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

81–90 of 335 posts

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

#81

Post by PhasmaFelis »

leepowers wrote: post #42
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 wo…

> The only relevant question is "what is an acceptable rate of error?". (Hint: 0% is not an acceptable answer.)

Certainly it is. That just means you're admitting that the problem cannot be satisfactorily solved by current AI and must be left to humans for now.

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

#82

Post by PhasmaFelis »

lucio wrote: post #57
FullMtlAlcoholc wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 resear…

You should note that you have the luxury to even consider the issue of abortion because you've already been born.

That's so incoherent that I can't even tell which position you're arguing.

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

#84

Post by [deleted] »

paulddraper wrote: post #63
unityByFreedom wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think tech culture's misguided desire to treat everyone "equally" creates a huge imbalance. You can't put the NYTimes in the same category as Breitbart. Just as you wouldn't compare it to "National Enquirer". I agree. I think we're seeing a sharp rise in foreign "soft power" online in America this election. It's being supported by the evangelicals who will not remove their vote from Trump on the grounds that they…

> It's being supported by the evangelicals who will not remove their vote from Trump on the grounds that they really want that supreme court seat. You make it sound illogical. As a religious conservative, I do really want that supreme court seat. The President has to really ask for permission for everything else (laws, budgets, wars, etc.), but justice nomination is very largely his choice. Don't be surprised if that…

[deleted]

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

#86

Post by aaronbrethorst »

paulddraper wrote: post #63
unityByFreedom wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think tech culture's misguided desire to treat everyone "equally" creates a huge imbalance. You can't put the NYTimes in the same category as Breitbart. Just as you wouldn't compare it to "National Enquirer". I agree. I think we're seeing a sharp rise in foreign "soft power" online in America this election. It's being supported by the evangelicals who will not remove their vote from Trump on the grounds that they…

> It's being supported by the evangelicals who will not remove their vote from Trump on the grounds that they really want that supreme court seat. You make it sound illogical. As a religious conservative, I do really want that supreme court seat. The President has to really ask for permission for everything else (laws, budgets, wars, etc.), but justice nomination is very largely his choice. Don't be surprised if that…

but justice nomination is very largely their choice

FTFY

Does your religious conservatism mean that you support the Citizens United decision? Or does it mean that you're opposed to Loving v. Virginia? How about Shelby County v. Holder?

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

#87

Post by aggie »

paulddraper wrote: post #73
jmspring wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Very largely his choice" ... then why hasn't the current nominee see a vote in congress?

Okay, that's a pretty fair point. Obama's nominees have had astronomically high wait times. His average is 35 days, compared to 10-20 days for recent presidents. http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/obama-has-waited-longer-f...

The dataset you present conveniently does not include the 211 days and counting for Merrick Garland, the longest period of Senate inaction on a Supreme Court nomination in American history, and approaching twice as long as the next longest (Brandeis at 125 days).

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

#88

Post by colemickens »

paulddraper wrote: post #63
unityByFreedom wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think tech culture's misguided desire to treat everyone "equally" creates a huge imbalance. You can't put the NYTimes in the same category as Breitbart. Just as you wouldn't compare it to "National Enquirer". I agree. I think we're seeing a sharp rise in foreign "soft power" online in America this election. It's being supported by the evangelicals who will not remove their vote from Trump on the grounds that they…

> It's being supported by the evangelicals who will not remove their vote from Trump on the grounds that they really want that supreme court seat. You make it sound illogical. As a religious conservative, I do really want that supreme court seat. The President has to really ask for permission for everything else (laws, budgets, wars, etc.), but justice nomination is very largely his choice. Don't be surprised if that…

>Don't be surprised if that factors heavily in my decision.

1. How is that going to affect your decision? Who can you vote for that will ensure the SC seat goes to a conservative?

2. How do you feel about the unprecedented blocking of the President from doing this Constitutional duty of appoint SC justices for 9+ months? Or is that just a small price to pay to get your religious beliefs installed in the highest court in the land?

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

#89

Post by colemickens »

unityByFreedom wrote: post #76
paulddraper wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Personally I think the risks posed by Trump with his thumb on the nuclear button are greater than the lives saved by repealing abortion rights. 10 to 1 you're wrong. https://xkcd.com/1132/

> 10 to 1 one you're wrong. https://xkcd.com/1132/ What are the two scenarios you're referring to? That Trump does or does not contribute to a nuclear war? Trump trashes everyone who disagrees with him. He will likely increase tensions on the world stage.

By every account, he already has. Numerous world leaders and multinational organizations have denounced him, specifically because of his dangerous rhetoric.

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

#90

Post by colemickens »

paulddraper wrote: post #73
jmspring wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Very largely his choice" ... then why hasn't the current nominee see a vote in congress?

Okay, that's a pretty fair point. Obama's nominees have had astronomically high wait times. His average is 35 days, compared to 10-20 days for recent presidents. http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/obama-has-waited-longer-f...

I can't tell if you're ignorant of the fact that his current nominee has been blocked for months and will continue to be blocked for months, or if you conveniently want to avoid talking about it.

I just don't understand how someone invests themselves into a conversation like this without having the first clue about the territory.

Post reply on HN