News Feed FYI: Addressing Hoaxes and Fake News • Hacker News Board

Re: News Feed FYI: Addressing Hoaxes and Fake News

#61

Post by morgante » Thu, Dec 15, 2016, 7:31 PM UTC

r2dnb wrote: post #55

Remember : - It all started with Facebook being accused of manipulating the timeline to remove conservative stories during the campaign - At the time, their PR was along the lines of : we will fire the staff and replace it with an "objective" algorithm - Shortly before the end of the campaign, the Fake News narrative started to be tested under various forms ("conspiracy theories are going mainstream", "damaging rumor…

First of all, you have the chronology right but the causation wrong. After conservative pressure to stop editorially reviewing news, fake news has increasingly trended. Since the election, people have realized how untenable this is and so Facebook is looking for a solution.

This has nothing to do with the bill of rights. Facebook is not the government, government is not requiring fake news to be censored, and the fact checkers are independent organizations.

You don't have an inalienable right to spread whatever political lie you want to millions of people. Facebook is this era's nightly news and, just like the nightly news, they have a right to avoid sharing crazy conspiracy theories and outright lies.

Re: News Feed FYI: Addressing Hoaxes and Fake News

#62

Post by alva » Thu, Dec 15, 2016, 7:31 PM UTC

Still think this is a horrible move for a variety of reasons but I have one big question.

Where can I access the reasons and organisation who have disputed the link?

Without this information, this is even more terrible than I had previously thought it would be. If we cannot see who disputed the link and why, this is massive potential for abuse.

edit: Apparently the reason is given in a link

Re: News Feed FYI: Addressing Hoaxes and Fake News

#63

Post by eridius » Thu, Dec 15, 2016, 7:32 PM UTC

morgante wrote: post #48

eridius wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fake news was a massive problem this election cycle, and it really highlighted Facebook's large influence and their inability to actually do anything about it. So yes, Facebook dealing with fake news here is a reaction to what happened during the election, but that's not a bad thing. Fake news turns out to be a serious problem and it needs to be fixed, regardless of your political leanings. Edit: Why am I being downv…

> Edit: Why am I being downvoted for this? If you disagree with me, please explain why. Truth has become a partisan issue. This thread is overrun with alt-right trolls.

You're probably right. I notice you also got downvoted, as did a sibling comment. It's pretty frustrating to see this kind of behavior on HN.

Re: News Feed FYI: Addressing Hoaxes and Fake News

#64

Post by morgante » Thu, Dec 15, 2016, 7:32 PM UTC

alva wrote: post #62

Still think this is a horrible move for a variety of reasons but I have one big question. Where can I access the reasons and organisation who have disputed the link? Without this information, this is even more terrible than I had previously thought it would be. If we cannot see who disputed the link and why, this is massive potential for abuse. edit: Apparently the reason is given in a link

> If the fact checking organizations identify a story as fake, it will get flagged as disputed and there will be a link to the corresponding article explaining why.

You will be able to click through to read the full analysis of why a story is false.

Re: News Feed FYI: Addressing Hoaxes and Fake News

#65

Post by szx » Thu, Dec 15, 2016, 7:32 PM UTC

r2dnb wrote: post #55

Remember : - It all started with Facebook being accused of manipulating the timeline to remove conservative stories during the campaign - At the time, their PR was along the lines of : we will fire the staff and replace it with an "objective" algorithm - Shortly before the end of the campaign, the Fake News narrative started to be tested under various forms ("conspiracy theories are going mainstream", "damaging rumor…

As long as they stick to flagging/marking posts while keeping them visible I don't see how that's different from how HN works. Are you opposed to that as well?

Re: News Feed FYI: Addressing Hoaxes and Fake News

#66

Post by sigmar » Thu, Dec 15, 2016, 7:33 PM UTC

jeromegv wrote: post #59

r2dnb wrote: post #55

Remember : - It all started with Facebook being accused of manipulating the timeline to remove conservative stories during the campaign - At the time, their PR was along the lines of : we will fire the staff and replace it with an "objective" algorithm - Shortly before the end of the campaign, the Fake News narrative started to be tested under various forms ("conspiracy theories are going mainstream", "damaging rumor…

Isn't that a problem when a news that says that the Pope supports Donald Trump gets over 1 millions shares? This isn't opinion, this is pure fabrication.

A guy fired a gun in a pizza place, this is facebook's response. That guy arguing this is an affront to the bill of rights, seems to have never read the bill of rights.

Re: News Feed FYI: Addressing Hoaxes and Fake News

#67

Post by r2dnb » Thu, Dec 15, 2016, 7:33 PM UTC

jeromegv wrote: post #59

r2dnb wrote: post #55

Remember : - It all started with Facebook being accused of manipulating the timeline to remove conservative stories during the campaign - At the time, their PR was along the lines of : we will fire the staff and replace it with an "objective" algorithm - Shortly before the end of the campaign, the Fake News narrative started to be tested under various forms ("conspiracy theories are going mainstream", "damaging rumor…

Isn't that a problem when a news that says that the Pope supports Donald Trump gets over 1 millions shares? This isn't opinion, this is pure fabrication.

The article could go on and make the case that the actions of the Pope are not aligned with his rethoric which shows that nothing is as black and white as what you suggest.

Re: News Feed FYI: Addressing Hoaxes and Fake News

#68

Post by alva » Thu, Dec 15, 2016, 7:33 PM UTC

morgante wrote: post #64

alva wrote: post #62

Still think this is a horrible move for a variety of reasons but I have one big question. Where can I access the reasons and organisation who have disputed the link? Without this information, this is even more terrible than I had previously thought it would be. If we cannot see who disputed the link and why, this is massive potential for abuse. edit: Apparently the reason is given in a link

> If the fact checking organizations identify a story as fake, it will get flagged as disputed and there will be a link to the corresponding article explaining why. You will be able to click through to read the full analysis of why a story is false.

Ah bugger my bad, missed that. I hope the analysis also identifies the organisation/s who provided it.

Re: News Feed FYI: Addressing Hoaxes and Fake News

#69

Post by morgante » Thu, Dec 15, 2016, 7:36 PM UTC

alva wrote: post #68

morgante wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If the fact checking organizations identify a story as fake, it will get flagged as disputed and there will be a link to the corresponding article explaining why. You will be able to click through to read the full analysis of why a story is false.

Ah bugger my bad, missed that. I hope the analysis also identifies the organisation/s who provided it.

Presumably it'll be a link to the article on that organization's website.

Re: News Feed FYI: Addressing Hoaxes and Fake News

#70

Post by r2dnb » Thu, Dec 15, 2016, 7:39 PM UTC

szx wrote: post #65

r2dnb wrote: post #55

Remember : - It all started with Facebook being accused of manipulating the timeline to remove conservative stories during the campaign - At the time, their PR was along the lines of : we will fire the staff and replace it with an "objective" algorithm - Shortly before the end of the campaign, the Fake News narrative started to be tested under various forms ("conspiracy theories are going mainstream", "damaging rumor…

As long as they stick to flagging/marking posts while keeping them visible I don't see how that's different from how HN works. Are you opposed to that as well?

>Are you opposed to that as well?

HN never pretends to be neutral, it is a community with a set of rules. For example we even expect them to filter out-of-topic posts, and we know very well the opinions of the moderators / founders and where their line in the sand is.

However FB pretends to be neutral. If it's only flagged and there is no impact on the ranking algorithm, of course there would be no issue. It would just be a way to know FB opinion. But, frankly, we know better than that, of course the ranking and the reach will be impacted. This is even the stated intent.