Live data from Hacker News

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

techcrunch.com

391–400 of 645 posts

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

#391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Re…

> vote against their own interests

If an unemployed factory worker votes for a protectionist who promises to bring back factories, how is he voting against his own interests?

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

#392
post #88
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.

The only reason it looks alt-right white-nationalist to you is because anyone on the left who disagrees with prevailing left wing dogma is branded a heretic and a bigot, and shut down quickly. Take The Guardian. They employ people like Jessica Valenti and Laurie Penny who publish feminist clickbait. Then they aggressively moderate comments which explain why those two are ill-informed at best and dishonest manipulator…

Incidentally, which pew studies? In my anecdotal experience, harassment is a pervasive issue e.g. I personally dont know of any urban woman not adversely affected by street harassment. Like a lot of things, it is a couple of men doing a whole lot of damage.

I keep feeling like the whole alt-right anti-PC movement seems to be born of things people said online or corner case behavior in insulated Universities. Like, who cares? Most men I know who love the anti-PC movement would, in the moment, gladly intervene if a woman is getting verbally harassed and is visibly shaken up. Mention Valenti to the same person and they fly into a rage. Like wut?!

Most feminist and LGBT activists groups aren't talked about by Jezebel and are doing great work.

tl;dr: Message to alt-right activists everywhere: Talk to minority rights activists in person outside of emotionally charged protests. You'll find you don't disagree by much.

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

#393

"OMG, Trump has won through lies and deception! We failed to stop him. How on Earth did that happen? We must out-manipulate our opponents next time." If you read between the lines, this is what the article condenses to. The discussion here is mostly creepy groupthink shit. Social networks fact-checking their content? What's next? Should AT&T stop the spread of misinformation over its phone lines? Should USPS fact-che…

The irony here is also the idea that all of this so-called propaganda comes from the right.

The left is constantly selecting it's own set of "facts" and tactfully leaves out whatever doesn't agree with their agenda.

Simply look at all the disingenuous pro-Clinton fact checking throughout the election. Just look at the number of rape, assault, race-baity bullshit that is circulated by liberals every day. There articles may not fly in the face of science, but they are usually equally misleading.

Is this a veiled attempt at trying to silence wikileaks? Infowars? There is a reason they are being called the regressive left. They want some articles to be banned from social media because they believe they aren't true. They believe, yet again, that people should not be allowed to make their own decisions in life.

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

#394
post #349
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…

I think I would argue that this is beyond an AI-complete problem, it is an unanswerable problem. For instance, consider the following spectrum of ideas: - The earth is flat - 9/11 conspiracy theories - Barack Obama was born in Kenya - Anti-vax - Climate change denial - Anti-GMO - Denial of underlying quantum randomness in the universe - The Clinton Foundation has been or is involved in some shady dealings - Muslims w…

I don't deny quantum randomness per say, I just deeply hope that it isn't true for some reason.

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

#395
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…

That's what happens when you try to control other's speech. You will be blamed for bias, and the worst thing the accusations would be completely correct, because humans are biased. Humans have opinions, humans have cognitive biases, humans are prone to groupthink and a long list of fallacies. It is extremely hard work to get even close to objectivity, let alone achieve it - professional scientists who are trained and have tons of tools to avoid biases still regularly fail and produce irreproducible results and wishful thinking papers that are then debunked - for somebody involved in politics where there's no such tools it's doubly hard. Hoping Facebook somehow magically solves this problem for us is naive at best.

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

#396
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…

How would AI resolve religious issues? The Jews say they are waiting for the Messiah. The Christians say the Messiah came once and will come again. The Muslims say there is only one God and Muhammad is his Prophet. Which of these groups is correct? I would love to see the AI algorithm that can finally settle this issue! Seriously, mad props to the programmer who writes that code!

Fortunately, you don't really have to solve that problem. It would be sufficient to assess claims of actual fact about the actual world. I think the first step in writing the classifier would be to write something like

    float IsStatementAboutFacts(string statement);  // Returns confidence estimate

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

#397
Facebook isn't the right venue for this.

