. It's not linked because this post is not intended to drive traffic, just to illustrate the problem.
Algorithms that would normally allow organic social media spread are likely suppressing and stifling satirical content spread, because the content is being misclassified as misinformation, triggering containment measures. Meanwhile, satirical content from other similar websites (theonion.com, thebeaverton.com, clickhole.com, etc.) appear to use Facebook, Google and Twitter services to advertise and monetize their content.
Is there any hope for new satirical website startups? Or is it a lost cause trying to fight mis-moderation by tech monopolies? Are there alternate routes to promoting this content?
(Note: It's almost impossible to reach a real person [one with discernment and authority] at these social media outlets.)
Site is thebrokenbadger.com. It's not linked because this post is not intended to drive traffic, just to illustrate the problem.
Found it: Help our magazine not be seen as spam by Facebook
Your post doesn’t make it clear whether your friend is posting about their site or buying ads about their site. (You do use the word advertise but you also said it’s organic, which it clearly isn’t.) If you’re talking about posting/tweeting they’re probably just getting deleted as spam. Facebook/Twitter are highly motivated to police that, as they have a method for spamming people and its the one thing you have to pay them for. It’s literally the only way they make any money.
posted by tiamat at 2:09 PM on August 29, 2022
There is no obvious indication that the site is satire, either in the title, some kind of description/explanation/subtitle on the front page, nor the design. I'm not saying that would solve the problem, but I'd say it's at least necessary if not sufficient.
I love dry humor sometimes, but I think this desert can't support life as we know it :)
posted by amtho at 3:19 PM on August 29, 2022 [5 favorites]
I love dry humor sometimes, but I think this desert can't support life as we know it :)
posted by amtho at 3:19 PM on August 29, 2022 [5 favorites]
The website's facebook page has only one review, and it is 1/5. That doesn't help.
posted by flug at 3:44 PM on August 29, 2022
posted by flug at 3:44 PM on August 29, 2022
In addition to amtho's comments, the design of the whole site looks exactly like the typical right-wing crazy nutjob misinformation site so, if a human reviewer were to have a quick glance (which seems unlikely), it would get written-off immediately. The language is also in a similar style to such sites, I assume deliberately intended to be so as satire, but I'm sure it doesn't help with either the algorithms or any possible human review.
Posting such a site on Facebook, especially repeatedly, is likely to trigger all sorts of alarms. Buying ads would almost certainly work better because that's how Facebook works.
posted by dg at 4:39 PM on August 29, 2022 [2 favorites]
Posting such a site on Facebook, especially repeatedly, is likely to trigger all sorts of alarms. Buying ads would almost certainly work better because that's how Facebook works.
posted by dg at 4:39 PM on August 29, 2022 [2 favorites]
A few years ago, a lot of sites started abusing the "satire" tag to deliberately spread misinformation and there was a deliberate effort to cut down on that. When it comes to something like political news you need to be very explicit about what you are claiming, and putting the word satire low down on your page does not magically stop people from being misinformed.
I think you need to have something obvious ABOVE the content of the article that makes it look like satire. You could move the category up or put something in the header that looks like an obvious joke. Having the only indication be below the content is going to trick both readers and facebook reviewers into thinking this is trying to be real news. The Onion is obviously grandfathered in, and many of the other satirical sites focus on safer topics like celebrities where tabloids can get away with a lot of fabrication. I'm not really sure how The Beaverton gets away with it, my guess is that many of their articles do get labeled as misinformation because they're too subtle about it and as a non-Canadian I would probably be tricked by a few of them.
posted by JZig at 4:50 PM on August 29, 2022 [1 favorite]
I think you need to have something obvious ABOVE the content of the article that makes it look like satire. You could move the category up or put something in the header that looks like an obvious joke. Having the only indication be below the content is going to trick both readers and facebook reviewers into thinking this is trying to be real news. The Onion is obviously grandfathered in, and many of the other satirical sites focus on safer topics like celebrities where tabloids can get away with a lot of fabrication. I'm not really sure how The Beaverton gets away with it, my guess is that many of their articles do get labeled as misinformation because they're too subtle about it and as a non-Canadian I would probably be tricked by a few of them.
posted by JZig at 4:50 PM on August 29, 2022 [1 favorite]
Yeah, at first glance some of it really blurs the "Poe's Law" line, I'm not sure it comes off as satire to say things that I think a right-winger would say as a joke too. "We need to give free ammo to the poor areas" could easily be a "own the libs" kind of joke. Right wing bullcrap is so loud on Facebook people are going to flag quickly if the sniff test is even slightly off.
posted by AzraelBrown at 6:06 AM on August 30, 2022
posted by AzraelBrown at 6:06 AM on August 30, 2022
Took a quick look at the site and IMHO it should be blocked as misinformation based on its current design. There's nowhere near enough disclosure the content is satire. Sites like this regularly confuse people. They read too quickly, or aren't very critical thinkers, or the article pushes some button confirming their own opinions so they forward it not realizing it's satire.
A particularly harmful sub-genre are things that aren't obviously satire in the link preview sites like Facebook or Twitter show you. Folks forward those around based entirely on the headline and pull quote and never click through. Sure if the link says "The Onion" any vaguely savvy reader will realize it's satire. But for a lesser known site it works just like straight misinformation.
