Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mark Zuckerberg Is in Denial

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 175 posts

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Is in Denial

#141

Post by Pokepokalypse »

heurist wrote: post #42
6stringmerc wrote: post #7

At the root principle of the article, I agree that a platform which spreads erroneous information should be held accountable in some fashion - but it's the following kind of set up that is troublesome: > In addition to doing more to weed out lies and false propaganda, Facebook could tweak its algorithm so that it does less to reinforce users’ existing beliefs, and more to present factual information. This may seem di…

Facebook can do whatever it wants. Personally, if facebook does not stop the spread of false information I will stop using their services and will do my best to convince my friends to stop using their services. If they want to create harmful social bubbles for profit that's their prerogative, but I won't be part of it.

How will you even know about the spread of false information if you're in your own bubble of what you believe to be "non-false information"?

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Is in Denial

#142

Post by barrkel »

flockonus wrote: post #63
ThomPete wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about making the case that it did happen because of misinformation instead of focusing on my comment history? I have said a lot of things on both sides and is hardly just some troll. We all have our triggers, this is one for me so whats wrong with that?

There is no such case to be made. If viral fake news influence even some tiny percentage, there is already responsibility on social media for how this elections turned out. Yes, quite possibly >90% of the people would have voted the same way regardless of news, still we all know the "swing" makes all the difference

If only 45% voted for Trump, they wouldn't have valid opinions? If 5% made the difference, then 90% of the votes for Trump don't form a mandate?

There's a problem here - first past the post voting - but there's also another problem: denial of the legitimacy of an opposition. The vast majority of the people who voted for Trump have valid opinions. You can't just dismiss them.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Is in Denial

#143

Post by Pokepokalypse »

makomk wrote: post #34
mc32 wrote: post #9

I think it's too early to tell if these fake stories had any effect on people's political leanings, so diving in without knowing much about it is a bit of a different kind of fake news. It's hunches and opinions without critical examination. Now it's definitely a question to ask but I'm afraid it's being asked as a way to explain Hillary's loss because it's easier to find a scapegoat than look introspectively --and D…

It doesn't matter whether the fake stories actually had any effect on people's political leanings, because the media narrative is that they did. Ultimately, the mainstream media are in denial. Every single media organisation backed Clinton, including ones that had never backed a presidential candidate before, they published articles pointing to this as reason to vote for her whilst insisting that it was ridiculous to…

As a liberal; I completely agree with what you say about the media organizations, and I'll add to that, some of the more-respected leftwing media; which used to be reliable, went into a phase of spewing absolute garbage. I found it disquieting, because it came about gradually, and I realized it suddenly, after the fact (about 6 weeks ago), that they were really playing fast-and-loose with standards of credibility on some of the stories they were posting.

Then, I basically kind of started to "shut down", because I felt that there was really no source that was trustworthy.

Around the same time, I saw some previously neutral forums, go "hard-Clinton". To the point where there was obvious brigading (downvoting and banning dissenters) going on.

On the other hand: There was copious material available, of direct quotes straight out of Trump's mouth. Live TV footage at rallies. Live TV footage at debates. Where he said some things that were not just; "oh, he's a bit careless and doesn't know what that's implying." He said some things that were very hard to interpret in any way other than how he said them. There's also the actual wording of actual policy positions on his own web site.

I think this is what is meant by the assertion that "false stories from the left are not nearly as big a problem".

It's true that there's still some crazy stuff coming from the left. (A lot of the news organization sites breathlessly speculating about who Trump is appointing, before he's actually made any appointments - and turning them into outrageous scandals).

But a lot of the negative things coming out about Trump are absolute facts that you can't sugarcoat, because he said them while being recorded.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Is in Denial

#144

Post by Pokepokalypse »

pault wrote: post #135
newdayrising wrote: post #16

If Hillary won this wouldn't have been an issue for the NYT. Close to the election I repeatedly saw articles comparing Trump to Hitler and predicting the end of free society of he were to win. The only fake news I saw was satirical "news." I did not vote for Trump, but it's crazy how hysterical and witch-hunty the left is right now.

I tend to agree with you, but in the days after the election several of my acquaintances witnessed hate crimes accompanied by Trump slogans. This, along with the surge in reports of hate crimes in the media, tells me that this isn't just a repeat of 2000.

This is fact. This is actually occurring. I've seen it, and I've heard first hand accounts.

What is also significant is that I see it being largely ignored in the media, as they frame peaceful counter-Trump protests as "riots" and "thugs destroying property".

