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

Facebook admits it must do more to stop the spread of misinformation

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 645 posts

Re: Facebook admits it must do more to stop the spread of misinformation

#71

Post by __jal »

Bud wrote: post #58
DanielBMarkham wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. We're talking about a platform that at it's best is birthday wishes, vacation and cat pictures. It's running on a paid content model, with advertisers selling through viral videos and click-bait. It's good not to expect too much out of it.

We're actually not; that's simply false. No, Facebook is not "at it's best" [sic] when it sticks to birthday wishes and cat pictures. It's actually at its best when it is truly social , in all senses of the word. When it facilitates real communication on real issues across a broad spectrum of people. When it spreads information, not misinformation.

Not trying to speak for the original poster, but what I took away from the argument is that when FB is "truly social", involving real issues, the potential rewards are sufficiently high that misinformation becomes valuable, thus dangerous. When it sticks to birthdays and cat pictures, there's no incentive to go hostile. Think of it as being somewhat similar to the arguments about the Flash Crash regarding HFT and liquidity: that HFT is great for liquidity until you need it, at which point it goes away[1].

I agree with others that detecting misinformation in the general case likely requires a theory of mind, and so something approaching "real" AI. I also agree that FB has a serious problem on their hands. And I'm so very glad I don't use it.

[1] I advance no comment here about the correctness of that; just a comparison to illustrate what seems like an overlooked point.

Re: Facebook admits it must do more to stop the spread of misinformation

#72

Post by doomlaser »

paublyrne wrote: post #40
vetinari wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Real news sources are dead and actual investigative journalists do not exist anymore.

Well that's patently not a true statement. The Guardian, the NY Times, and Der Spiegel are the first three publications that do important investigations that come to mind but they are not alone. There are a lot of PR plants even in the more reputable newspapers, which is unfortunate, but there are still regular thorough investigations, which I assume are getting harder to do as money and resources continue to shrink.

The blind NYTimes bias has been readily apparent in this election cycle. WaPo as well. The entire media system missed this election.

A staffer in the Obama White House remarked on the quality of reporting now, as of a few months ago:

"All these newspapers used to have foreign bureaus. Now they don’t. They call us to explain to them what’s happening in Moscow and Cairo. Most of the outlets are reporting on world events from Washington. The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That’s a sea change. They literally know nothing."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2016/05/...

Re: Facebook admits it must do more to stop the spread of misinformation

#73

Post by brandon272 »

youdounderstand wrote: post #12

Just stop using aggregators. Pay for real news sources that hire actual investigative journalists.

This. Their aggregator is ridiculously bad. Even the sources of news it shows you when you click on a "trending" item lead to really terrible sites. I'd rather the news feed be an actual news feed and show me legit news from legit agencies.

Re: Facebook admits it must do more to stop the spread of misinformation

#74

Post by DanielBMarkham »

Bud wrote: post #58
DanielBMarkham wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. We're talking about a platform that at it's best is birthday wishes, vacation and cat pictures. It's running on a paid content model, with advertisers selling through viral videos and click-bait. It's good not to expect too much out of it.

We're actually not; that's simply false. No, Facebook is not "at it's best" [sic] when it sticks to birthday wishes and cat pictures. It's actually at its best when it is truly social , in all senses of the word. When it facilitates real communication on real issues across a broad spectrum of people. When it spreads information, not misinformation.

Social communication is in-person, face-to-face communication. It's not moving bits around over an http interface.

I love idealists, but it's time to take an honest accounting of the differences between the promises of the internet and the actuality.

Re: Facebook admits it must do more to stop the spread of misinformation

#75

Post by StanislavPetrov »

In corporate speak "misinformation" is defined as "any information that doesn't support our narrative". Certainly it is the goal of Facebook, the government, and every other large media corporation to control the flow of information. You need look no farther then Obama's recent statement that news needs to be "curated" by government appointed gatekeepers, to filter out all that pesky information that doesn't jive with government propaganda.

Re: Facebook admits it must do more to stop the spread of misinformation

#76

Post by AlexC04 »

I think it would be relatively easy to have an "auto-snopes" feature which detects a URL being shared and immediately attaches a post that says "this has been debunked by X"

For example - I've seen dozens of links to Michael Moore's trumpland speech which strategically ends with the phrase "America will elect Trump and it will feel great"

Sample: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-25/michael-moore-trump...