Of course it's filled with garbage!

While it's noble to seek better, the reality is people are using poor tools because the good ones are failing them.

Ask where did journalism go and that's the start on real solutions.

If we had that as we used to, the garbage on FB would be much less of a worry. The laughable would fit laughed at as it should.

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

#398
I have had a lot of similar thoughts recently. If you think of this historically -- soon after mass-communication technologies were first invented, they were eventually abused, the radio propaganda of WWII being one of the best examples.

Laws were introduced, and corporations grew up around these technologies, the producers of the content became professionalized, and by doing it full time, some of them even developed ethics and standards of behavior.

Now, that old media has been destroyed by new technology. The new technology is fundamentally superior in terms of the volume of information that can be transmitted, and it is both push and pull. However, the old media's "checks and balances" were also destroyed, and that is having incredibly negative consequences.

I think there are some concrete, simple, technical steps that Facebook & browser vendors can do:

* Before allowing you to share an article from a source that is of questionable trustworthiness, it should show you a warning message: "This site is known to contain untrue content." They might also consider adding an alert next to links from these sites when they are being displayed in the news feed. I think technically, this problem is not that different from the way that email systems deal with spam.

* Similarly, the way that browser vendors show you an alert before allowing you to navigate to sites that contain viruses, etc, the browser can show you an alert message before taking you to a site that is known to have untrue content. And just like you see a red error message when visiting a site that doesn't have a proper SSL setup, this could appear for sites that are untrustworthy.

Don't underestimate the psychological power of strategically placed small red warning messages over time.

Obviously making the decisions of what goes on the list will be a highly political affair, but what is nice to realize is that, unlike the government, all these technologies are developed by private companies and given to their users for free. If you keep the bar for what is considered "lying" pretty high, most educated professional people (who are the employees of these companies) would be able to agree on which things to warn about.

Additionally, the "social media" space has greatly matured and consolidated. There is no longer really a direct competitor to Facebook. Facebook & browser vendors now have the opportunity and, the responsibility to innovate in this area. I think they can do a lot without really impacting their bottom line.

Don't allow yourself to get sucked into the problem of how computers might be able to determine "truth" -- that, is absolutely unsolvable. We will not be able to censor the CNN, the NYTimes or even Fox News (in general). However, there are many dark corners of the internet that are actually pretty influential, that could be toned down with this approach.

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

#399
post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The polls weren't that off actually. They missed the mark overall by about 2%, which is actually pretty similar to the error in past elections. That's not very surprising because without being able to sample the actual distribution you need to make some assumptions for the statistics to work.

When you take wildly changing vote count estimates (from +10 to +2 within two weeks) and turn that into more than 80% of probability of a specific candidate winning, that's a completely special level of stupidity. Nassim Taleb also wrote about this https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/796357059813974017

Nate Silver had an excellent response to this on one of the "Model Talk" editions of the FiveThirtyEight Elections Podcast[1]. TL;DR of the problems with Taleb's critique:

1. "Volatility" in the model is not random, as Talib asserts -- it happens at predefined points in the time. For example, the accuracy of polls jumps greatly after the conventions complete.

2. Volatility at a previous point in time does NOT mean there must be similar volatility going forward, as Talib implies.

3. Taleb's quickie models that he posted for explanation don't remotely match empirical data.

I respect Taleb, but he seems to have fallen into a trap really smart people often fall into: being right with limited data, but wrong with complete data (in this case, he creates assumptions from his knowledge in other areas like options pricing, which are wrong in this domain).

[1] Skip to 13:30 remaining http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-makes-a-tipping-poi...

EDIT: formatting

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

#400

You can't prevent false ideas spreading by censorship; quite the contrary. The idea that one can create an AI or censor or committee to separate truth from falsehood and then put it in charge is plainly authoritarian.

What about just keeping out stories that are patently false? If I did an image search for cars, I wouldn't want a boat in there. If I did a search for news, I wouldn't want a fabricated story.

I agree with you. I wouldn't completely remove them, but I would mark the ones from certain sources as having a questionable origin.
Post reply on HN