[the_watcher]

An exemption for satire makes sense. There's even an existing legal framework for it, as it's an exception to defamation. Opinion, however, seems much more difficult. How do you handle an opinion that relies substantially on a provably false assertion?

The example in the article seems like it could be handled:

> That op-ed argued that global-warming climate models have been inaccurate and that the risks of climate change is overblown.

Included in that sentence are an assertion of fact (yes, climate models have been inaccurate. This is not controversial, and it's also not really as useful to the argument as the author thinks it is) and an opinion that, while I disagree with it, is still an opinion. For purposes of discussion, assume the article contains no other information. There shouldn't be any kind of "false" designation assigned to it, because nothing in it is provably false.

However, imagine the article said something like "Atmospheric CO2 has declined since 1978, global-warming climate models have been inaccurate, and the risks of climate change is overblown." The first statement in that sentence is provably false, yet the article would still constitute an opinion piece. Is there a framework for handling that?

[the_watcher]

The way things have been trending, I'd anticipate something like a label for satire and a label for "opinion, was not not fact checked" (which would apply to any piece that could be considered an op-ed), and fact checks applying to anything purporting to be news.

To be honest, setting a rule that anything that purports to be "BREAKING" will be fact checked at least to the extent of "the contents of this article cannot be proven entirely factually correct" would be a pretty big step forward and potentially reduce the virality of outright disinformation.

[tathougies]

Why should there be a framework for handling this? Facebook, perhaps better than any other publisher or newspaper or public utility, puts the actual name of the guy writing this dribble front and center. Before you can even read the title of the article, you are exposed to the source. Facebook only warrants that the source that published this article indeed did so. It should be up to the reader, not facebook, whether or not to trust them. Facebook engages in no moral hazard by making it clear who wrote what.