    He concludes:
         
    Yes, on November 8, you Joe Blow, Steve Blow, 
    Bob Blow, Billy Blow, all the Blows get to go
    and blow up the whole goddamn system because 
    it's your right. Trump's election is going to
    be the biggest fuck ever recorded in human 
    history and it will feel good.
but the truth is that is not what he CONCLUDED

He continues: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVLTQIUMq18&t=30 [sic]

    ... and now you're fucked.
EDIT - I feel like I should clarify I mean "auto-snopes" figuratively. Auto fair-balance might be a better descriptor. Something that links to an opposing opinion automatically, in cases of absolute falsehood the debunking, or even a CSS CLASS where there is a bright red "FALSE" wrapper.

Snopes doesn't have to be the automatic choice.

Breaking filter-bubbles & ensuring truth would be my goal on an idea like this. Not strictly "promoting liberal media"

Re: Facebook admits it must do more to stop the spread of misinformation

#77

Post by gph »

Bud wrote: post #54
btilly wrote: post #11

This article criticizes Facebook for firing the human editors that had been keeping things sane. However they were pushed to that by accusations of bias in the right-wing media. Accusations that looked likely to lead to a Congressional investigation. See, for example, http://thehill.com/policy/technology/279361-top-republican-d... . Now they are in a situation where they are damned if they do, damned if they don't. A…

There's a proper response to "accusations of bias" from alt-right white-nationalist thug media. Never mind whether the accusations "looked likely to lead to a Congressional investigation". The response is to tell them to fuck off, and that the professional editors in your private company will continue to do their job however they see fit. Period, paragraph.

First of all your use of biased language is ridiculous, you are as bad as the 'alt-right white-nationalish thug media' and I wish people like you had no place in rational discussions.

Second if you tell them to "Fuck off" you risk losing a significant chunk of your user base who believes their content and information is being manipulated against them. Facebook isn't in the politics business, they are in the social networking business. If Facebook is seen as political at all then a competing business will set up a service to sell to the other side. Look at what happened to mainstream media channels. Claims of liberal bias in the media giants directly led to the success of Fox News.

Re: Facebook admits it must do more to stop the spread of misinformation

#78

Post by Hydraulix989 »

I don't understand how this is different than any other communication medium.

Telegraph operators shouldn't feel any onus to ensure that they stop the spread of misinformation, right?

In fact, I think it is VERY detrimental for them to step in and started editing posts, bringing back the human editors. Humans have biases, ML less so.

If an algorithm decides that something is trending, even if it is "incorrect" to some interpretation of the word, then it should be treated the same. It's just a matter of principles.

Re: Facebook admits it must do more to stop the spread of misinformation

#79

Post by denzil_correa »

btilly wrote: post #11

This article criticizes Facebook for firing the human editors that had been keeping things sane. However they were pushed to that by accusations of bias in the right-wing media. Accusations that looked likely to lead to a Congressional investigation. See, for example, http://thehill.com/policy/technology/279361-top-republican-d... . Now they are in a situation where they are damned if they do, damned if they don't. A…

> Now they are in a situation where they are damned if they do, damned if they don't. And people immersed in echo chambers will accuse them of bias no matter what.

You are making an assumption that algorithms can not be biased. Earlier, humans were biased. Now, algorithms are biased.

Re: Facebook admits it must do more to stop the spread of misinformation

#80

Post by daveguy »

Bud wrote: post #58
DanielBMarkham wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. We're talking about a platform that at it's best is birthday wishes, vacation and cat pictures. It's running on a paid content model, with advertisers selling through viral videos and click-bait. It's good not to expect too much out of it.

We're actually not; that's simply false. No, Facebook is not "at it's best" [sic] when it sticks to birthday wishes and cat pictures. It's actually at its best when it is truly social , in all senses of the word. When it facilitates real communication on real issues across a broad spectrum of people. When it spreads information, not misinformation.

If it is truly social then it will spread misinformation like wildfire. That's what people do -- gossip game magnified. That said, maybe Facebook is best when it is just spreading obviously unimportant content (in the sense of national and global affairs), like birthday wishes and cat pictures. No harm if the cat is implicated in wild conspiracy theories.

It's not the cat pic sharing that is paid for by entities with motive and interest in spreading misleading messages.

Post reply on HN