Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook Has Repeatedly Trended Fake News Since Firing Its Human Editors

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 335 posts

Re: Facebook Has Repeatedly Trended Fake News Since Firing Its Human Editors

#41

Post by anexprogrammer »

narrator wrote: post #37
vinhboy wrote: post #34

Thank god someone is writing about this. Recently I've been on the Yahoo's homepage a lot, because of Fantasy Football, and I noticed that a lot of the content is exactly like the article says, fake news from right-wing propaganda sites. And no, this is not me expressing my liberal bias. It's one thing to have opinionated headlines like the Huffington Post, it's another thing to have a completely fictional headline c…

They really should filter the news to each person's individual bias. It'd just be easier that way. Cognitive dissonance is real and it can cause serious emotional distress. That's not a good way to drive engagement.

I really don't want that, and try to fight it when I'm experiencing it by reading opposing viewpoints.

I want my views challenged, and to have at least a chance of finding out when I'm wrong.

With almost any given issue and viewpoint it's what they don't tell you that's the part you probably should know or at least get exposed to.

Re: Facebook Has Repeatedly Trended Fake News Since Firing Its Human Editors

#42

Post by leepowers »

mjfl wrote: post #4

You're going to have to break the Turing Test before you get good automated content curation. There will always be error. People are worried about bias. I'm skeptical that humans have the ability to be politically unbiased on an individual level. Many modern political issues do not have a middle ground - take abortion, you are either for choice, or you believe it is infanticide. So let's stop pretending to be unbiase…

> You're going to have to break the Turing Test before you get good automated content curation. There will always be error.

Yes, but even a competent AI curation system is going to make mistakes. The only relevant question is "what is an acceptable rate of error?". (Hint: 0% is not an acceptable answer.) We may be able to get to an acceptable rate (or may already be there) with or without AI-complete.

> People are worried about bias ... Information aggregators should have their members clearly spell out their positions on popular issues

This isn't a problem that can be solved with meta-data. An aggregator could write a beautiful, open-minded mission statement and still write trash. Hell, Google's unofficial mantra is "don't do evil". Well, ok then, there's nothing to worry about, Google has clearly spelled out their position, so there's no need to analyze or criticize their policies.

A policy statement or any other meta-data is not going to solve this. As you correctly noted an AI that passes the TT may be one way to work around this. But I'm skeptical. Any such AI would be at least as complicated as human intelligence, including all the foibles and errors that entails. An AI without our cognitive hang-ups would be smarter and more capable than us. Which would not increase my trust, and possibly decrease it, as the AI would no doubt have a bias to curate stories in it's own favor, or that put it (and AI in general) in the best light.

Bias is an unavoidable component of any curation.

Re: Facebook Has Repeatedly Trended Fake News Since Firing Its Human Editors

#43

Post by darawk »

narrator wrote: post #37
vinhboy wrote: post #34

Thank god someone is writing about this. Recently I've been on the Yahoo's homepage a lot, because of Fantasy Football, and I noticed that a lot of the content is exactly like the article says, fake news from right-wing propaganda sites. And no, this is not me expressing my liberal bias. It's one thing to have opinionated headlines like the Huffington Post, it's another thing to have a completely fictional headline c…

They really should filter the news to each person's individual bias. It'd just be easier that way. Cognitive dissonance is real and it can cause serious emotional distress. That's not a good way to drive engagement.

I genuinely can't tell if this comment is sarcastic or not. And I don't mean that insultingly. It's an obvious conclusion to jump to from the initially rejected premise that hyper-equality of treatment is wrong, but of course it ignores the enormous cost of creating echo chambers.

It seems like the 'correct' solution doesn't lie at one of these poles, unfortunately.

Re: Facebook Has Repeatedly Trended Fake News Since Firing Its Human Editors

#44

Post by unityByFreedom »

mjfl wrote: post #4

You're going to have to break the Turing Test before you get good automated content curation. There will always be error. People are worried about bias. I'm skeptical that humans have the ability to be politically unbiased on an individual level. Many modern political issues do not have a middle ground - take abortion, you are either for choice, or you believe it is infanticide. So let's stop pretending to be unbiase…

> there should be "block designed" hiring around these issues to maximize political diversity and reduce bias in aggregate

How do we deal with those who would push treasonous information? If WikiLeaks publishes correspondence between, say, USA and China, that is private because China wanted it that way, and that hurts American allies, should this be allowed to trend on an American-based website?

Has WikiLeaks contributed to the right wing propaganda we see being pushed online? Should some of this be punishable?

