Facebook admits it must do more to stop the spread of misinformation • Hacker News Board

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

#271

Post by kbenson » Thu, Nov 10, 2016, 10:11 PM UTC

cpr wrote: post #145

Bud wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no need to create a Grand Unified Theory of misinformation, here. This problem isn't that hard. You filter this stuff and rank it by its SOURCE, not by the content of individual articles. It's not hard to figure out which online sources are pushing out most of the abjectly-bad propaganda, and de-rank them.

Sorry. Most of the official sources in this recent campaign were dead wrong on a lot of issues, mostly because of their own massive biases.

Are you referring to wrong when they described what they thought was going on, which contains a large amount of opinion, or wrong on the facts as they exist?

Facts can be presented in a biases way (generally through omission of other contextual facts), but if what is said is factual, at least that bit of information is still correct. If combining multiple sources to generate a grouping of facts, that presentation bias way well disappear. If system weeds out people that present opinion as fact, all the better.

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

#272

Post by ssalazar » Thu, Nov 10, 2016, 10:12 PM UTC

zeveb wrote: post #89

mozumder wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct. I don't know why editorial bias was a problem in the first place. Right now they have false-equivalency bias that drives fake stories.

> I don't know why editorial bias was a problem in the first place. Because, like it or not, Facebook has become a trusted news source. Because of that, they have a duty to accurately report the news. Their human editors fell down by vanishing stories they found politically uncomfortable. Their algorithmic editor fell down by promoting stories that were false.

> Because, like it or not, Facebook has become a trusted news source. Because of that, they have a duty to accurately report the news.

What other trusted news source has this "duty?" What other trusted news source does not have biased editors?

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

#273

Post by Florin_Andrei » Thu, Nov 10, 2016, 10:14 PM UTC

hx87 wrote: post #260

Florin_Andrei wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Again agreed. But how would you accomplish that?

For large majorities of voters, dropping that ballot in the box is over 90% an identity game.

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

#274

Post by makecheck » Thu, Nov 10, 2016, 10:14 PM UTC

There are two big problems shown by this. First, that any one service like Facebook could become so large and unopposed that we need to care how it handles something like this. And second, that people seem fine with the idea of living only inside Facebook, unfriending or muting anyone who disagrees with them, until nothing else matters.

This is an utterly unhealthy way for people to be. If you want to combat misinformation, you must also encourage (teach?) people to stop being spoon-fed and start being more curious and more critical.

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

#275

Post by miles7 » Thu, Nov 10, 2016, 10:15 PM UTC

jondubois wrote: post #264

I don't think this is only Facebook's fault. I watched several extremely biased Youtube videos on both sides. I guess it's just how decentralized media works; it only tells people what they want to hear. Not so long ago, the media used to be relatively trustworthy, now everything has become propaganda. It started online mostly but now even major TV channels and newspapers which used to pride themselves on journalisti…

This assumes Fox is as biased in one direction as, say, NPR is in the other. But you can tell the quality of reporting from the content itself and the way it is presented. For example, while cable news channels will go to the same non-expert pundits for every story, NPR will actually call a different specific expert who is knowledgable to comment on each story.

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

#276

Post by daenz » Thu, Nov 10, 2016, 10:16 PM UTC

jondubois wrote: post #264

I don't think this is only Facebook's fault. I watched several extremely biased Youtube videos on both sides. I guess it's just how decentralized media works; it only tells people what they want to hear. Not so long ago, the media used to be relatively trustworthy, now everything has become propaganda. It started online mostly but now even major TV channels and newspapers which used to pride themselves on journalisti…

> There is no truth in the media anymore; the only way to approximate the truth is by watching opposing media channels and then 'averaging them out' in your mind.

Nailed it. I force myself to deliberately read viewpoints I disagree with, to listen to what they're saying, to hear what is important to them. Sometimes I see their points, sometimes I don't, but I always learn something new. It's really quite shocking and scary how many people aren't even familiar with the arguments of "the other side." The only know "their side's" caricature of the other side, which is simply not enough.

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

#277

Post by nl » Thu, Nov 10, 2016, 10:18 PM UTC

ethbro wrote: post #250

nl wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is basically impossible given the current and near future state of the art. The Allen AI group has been working on solving year 4 multiple choice science tests for about 3 years. They now score a bit over 60% correct, and that is a much easier task.

What I'm suggesting we start with is not exactly the same. The analogous question in that domain is "How accurate have they been in eliminating wrong answers?" Everything has to be right for an answer option to be correct. Only one thing has to be wrong for it to be incorrect.

And how do you think that they would do that?

Choosing a random story from politifact: http://www.politifact.com/missouri/statements/2016/nov/06/ro...

Like most false stories, there is a hint of truth to this but that doesn't make it true. Politfact spends 3 pages discussing it, and concludes:

Courts did object in three cases to decisions Kander made as secretary of state. But the specifics of those cases are much more nuanced than Blunt lets on. And the claim that Kander tried to manipulate the election is, at best, unproven.

A SOTA computer system could probably parse that last paragraph I posted, but couldn't get anywhere near getting close to doing the research needed to get to that conclusion. We are years off that (I work on research in this area)

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

#278

Post by unethical_ban » Thu, Nov 10, 2016, 10:19 PM UTC

tn13 wrote: post #152

z_mollusk wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"they were pushed to that by accusations of bias in the right-wing media." Accusations of bias? I think you mean to say that actual Facebook employees stated this as a fact. And the story was covered by ALL news outlets, starting with Gizmodo.

And Zuckerberg meeting right wing leaders shows that there was great element of truth in it.

It could also mean he was simply running damage control on a bullshit accusation he had no way of denying.

If sites are spreading factually provable lies through Facebook as fact, and people are acting on it, should Facebook have any say in telling people "Hey, this is garbage"?

It's an open question.

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

#279

Post by return0 » Thu, Nov 10, 2016, 10:19 PM UTC

squozzer wrote: post #165

A humble question -- Had Hillary won, would this post even be on HN?

No. And facebook does not pretend it 's not pro-Hillary (its CEO endorsed her). That doesn't mean the discussion is not warranted. In fact it's long overdue. Facebook is now a medium like the rest, it needs to be regulated like the press imho.

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

#280

Post by Natsu » Thu, Nov 10, 2016, 10:20 PM UTC

Bud wrote: post #56

agildehaus wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

No. The solution is to continue to provide news, to curate it, to shut down professional liars, and to tell the critics that if they don't like it, they are free to encourage their followers to use other social media.

> shut down professional liars

Would they really boot CNN?

CNN told us this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_X16_KzX1vE

They were laughably wrong: https://popehat.com/2016/10/17/no-it-is-not-illegal-to-read-...

Maybe one can claim it wasn't an intentional lie, but this guy is someone who really should have known better. So if it wasn't an intentional lie, they were negligent. Not sure where that leaves us.