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

251–260 of 645 posts

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

#251

Post by lotharbot »

gdulli wrote: post #30
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?

Everyone should be responsible for the curation of their own timeline. I barely use Facebook but hate the idea that I didn't get a straight chronological feed. I was a huge fan of Twitter but was driven away when they followed suit. My reasons had more to do with my own preference of how I enjoy using the service, but having algorithms manipulate the information I see so as to maximize engagement metrics is even more…

There is a "chronological" option on facebook.

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

#252

Post by ethbro »

dasil003 wrote: post #192
ethbro wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't this essentially the problem Google's been solving with continued iteration on PageRank? From an untrustworthy collection of input relationships, how do I produce the most reliably correct output?

No because popularity does not equal truth.

It doesn't? Because in the sense that popularity is "agreement with consensus scientific opinion" then it absolutely does.

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

#253

Post by roughly27 »

Determining what is, and what is not, misinformation seems:

1. Intractable. How exactly do you propose to accurately vet every bit of information posted to facebook?

2. Dangerous. Who does the vetting? If it's an algorithm, who writes the algorithm? No matter which way you slice it, "doing more to stop the spread of misinformation" imposes someone's 'one true view' of reality and stifles the engine of western civilization: the open, competitive marketplace of ideas.

This is clearly an emotionally driven sentiment caused by the moral outcry of a person considered 'bigoted' being elected to office. Stifling political expression will only make Trump/next trump/next next trump's populist appeal stronger.

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

#254

Post by 234dd57d2c8db »

pimlottc wrote: post #161
234dd57d2c8db wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you done any research at all on snopes? I just spent 5 minutes on google and found that one of snope's main "fact-checkers" is Kim Lacapria. She used to write for a blog called "The Inquisitor", a site known for posting bad news stories, similar to the right-wing Alex Jones programme. They have published fake quotes and stories without doing research: http://www.inquisitr.com/670091/retraction-and-apology-to-ro.…

Come on. You've highlighted one staff member as having once mentioned having a personal political leaning (like most people do) and that she once worked at a blog with a tarnished reputation and spun that into implying Snopes is untrustworthy. I'm sure you could meet this extremely low bar of "proof" for practically any news organization. If you really want to present a case of bias, find some real evidence. Specific…

This post wasn't meant to be a thorough debunking of Kim and snopes. I actually think snopes does a mostly good job of producing accurate information. However, it does show in some cases, such as the Hillary Libya "We didn't lose one person" question from the debate. http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-benghazi-msnbc/

Snopes and Kim claim "Hillary Clinton overlooked Benghazi victims when she said that "we didn't lose a single person in Libya" during a campaign event on MSNBC." is false. However, reading the article for her evidence, you can observe that Kim accepts Clinton lying by omission by saying the conversation was not about Benghazi.

Looking at this from a high level, Clinton is implying the the Benghazi attack is a completely unrelated event from the USA's war in Libya. However, these two events are both part of the Libyan intervention and it's disingenuous from Clinton to make such a claim because as a result of the Libyan intervention, Americans did die. Clinton is obviously playing a political game to play down the negative consequences of the Libyan intervention. I don't blame her for doing this, by the way. I would too if I wanted to be president.

Just because they didn't die in the initial confrontation doesn't mean "No Americans died." Snopes fails to point out the fact that Clinton does not include Benghazi in the overall Libyan confrontation. Let's say I am in a car accident with someone, and they are injured. If 6 months later, they have complications and die from the injuries I caused with the initial car accident, I am still responsible for the death of the individual.

Left wing bias: No Americans died in the initial confrontation with the Libyan government.

Right wing bias: Clinton killed Americans in Libya.

Neutral bias: Clinton made a decision to support the invasion of Libya. As a result of the invasion, Americans died in Benghazi.

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

#255

Post by dotnetisnotdead »

Bud wrote: post #108
gph wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ne…

You're right. Telling bullies "no" does risk that other bullies will leave your site. But that risk is already there. And Facebook is already seen as political; that ship has sailed.

It's funny that you don't think people marching in the streets, blocking traffic, screaming obscenities and destroying things right now aren't bullies.

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

#256

Post by std_throwaway »

rayvd wrote: post #244
StanislavPetrov wrote: post #75

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 wit…

Yes. Tread lightly here. If you designate some power to determine what's good information and what's bad, you're headed down a pretty slippery slope. Note: I really don't have an issue with Facebook doing this if they want. They're a company after all, not the government. I can just choose to get the information they deem 'bad' elsewhere.

I do object. They may be a private entity but they control a humongous amount of information flow which puts them in a very public position. We may argue where to draw the line but this extreme consolidation of user attention to a few gatekeepers is a problem for the public and needs to be dealt with by the public.

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

#257

Post by madenine »

Nadya wrote: post #221
ktRolster wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Buzzfeed lately has been trying to 'outgrow' their reputation as clickbait, and actually do traditional investigative reporting. With moderate success. I agree with you though, it's hard to take them seriously.

"Actual journalism" Buzzfeed articles are of surprisingly great quality. They fund that quality through clickbait, which is their primary monetization strategy if I recall correctly. It does make the right hand difficult to believe when the left hand is off being silly - but I'm actually impressed by the level of works produced by their journalism department.

Their monetezation strategy is advertorial content posts.

People are so used to clickbait as a way to get impressions and clicks from display ads that many don't realize there isn't a single 'traditional' display ad on BuzzFeed's entire site.

They make their money by charging for references to 'advertisers' products and services throughout BuzzFeed content - something they do really well.

Doesn't come cheap either - big cash outlays iirc.

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

#258

Post by mtberatwork »

SeanDav wrote: post #25

It is a temporary aberration. In due course, people will come to realize that they can't believe everything they read on the internet (duh), especially where provenance is not clear, and Facebook will improve their algorithms. Some kind of reasonable balance will be found. People blaming Facebook for Trump is far more a reflection of themselves than of FB news algorithms.

I certainly do not blame Facebook for Trump, but I don't see any balance happening anytime soon. It's not just an issue of the Internet, but also with traditional forms of media like cable TV, talk radio and print. Distrust and misinformation are shoveled out daily. Even the local pastor is in on the action these days.

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

#260

Post by hx87 »

Florin_Andrei wrote: post #96
nostrademons wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> The fix is for people to be aware of these cognitive biases in themselves, to actively seek out information that differs from their preconceptions, and to challenge inaccurate information (with evidence!) when presented with it. You are right, but I hope you are aware that this would require a giant leap to an essentially superhuman state of rationality and clear thinking for a vast majority of people. Just stop fo…

Separate ideology (or whatever happens to be the object of bias) from identity, and you're halfway there. People are much more amenable to changing their minds if their identities aren't at stake. For example, most people can discuss the pros and cons of F-150s and Silverados fairly rationally; those with the Calvin pissing logos, not so much.
Post reply on HN