Re: Facebook Has Repeatedly Trended Fake News Since Firing Its Human Editors

#45

Post by FullMtlAlcoholc »

mjfl wrote: post #4

You're going to have to break the Turing Test before you get good automated content curation. There will always be error. People are worried about bias. I'm skeptical that humans have the ability to be politically unbiased on an individual level. Many modern political issues do not have a middle ground - take abortion, you are either for choice, or you believe it is infanticide. So let's stop pretending to be unbiase…

>Many modern political issues do not have a middle ground - take abortion, you are either for choice, or you believe it is infanticide. So let's stop pretending to be unbiased.

You're falling into the trap of American politics by making every issue a binary choice. For instance, I find the abortion debate to be such a non-issue and if someone asks me what my stance is, I respond by saying I haven't done enough research or soul-searching to form a coherent, rational position on this issue.

And I probably will not ever get around to doing this research. I'm ok not having a position on certain issues. I wish this was more acceptable. Instead, the US political duopoly and it's first to the post voting encouraged big tent parties who more or less have to agree on most issues. I'm going to paraphrase Rumsfeld's brilliant turn of phrase here, there are known unknowns, and there's power in accepting that.

Re: Facebook Has Repeatedly Trended Fake News Since Firing Its Human Editors

#46

Post by [deleted] »

mjfl wrote: post #35
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> take abortion, you are either for choice, or you believe it is infanticide I don't. It's fundamentally a question about when sex cells become a person, and if rights accumulate sequentially or instantaneously. There are lots of lines one can reasonably draw, e.g. independent viability (downside: disenfranchises premature babies), consciousness (no way to measure it), neural activity (how much?), heartbeat (why not…

It is my perception that people with the middle views you describe would still be considered "pro-choice" and would largely vote "pro-choice" but perhaps I am wrong. If those people were split 50/50 in the way that they vote I would concede that there is a middle ground in that issue.

[deleted]

Re: Facebook Has Repeatedly Trended Fake News Since Firing Its Human Editors

#48

Post by unityByFreedom »

darawk wrote: post #43
narrator wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They really should filter the news to each person's individual bias. It'd just be easier that way. Cognitive dissonance is real and it can cause serious emotional distress. That's not a good way to drive engagement.

I genuinely can't tell if this comment is sarcastic or not. And I don't mean that insultingly. It's an obvious conclusion to jump to from the initially rejected premise that hyper-equality of treatment is wrong, but of course it ignores the enormous cost of creating echo chambers. It seems like the 'correct' solution doesn't lie at one of these poles, unfortunately.

I think he's serious. This is the nationalist mindset. "Create more walls. Diversity is difficult."

We all know what happens when we stop reaching across the divide. We go into our holes, there is miscommunication, and small disagreements turn into wars.

Focusing on the areas where we disagree widens the chasm. We can bridge it by looking for common goals.

Re: Facebook Has Repeatedly Trended Fake News Since Firing Its Human Editors

#49

Post by wyager »

vinhboy wrote: post #40
narrator wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They really should filter the news to each person's individual bias. It'd just be easier that way. Cognitive dissonance is real and it can cause serious emotional distress. That's not a good way to drive engagement.

You're repeating the false narrative that unbiased news does not exist. There are lots of unbiased news outlets who just report on stories as they come in. I learn about all sorts of government corruption and waste from NPR, NYTimes, WaPO, etc... And relating to current events, I also learn about all the unscrupulous things Clinton did from these sources. I don't need to be inundated with right-wing propaganda be unb…

> NPR, NYTimes, WaPO

Not directed at you specifically, but if you think those sources are unbiased, it just means that you're bad at detecting bias.

Edit: Haha, this one struck a chord.

Re: Facebook Has Repeatedly Trended Fake News Since Firing Its Human Editors

#50

Post by venomsnake »

tuna-piano wrote: post #25
mjfl wrote: post #4

You're going to have to break the Turing Test before you get good automated content curation. There will always be error. People are worried about bias. I'm skeptical that humans have the ability to be politically unbiased on an individual level. Many modern political issues do not have a middle ground - take abortion, you are either for choice, or you believe it is infanticide. So let's stop pretending to be unbiase…

Should they also seek to hire neo-nazis to get the nazi viewpoint as well?

Yes of course. After all we strife for diversity, accrptance and tolerance.

Unless we actually strife for cultural hegemony snd eradicating the wrong thoughts from the people that are currently losing the discourse.

Post reply on HN