This is the opinion I'm seeing coming out by moderates, who are decrying the protests, and ignoring the fascist violence coming from hate groups.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Is in Denial

#145

Post by Pokepokalypse »

lake99 wrote: post #132
Veen wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you have liked them balanced with 12 pro-Trump pieces or 12 anti-Hillary pieces? Sometimes things are true. Saying they're true isn't bias. It makes no sense to have "balance" when what that means is publishing a non-true thing in order to balance out the true thing you just said. It's true that Donald Trump is lying, feckless fool. That doesn't need balancing. We can argue all day about why people voted for hi…

> It's true that Donald Trump is lying, feckless fool. Lying? Sure. Feckless fool? Not a fact. > But that doesn't really change the facts. You mean, facts like Hillary arming radicals and destroying governments? Or facts like Clinton getting millions of dollars from major banks? Or facts like Clinton wiping email servers? There were floodlights on the liar, but a crook sneaked in behind them. Rampant editorializing d…

He's a feckless fool. Campaigns on deporting ALL illegal immigrants and building a wall. Says (on 60 minutes, this is not fake, he said it): he's only going to deport illegal immigrants who have committed serious crimes. This is exactly Obama's policy. He just won an election, and he's pushing the status-quo.

Again, on ACA repeal, he was VERY CLEAR in the debate: "repeal and replace Obamacare" (just not clear on "replace" with what). On 60 minutes, he's walking that back and talking about the parts he'll keep.

Trump is feckless. And a fool.

And Hillary may have armed radicals, but you look at photos of McCain shaking their hands. This policy will not change under a Trump administration, I guarantee it. Because he will do whatever this Republican congress wants. This is also true for Trade deals.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Is in Denial

#146

Post by Pokepokalypse »

simion314 wrote: post #48
swalsh wrote: post #33

I'm scared people are going to keep pushing for social media to implement stronger filters. I believe very strongly that the free flow of information (even when it's just wrong) is critical. Information gives people power, but withholding information takes power away. If a company like Facebook implements the filter, we're giving that power to them and hoping they are ambivalent. The solution to fake news is for peop…

Maybe instead of filtering they can label the items that are not real news, or label the real news as news(I am not from US so the use case I am thinking of is fake medical/scientific news so in this domain would be easier to start with)

Truth in advertising, you say?

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Is in Denial

#147

Post by Pokepokalypse »

codemusings wrote: post #50

The only problem is: you can't fix stupid. It doesn't really matter. If it's not Facebook, it's Gawker, Buzzfeed or a thousend other clickbait outlets. If somebody actually believes the pope would endorse an American election candidate there really is nothing you can do.

You can fix stupid. If you couldn't, we'd still be in the Dark Ages.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Is in Denial

#148

Post by Pokepokalypse »

mark_l_watson wrote: post #52

I don't trust the main stream media at all. As part of my long term research on NLP + text mining, I got in the habit of using English language news article from around the world as a text corpus. As part of this process I noticed the disconnect to US coverage compared to foreign news sources. Realizing that everyone has their own agenda, this experience still makes me sceptical of our news. That said, I am also very…

This reminds me of the Microsoft project a few months ago, that took a corpus of online text, and very quickly started regurgitating racist messages.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Is in Denial

#149

Post by norea-armozel »

swalsh wrote: post #33

I'm scared people are going to keep pushing for social media to implement stronger filters. I believe very strongly that the free flow of information (even when it's just wrong) is critical. Information gives people power, but withholding information takes power away. If a company like Facebook implements the filter, we're giving that power to them and hoping they are ambivalent. The solution to fake news is for peop…

Or we can stop obsessing over the news and politics as a whole? I know that sounds contrary to common sense but I largely avoid any official news for mental health reasons and just for the fact that 9 times out of 10 I've been right as to their original sources (usually think tanks). Ditch the news from your Facebook or at least treat like you would being handed a pamphlet by a stranger: disregard it and throw it away. If you're really itching to know the facts of something in this modern world then Google is your best friend especially if you want to search academic papers on specific subjects like whether or not gender dysphoric children should be given puberty blockers (read the medical journals, the abstracts aren't as dense as say your average physics one). Or if you want to know if the EROI on solar is worth it, you got the department of energy papers, various consumer review sites, and much more. Basically, go do your own journalism because modern journalism is garbage and it'll never recover. Also accept that being more read doesn't mean you're more informed. Especially being well read in politics is like being well read in the DC New 52 lore. It's neat you put the energy into it but it's just a hobby of little objective value.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Is in Denial

#150

Post by mc32 »

Pokepokalypse wrote: post #143
makomk wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't matter whether the fake stories actually had any effect on people's political leanings, because the media narrative is that they did. Ultimately, the mainstream media are in denial. Every single media organisation backed Clinton, including ones that had never backed a presidential candidate before, they published articles pointing to this as reason to vote for her whilst insisting that it was ridiculous to…

As a liberal; I completely agree with what you say about the media organizations, and I'll add to that, some of the more-respected leftwing media; which used to be reliable, went into a phase of spewing absolute garbage. I found it disquieting, because it came about gradually, and I realized it suddenly, after the fact (about 6 weeks ago), that they were really playing fast-and-loose with standards of credibility on…

The thing I accept, possibly wrongly, which others have stated, is that many people voted against Hillary and there was not much that could have gotten in their way. Given Trump's past political opinions contrasted with his campaign claims, people who voted against Hillary often times took what Trump said more metaphorically than literally, whereas they took Hillary literally probably because she asked people to take her literally (that other guy flip flops, I don't). They saw Hillary as an ideologue and Trump as more of a pragmatist, something Obama apparently believes as well.
Post reply on HN