Facebook Has Repeatedly Trended Fake News Since Firing Its Human Editors • Hacker News Board

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

#171

Post by DanBC » Thu, Oct 13, 2016, 12:58 PM UTC

angry-hacker wrote: post #151

popmystack wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a really cheap false equivalency. You've basically side nothing while ignorning the practical reality of what we're discussing. Take for example, the fact that Fox News will continually post stories about how Global Warming is a hoax, which is something the Huffington Post definitely won't do. The Huffington Post tends to write click-baity headlines, but they've never out right used lies in their articles. Tha…

And Huff constantly publishes stories telling gender doesn't exist. All the scientists beg to differ. Look mate I'm not interested in arguing who is more wrong. The fact is both sides have bias and talk about things that for whatever reason they find most important. And usually it bothers other side of the political spectrum so it's like a never ending loop from both sides.

>The fact is both sides have bias

No one is denying this. People are saying there's a significant difference between bias that influences the ways facts are portrayed, and bias that causes facts to be invented.

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

#172

Post by DanBC » Thu, Oct 13, 2016, 12:59 PM UTC

gadders wrote: post #102

outlace wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people say it's impossible to have unbiased news. Of course this is true in a trivial sense, in that anything written by a human with intent to be interesting to read is likely to have some bias. And of course one can bias the news simply by choosing what to report and not report (eg if all you report are all the things fmr Pres. Bush did wrong, then the audience will get a bad impression). However, there is abs…

>> When you read 3 different versions of the same news story by BBC, NPR, and NYT (for example), then hopefully the biases sort of cancel out and you get something closer to the truth. You list three left-leaning news organisations, and expect their biases to cancel out? Wouldn't they reinforce each other?

BBC news is not left leaning. They're frequently criticised by the left in the UK for attacking the left.

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

#173

Post by wcummings » Thu, Oct 13, 2016, 1:00 PM UTC

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…

>The President has to really ask for permission for everything else (laws, budgets, wars, etc.), but justice nomination is very largely his choice.

Apparently not, since Obama hasn't been able to make the nomination...

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

#174

Post by seertaak » Thu, Oct 13, 2016, 1:02 PM UTC

panic wrote: post #157

angry-hacker wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For someone outside of U.S, both right (breitbart etc.) and left (huff etc.) are propaganda all the way down . It is your left bias. And the people on other political spectrum feel the same but other way around. Watching American elections is like seeing a freak show. I don't understand who are those people who can support any of the candidates or the media.

The top Breitbart headline, "Criminal Aliens Sexually Assault 70,000 American Women — But Paul Ryan Targets Trump", is willfully inciting anti-immigrant sentiment by taking numbers out of context. According to the report they cite, 69,929 criminal aliens (or 3% of the total criminal alien population they measured) had been arrested for sex-related crimes between August 1955 and April 2010. The number is true but the…

> The top Breitbart headline ... is willfully [sic] inciting anti-immigrant sentiment by taking numbers out of context.

> The number is true but the inference is false.

How are the numbers taken out of context? In your opinion, how would that headline read if the numbers weren't taken out of context? Or does the mere act of publishing the headlines (at all) make Breitbart guilty of taking the numbers out of context in your opinion? Honest question.

Also, it's not clear to me what you mean by "inference". Are you referring to the "-- But Paul Ryan Targets Trump" phrase? If so, then I would contend that "inference" is not the correct word. Instead, I would perhaps use the word "juxtaposition". Whether or not you agree to Breitbart's thinking, it seems to me that what they're trying to do is call attention to what they see as false priorities -- essentially, IIUC, they're saying "Paul Ryan is attacking the wrong person, because 70K women are targeted by criminal aliens and this is worse than anything Trump has done". You can agree to that or not, but it seems to me unfair to accuse them of bad logic.

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

#175

Post by seertaak » Thu, Oct 13, 2016, 1:04 PM UTC

mtberatwork wrote: post #137

jsmith0295 wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NYT might publish actual stories, but they also publish what is effectively propaganda. A lot of more "legitimate" news sources also have a tendency to selective report on things which fit a pre-established narrative on a topic that can effectively bury the truth. Here's an example where CNN did this: http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/16/cnn-edits-out-... And sadly the Washington Times is the least biased so…

I'm not seeing how your example is actual propaganda when it is more easily attributed to human error. If CNN were pushing this as a propaganda piece, they never would have issued a follow up statement correcting themselves.

