471–480 of 645 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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…
Why not do what Twitter does and let the floodgates open I.e. Do no filtering? I'm however doubtful that a "successful" social network would learn from struggling one. Well C'est la vie.
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…
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 article…
Please don't make generalizations about large groups of people. It leads to irreconcilable feuds.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 bia…
Imagine I develope a newspaper that only reports crimes committed by a particular race and I excruciatingly fact check every incident and highlight when they are uneducated (but don't mention education otherwise). What will result is one of the biggest macro lies that will fuel racism through its broader message while everything will be perfect to a fact checker. This would rank perfectly in such a system while broader newspapers would get hammered for messing up picture captions and confusing Airbus A319s with 737s.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Rates near zero is part of the reason the stock market has been on a tear the last few years. It also was a driver of the housing bubble. It didn't cause the hyperinflation that a lot of people thought would come, but the Great Depression is Bernanke's area of expertise, and he had sound theoretical reasons to believe QE wouldn't spark serious inflation.
The near zero rates occurred in response to the economic crisis after the housing bubble burst, not a driver of the bubble.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
SOME women. You're already altering his words.
Where does he use the words "SOME women" then, if you want to be this anal?
"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…
Imagine if USPS sent you things that were sent to you, but also random packages they thought were good for you.
Facebook, even just through its algorithm, is exercising some editorial control and distribution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When I knew people who supported Romney, I felt no need based on that to exclude them from my life or my social media circles. One's ability to support Trump tells me much more about a person. There are too many things that are good and should be fundamental about a functional, enlightened society that one must reject in order to support Trump. Prejudice, fraud, bullying, and sexual harassment must all be accepted. P…
And to support Hillary, one must accept lies, corruption, warmongering, corporatism, voter manipulation and unfettered globalization. It's a choice between two evils, however you look at it.