I can't divine Facebook's business strategy so I don't have a good answer for you. But I can sure understand why individual readers would flag these links as misinformation.
For an example of another satire site that walks this satire line uncomfortably, check out The Betoota Advocate, an Australian publication. They don't really disclose being satire very clearly either. I know about them via Facebook but only because a friend directly links them, I don't know how much Facebook is suppressing them. I don't have any conclusion to draw from this example but they have a long history and maybe there's something to learn from it.
posted by Nelson at 7:47 AM on August 30, 2022
A particularly harmful sub-genre are things that aren't obviously satire in the link preview sites like Facebook or Twitter show you. Folks forward those around based entirely on the headline and pull quote and never click through. Sure if the link says "The Onion" any vaguely savvy reader will realize it's satire. But for a lesser known site it works just like straight misinformation.
I can't divine Facebook's business strategy so I don't have a good answer for you. But I can sure understand why individual readers would flag these links as misinformation.
For an example of another satire site that walks this satire line uncomfortably, check out The Betoota Advocate, an Australian publication. They don't really disclose being satire very clearly either. I know about them via Facebook but only because a friend directly links them, I don't know how much Facebook is suppressing them. I don't have any conclusion to draw from this example but they have a long history and maybe there's something to learn from it.
posted by Nelson at 7:47 AM on August 30, 2022
It's 2022 and satire is hard in the best of times.
I found your colleague's site and the "passing" sites you posted as examples to have a very different tone.
If you look at your example sites they have three kinds of headlines. The first is something plain that sets up jokes. ("Teachers Reveal Why They Are Quitting Their Jobs") these are all straight headlines one might find in any reputable news source. A content review isn't going to find anything to complain about here. In a brief scan through your colleague's site I didn't see any headlines like this.
The second type of headlines from the example sites are very very clearly satirical. We're living in a world where Pizzagate happened. You really need to push to get things outside the realm of possibility. You can't just say the NRA is giving away ammo, you have to say they're building an orbital watchtower out of ammunition.
But the most common headlines on the example sites are the super low stakes headlines. They're written like small-town papers, often about area man, local business, a coworker, etc. Little fictional things that they use as an entry point to criticize large social issues. To pull a random headline from The Onion: "Landlord Informs Tenants Of Upcoming Improvements To His Lake House" isn't a thing that can be flagged as misinformation—it's not specific enough and more obviously satire. But as a headline it's a good entry point on an article riffing on the current state of landlord and tenant relationships.
Much of the content on your colleague's site is too on the nose. Most of the headlines read like something I'd feed into an AI to recognize misinformation. Instead of "NRA to roll out Little Free Ammo Pantries in disadvantaged communities, starting with North Side of Milwaukee" consider (an example off the top of my head) "Area Man Sets Up Little Free Ammo Pantry To Help Community" It's more clearly a joke, and there's nothing worth tagging as misinformation because who really cares? If it did get flagged someone would have to read the article to see if it was true or not and by then it would be clear it was satire.
(Another thing for your colleague to consider is that someone might simply have a hate on for the project and is flagging everything they post.)
posted by Ookseer at 8:17 AM on August 30, 2022 [3 favorites]
I found your colleague's site and the "passing" sites you posted as examples to have a very different tone.
If you look at your example sites they have three kinds of headlines. The first is something plain that sets up jokes. ("Teachers Reveal Why They Are Quitting Their Jobs") these are all straight headlines one might find in any reputable news source. A content review isn't going to find anything to complain about here. In a brief scan through your colleague's site I didn't see any headlines like this.
The second type of headlines from the example sites are very very clearly satirical. We're living in a world where Pizzagate happened. You really need to push to get things outside the realm of possibility. You can't just say the NRA is giving away ammo, you have to say they're building an orbital watchtower out of ammunition.
But the most common headlines on the example sites are the super low stakes headlines. They're written like small-town papers, often about area man, local business, a coworker, etc. Little fictional things that they use as an entry point to criticize large social issues. To pull a random headline from The Onion: "Landlord Informs Tenants Of Upcoming Improvements To His Lake House" isn't a thing that can be flagged as misinformation—it's not specific enough and more obviously satire. But as a headline it's a good entry point on an article riffing on the current state of landlord and tenant relationships.
Much of the content on your colleague's site is too on the nose. Most of the headlines read like something I'd feed into an AI to recognize misinformation. Instead of "NRA to roll out Little Free Ammo Pantries in disadvantaged communities, starting with North Side of Milwaukee" consider (an example off the top of my head) "Area Man Sets Up Little Free Ammo Pantry To Help Community" It's more clearly a joke, and there's nothing worth tagging as misinformation because who really cares? If it did get flagged someone would have to read the article to see if it was true or not and by then it would be clear it was satire.
(Another thing for your colleague to consider is that someone might simply have a hate on for the project and is flagging everything they post.)
posted by Ookseer at 8:17 AM on August 30, 2022 [3 favorites]
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by Winnie the Proust at 1:32 PM on August 29, 2022 [2 favorites]