Well, ok. However it seems to me that those leaning right don't give CNN and the like the benefit of the doubt, and equally those leaning left don't give the likes of Breitbart the benefit of the doubt -- which brings us back to the parent posters position :)

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

#176

Post by nartsbtaa » Thu, Oct 13, 2016, 1:05 PM UTC

popmystack wrote: post #148

angry-hacker wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well I just checked the stories of Breitbart and looks all the things they write are true and have sources. Just checked few, I'm not an expert. I only read American propaganda newspapers sometimes out of morbid curiosity. The difference is how you spin the headlines and the facts. Both parties are guilty. Both parties feel only other side is doing it or say but look at the other website or magazine. Huff is full of…

>Huff is full of titles Trump is sexual predator without facts, just talks. We have, on record, him describing sexual assault. With his own words. On the other hand, some of the people who now are claiming Bill is a rapist once testified under oath that he did _not_ rape them. On top of the fact that there is zero evidence in favor of that statement. That's the difference. And you would definitely know this if you we…

> On the other hand, some of the people who now are claiming Bill is a rapist once testified under oath that he did _not_ rape them.

Yet other women have consistently claimed over decades that Clinton sexually assaulted them. And today women are coming forward accusing Trump of sexual assault.

There seems to be very little difference; both men have probably assaulted women in the past and abused their power to get away with it. I don't think arbitrarily slanting the narrative to defend one and condemn the other serves anybody. In fact, sweeping sexual assault under the rug when it doesn't serve your political agenda is a pretty horrible thing to do.

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

#177

Post by panic » Thu, Oct 13, 2016, 1:05 PM UTC

seertaak wrote: post #174

panic wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The top Breitbart headline, "Criminal Aliens Sexually Assault 70,000 American Women — But Paul Ryan Targets Trump", is willfully inciting anti-immigrant sentiment by taking numbers out of context. According to the report they cite, 69,929 criminal aliens (or 3% of the total criminal alien population they measured) had been arrested for sex-related crimes between August 1955 and April 2010. The number is true but the…

> The top Breitbart headline ... is willfully [sic] inciting anti-immigrant sentiment by taking numbers out of context. > The number is true but the inference is false. How are the numbers taken out of context? In your opinion, how would that headline read if the numbers weren't taken out of context? Or does the mere act of publishing the headlines (at all) make Breitbart guilty of taking the numbers out of context i…

In your opinion, how would that headline read if the numbers weren't taken out of context?

"Criminal Aliens Arrested for Sex-Related Crimes 70,000 Times Between 1955 and 2010 — But Paul Ryan Targets Trump"

The original headline creates an emotional impact by implying certain things: that these 70,000 events are sexual assaults (not generic sex crimes like indecent exposure etc.) against women (implying a relationship with Trump's actions where none specifically exists) that happened recently (not during a 55-year period that ended six years ago). The headline with context doesn't have the same emotional impact because you can't make the same misleading inferences. Maybe these crimes are a problem, maybe they aren't, but either way this headline is a clear misrepresentation of the facts.

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

#178

Post by pasta » Thu, Oct 13, 2016, 1:12 PM UTC

outlace wrote: post #96

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…

Some people say it's impossible to have unbiased news. Of course this is true in a trivial sense, in that anything written by a human with intent to be interesting to read is likely to have some bias. And of course one can bias the news simply by choosing what to report and not report (eg if all you report are all the things fmr Pres. Bush did wrong, then the audience will get a bad impression). However, there is abs…

It's also very difficult to write neutral news.

For instance an event where an old man drives his car into a wall. A neutral headline could be "Old man drives car into wall". But the problem with this is that a lot of people will now assume he drove it into the wall because he is old. So a better neutral headline would be "Man drives car into wall" and then the article has to explain the reason. This is a very subtle change but makes a lot of difference.

Now lets say an old woman drove her car into a wall: "Woman drives car into wall". A lot of people think women are worse drivers than men, so this will already be a sensational title for some.

A good read about this is "Why you should stay away from news" from Rolf Dobelli.

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

#179

Post by ap22213 » Thu, Oct 13, 2016, 1:12 PM UTC

angry-hacker wrote: post #104

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…

For someone outside of U.S, both right (breitbart etc.) and left (huff etc.) are propaganda all the way down . It is your left bias. And the people on other political spectrum feel the same but other way around. Watching American elections is like seeing a freak show. I don't understand who are those people who can support any of the candidates or the media.

As an outsider, what are some of the things that you find troubling with Clinton? She seems pretty status quo to me.

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

#180

Post by Chestofdraw » Thu, Oct 13, 2016, 1:18 PM UTC

andygates wrote: post #164

bartread wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed, and sadly not limited to the US. One of the things I (eventually) realised is that here in the UK The Guardian is equivalent to The Daily Mail, but for liberal intelligentsia instead of Conservatives and UKIP supporters.

When has the Graun published bald-faced lies? It has an editorial slant, for sure, but it's not a fountain of factual untruth.

I've seen this idea pushed a ton recently, especially over on /r/ukpolitics and it seems like nonsense.

I think the idea stems from the way the Graun has opened up it's 'Comment is Free' section which has lead to quite a few low quality opinion pieces particularly 'SJW' esq ones.

The actual reporting from the Gruan is still good quality in my opinion, certainly head and shoulders above the DMs. And whilst the Graun has its left bias it, quite rightly, hasn't been kind to the current Labour party.