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

111–120 of 645 posts

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

#111

Post by [deleted] »

agildehaus wrote: post #19
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…

I think the solution to "damned if you do, damned if you don't" here is to just remove the stupid news sidebar.

[deleted]

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

#112

Post by meric »

Spellman wrote: post #87
AlexC04 wrote: post #76

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 conc…

I have personally asked an individual why they don't trust snopes. Their claim is that it's a Democrat rag towel and shill. I then ask, then what fact-checker would you trust? Their response: None of them. Congratulations. We've reached a point, for this individual, where "facts" as decided in the common forum are suspect and the only thing they trust is themselves (and whatever non-Mainstream Media they listen to).…

Read the wikileaks emails yourself. You've got eyes, you don't need to rely on New York Times editors to read it for you.

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

#113

Post by DanielBMarkham »

Bud wrote: post #106
DanielBMarkham wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not anymore. I'm sorry, but that that view is now obsolete. The fact is that large and increasing quantities of our social communication now occur online. I'm not claiming this is salutary or calling it a good thing. I'm just stating the fact.

I have no doubt that a lot of social information is being transferred in a new way, much the same as the introduction of the telephone allowed a lot of social information to be transferred in a new way. My point is that true socializing and socialization are human, not digital experiences.

Not trying to be pedantic here. It's just important to sort out the terms used if any analysis is going to be useful. What's happening on facebook is not social. It's bits of data around being social. Different thing entirely. Perhaps we need a new term for whatever it is, but whatever we call it, it's not the same as face-to-face real socializing with real people.

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

#114

Post by BurningFrog »

nostrademons wrote: post #93
jerf wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, trying to solve this problem by creating a definition of "misinformation" sufficiently precise to act on it for all possible articles, then trying to remove it somehow is probably an AI-complete problem. If it's not AI-complete it's probably just plain an ill-formed question. That's before we ask questions about the biases that get embedded into the misinformation detector. This can't be fixed at Facebook scales…

This is a problem with human wetware - there are several cognitive biases [1][2][3][4] that make people engage more strongly with ideas that fit their preconceptions and discount ideas that don't. Add information-sharing to the mix and the aggregate effect you get is large information cascades that fracture the population into tribes that believe things not necessarily because they're true, but because they are state…

Fact check: Copernicus was not killed.

He died of natural causes at 70. According to viral stories at the time, moments after having seen the first print of his book.

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

#116

Post by Bud »

dasil003 wrote: post #68
Bud wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Telling people who aren't aligned to with the liberal intelligentsia to fuck off is exactly what got us in the current mess. Most people are reasonable, but when the reasonable and rational media ignores their issues, we leave the door open to demagogues and dictators. How else could a silver spoon like Donald Trump ever claim to represent the everyman?

I think you're misinterpreting me, and also distorting my words significantly, which I object to. I didn't say we should tell people "who aren't aligned with the liberal intelligentsia" to fuck off. I was speaking narrowly about lawyers from places like Breitbart; i.e., the kinds of folks who have been trying to apply pressure to Facebook and making accusations.

NOT the general population.

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

#117

Post by [deleted] »

Spellman wrote: post #87
AlexC04 wrote: post #76

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 conc…

I have personally asked an individual why they don't trust snopes. Their claim is that it's a Democrat rag towel and shill. I then ask, then what fact-checker would you trust? Their response: None of them. Congratulations. We've reached a point, for this individual, where "facts" as decided in the common forum are suspect and the only thing they trust is themselves (and whatever non-Mainstream Media they listen to).…

[deleted]

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

#118

Post by fullshark »

stevendhansen wrote: post #23

Except it isn't just the spread of misinformation. Even more important (IMHO) is the insulating effect of showing people only like-minded opinions, effectively trapping everyone in a bubble. I can't think of any way Facebook can solve this problem without drastically decreasing their reliance on ad revenue. What are they going to do, force people to view opinions they disagree with?

Not every decision needs to have a positive impact on the bottom line. Sometimes decisions are made which hurt revenue/profit for branding reasons.

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

#119

Post by tdb7893 »

meric wrote: post #112
Spellman wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have personally asked an individual why they don't trust snopes. Their claim is that it's a Democrat rag towel and shill. I then ask, then what fact-checker would you trust? Their response: None of them. Congratulations. We've reached a point, for this individual, where "facts" as decided in the common forum are suspect and the only thing they trust is themselves (and whatever non-Mainstream Media they listen to).…

Read the wikileaks emails yourself. You've got eyes, you don't need to rely on New York Times editors to read it for you.

Generally those fact checking sites will link to sources. It's much easier to find sources through them then to go digging through the emails manually.

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

#120

Post by yolesaber »

dasil003 wrote: post #68
Bud wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Telling people who aren't aligned to with the liberal intelligentsia to fuck off is exactly what got us in the current mess. Most people are reasonable, but when the reasonable and rational media ignores their issues, we leave the door open to demagogues and dictators. How else could a silver spoon like Donald Trump ever claim to represent the everyman?

>Telling people who aren't aligned to with the liberal intelligentsia to fuck off is exactly what got us in the current mess.

I am so sick of this argument that Trump's victory is somehow the fault of bubble-trapped city-dwelling liberals for not understanding how the rest of the country thinks. Trump supporters are the ones who have either been manipulated to vote against their own interests; implicitly elected a Republican administration no different from the ones that they now claim to have rejected; ignored the obvious signs that Trump is of the same "elite" ilk that seeks to exploit them; been duped to amplify social hatred and reinforce the worst bigotry and sexism of the right-wing; benefited from many of the federal supports they claim to hate; or neglected the existential peril of their belief that the economy is more important than the planet's ability to sustain life; if not all of the above. Should the left have picked a candidate that is more aligned with the issues of the working class? Absolutely. Does that mean it's entirely on them? Hell no.

Post reply on HN