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

#621

Post by MarkPNeyer » Sat, Nov 12, 2016, 12:57 AM UTC

kbutler wrote: post #413

ethbro wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whyso? I defer to your experience, but I would expect that incorrectness is simply inconsistency measured against a more complete/complex basis?

To determine correctness, the adjudicator requires knowledge outside the system. In the scientific method, this is done by generating falsifiable hypotheses and performing the experiment. Failing that, you have to fall back on heuristics, like "what I already believe", Occam's razor (simplest theory consistent with observations wins), or reliance on authority/consensus. Consistency is simply majority wins, which comp…

> Consistency is simply majority wins, which completely stifles new ideas or minority opinions.

No isn't.

You don't need to have a "non objective view of the truth" - i..e you don't need the ability to ask the system "Is this statement true?"

You just need the ability to ask the system "Will I think this is true, given the other things I have claimed to be true?"

Maintaining internal complexity of your own claim graph gets really tricky unless you keep it as accurate as possible.

For example, consensus view was that trump would not win the election. Trump did win the election. Thus, those two claims:

* (before) Trump will not win * (later) Trump won

These two are inconsistent. It's possible to rectify that inconsistency by marking the earlier statment cancelled. So now we have three statements

* (before) Trump will not win * (later) Trump won * (now) I was wrong to say, "Trump will not win."

The gap between "now" and "Before" can be used to compute "probability of a statement being retracted." The smaller those gaps, the more likely it is what whatever you say comes with an asterisk next to it, saying "the expected time to retraction of this statement is: x days"

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

#622

Post by gozur88 » Sat, Nov 12, 2016, 1:14 AM UTC

linkregister wrote: post #606

gozur88 wrote: post #605

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The idea of a unified "ruling class" is laughable. The current president is constantly at odds with the political party that controls the Senate and the House of Representatives. Sort of. Not really. The political parties do represent different power factions. But they are unified in the sense that people in the "deep state" - mid-high level bureaucrats, academia, and the media have more in common with each other th…

Can you go into more depth? Also I believe you are leaving out a group; high-level business leaders, who often do a tour in government posts. (I'm not criticizing the practice; we want competent, subject matter experts working in government)

I agree. Business leaders belong on the list.

I once worked a job that involved dealing with a lot of civil service folks. We worked on a land-locked Navy base which had exactly two uniformed naval personnel (that I ever saw, anyway), who were in theory the #1 and #2 people in charge of a few hundred civil servants and a similar number of contractors.

Now, everyone knew the Navy guys (a captain and his XO) would be there for about 18 months and then they'd get transferred or retire. If the captain wanted something to get done, it would only get done if the civil servants (who had been there 20+ years) wanted it to get done, because they knew how to gum up the works until he was gone.

They also knew how to undermine and embarrass him, which at flag ranks (or wannabe flag ranks) will end your career. You can't fire a civil servant unless there's a felony involved, so even if he figured out what was going on he couldn't do much.

That's what happens in Washington, too. Political leaders come and go. They put appointees at the top positions of giant bureaucracies, but the bureaucrats have their own agendas, and they know how to work the system. They're know which reporters to leak what to if the president upsets them.

In Congress the Congressmen (and women) come and go. But they all rely on staff for information, and the same people pop up on congressional staffs over and over. Those are the people who actually write the laws (or edit what the lobbyists produce) - the congressmen don't even read what they're voting on.

The point is there's an entire layer of people, what I've seen called the "deep state", that you don't get to vote on except in the most indirect way. You could say they're not very ideological, if you're generous, or you could say their ideology is power. They went to the same schools, they go to the same parties, they marry each other, they read the same books, watch the same TV shows, etc.

It's not some grand conspiracy. It's just one of those self-organizing aristocracies that pops up whenever a government isn't overthrown for a long time.

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

#623

Post by justin_ » Sat, Nov 12, 2016, 1:49 AM UTC

triplesec wrote: post #102

Very relevant to understanding today's media and politics is Adam Curtis' new documentary film Hypernormalisation. It's long but very worth it http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04b183c If anyone has links to the BBC iplayer for the US, if there is one, or another legit source for outside the UK, please do reply with it. I strongly encourage you to watch it, and if you can only find it from a dodgy source, buy someone…

Seconding this recommendation. American viewers can watch the film here:

https://thoughtmaybe.com/hypernormalisation/

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

#624

Post by briholt » Sat, Nov 12, 2016, 2:24 AM UTC

erdevs wrote: post #619

briholt wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. This appears to advocate to fight propaganda with more propaganda. I don't trust anyone at Facebook to determine "facts."

Why? Facts are facts. The definition of a fact is that is an objective, verifiable statement. Trust does not come into play because you don't need to trust anyone judgment to verify a fact. Judgment is not involved. Whether Fox fired Megyn Kelly or not is a fact. Facebook's is judgment is not involved in verifying it. Whether an FBI agent that examined Clinton's emails is now dead or not is a fact. Facebook's judgmen…

Humans are bad at determining facts. That is a fact.

Consider the irony of refuting that statement. Yes the word "fact" has a definition, but that doesn't mean humans can or will obey that definition. In early 2003 the NY Times reported Iraq had WMD, so that was a fact, right? How long would it take me to find a Facebook employee who would tell me it's a "fact" that vaccines cause autism?

Anyone who claims they can differentiate facts from opinion and truth from fiction without bias, is the last person that should have that responsibility.

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

#625

Post by gozur88 » Sat, Nov 12, 2016, 2:46 AM UTC

linkregister wrote: post #614

emodendroket wrote: post #598

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course there are multiple elements of the ruling class with different interests. But I think it's also safe to say there are a lot of issues where Republicans and Democrats are in complete agreement and their constituents are not.

What would be an example of one of these issues?

Immigration.

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

#626

Post by dmode » Sat, Nov 12, 2016, 3:37 AM UTC

DrScump wrote: post #462

dmode wrote: post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see anywhere he says that there will be government appointed gate keepers

Obama saying "we" is not referring to his administration? What do you think "we" refers to?

When a Prez says "we" it almost always refers to the American people

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

#627

Post by kmtrowbr » Sat, Nov 12, 2016, 3:37 AM UTC

dredmorbius wrote: post #528

kmtrowbr wrote: post #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…

Not just mass media. Writing coincided, and probably facilitated, building of cities, and rule of law (which previously couldn't be written down). Printing (1436) in Europe saw the split of the Catholic church into multiple denominations. The continuing fall in printing and paper costs, and rising literacy, eventually lead to revolution and populist reform first in the American colonies, then Europe. Particularly the…

Absolutely: technological changes in "information technology" bring about social changes as well.

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

#628

Post by piotrjurkiewicz » Sat, Nov 12, 2016, 4:36 AM UTC

duaneb wrote: post #468

piotrjurkiewicz wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> hate speech On many subreddits, being in opposition to illegal massive immigration is being considered as a 'hate speech' and is a reason for ban.

Err, citation needed. Preferably by someone employed by Reddit. If it's just the subreddit.... I don't know what to tell you beyond "find better ones".

I was talking about /r/europe for example.

> find better ones

It's not that simple, having in mind that:

1. Current moderators clique holds the most adequate name for pan-Europe subreddit.

2. Everyone registering account from Europe-located IP address is being automatically subscribed to this subreddit.

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

#629

Post by TrumpVoter12345 » Sat, Nov 12, 2016, 4:46 AM UTC

spiritofenter wrote: post #495

TrumpVoter12345 wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Happy to oblige. Let's get the big one out of the way: I disagree with Trump on climate change. That said, the current president did jack sh#t about it, and so would Clinton (who is owned by her wealthy donors). Combined with the fact that the President can't enact policy unilaterally, and there's broad consensus around climate change in the legislative branch, I don't think too much damage will be done if any at all…

Thank you for responding, this gave me food for thought. (Also, you can add extra line breaks in your comment to get breaks between your numbered points.) Also wondering how much you were convinced about Trump's sincerity. Whether he truly cares about the promises he made or the people he made them to.

I'm more convinced of his sincerity than of Clinton's. Let's face it: he doesn't _need_ presidency. 400K a year is pocket change for him, he's not a politician and he did not spend 30 years of his life converging on this goal. Moreover, he partially financed his own campaign with tens of millions of dollars. Truth is, all politicians lie to get elected, he's no exception.

But I believe he did not lie about the core tenets of his campaign: wars, immigration, globalism. He will do something about those at the very least. That's good enough for me.

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

#630

Post by dredmorbius » Sat, Nov 12, 2016, 4:46 AM UTC

kmtrowbr wrote: post #627

dredmorbius wrote: post #528

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not just mass media. Writing coincided, and probably facilitated, building of cities, and rule of law (which previously couldn't be written down). Printing (1436) in Europe saw the split of the Catholic church into multiple denominations. The continuing fall in printing and paper costs, and rising literacy, eventually lead to revolution and populist reform first in the American colonies, then Europe. Particularly the…

Absolutely: technological changes in "information technology" bring about social changes as well.

Corollary: it's not a question of "how do we preserve the current system given some change in media technology?" It's "how will our current system change given some change in media technology?"