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

News Feed FYI: Addressing Hoaxes and Fake News

newsroom.fb.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 148 posts

Re: News Feed FYI: Addressing Hoaxes and Fake News

#121

Post by DrScump »

morgante wrote: post #109
DrScump wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has nothing to do with the bill of rights. Agreed. You don't have an inalienable right to spread whatever political lie you want In the U.S., you do. "Real" media do it all the time. There are laws against making slanderous or libelous statements against individuals and entities, but every American has the right to say, "the moon landings were faked and greens are smarter than libertarians" if they want.

You dropped the most important part of that quote: "to millions of people." You're free to go on any street corner and rant about the moon landings. Facebook just isn't under any obligation to give you a platform to reach millions of people with that.

Even Facebook readers can post such things, and Facebook staff can remove it if they choose. Otherwise, you are seeking prior restraint.

Typically, an individual lacks the reach to make statements visible to "millions" of Facebook feeds, unless they are celebrities.

Re: News Feed FYI: Addressing Hoaxes and Fake News

#122

Post by morgante »

DrScump wrote: post #121
morgante wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You dropped the most important part of that quote: "to millions of people." You're free to go on any street corner and rant about the moon landings. Facebook just isn't under any obligation to give you a platform to reach millions of people with that.

Even Facebook readers can post such things, and Facebook staff can remove it if they choose. Otherwise, you are seeking prior restraint. Typically, an individual lacks the reach to make statements visible to "millions" of Facebook feeds, unless they are celebrities.

Sure, but my point is that Facebook is no under obligation to allow you to post that stuff and is free to remove it whenever they feel. They could delete Breitbart's page tomorrow if they felt like it.

Re: News Feed FYI: Addressing Hoaxes and Fake News

#123

Post by floatrock »

DrScump wrote: post #110
floatrock wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> who fact checks the fact checkers? Who polices the police? Who governs the government? Who grants authority to the authorities? In western democracies, ideally the answer is all the same: the people. Ideally, once a power broker starts to lose credibility, they start to lose their power. And that's really what this is about. Facebook has lost credibility given the ease these new social technologies have been co-opt…

"fact checkers comes from community consensus on the legitimacy of fact checkers..." There's a danger there. "Community consensus" condemned Galileo when he dared mention a heliocentric solar system, for one example. Did that make the Earth-centered solar system "fact"?

Community consensus also eventually vindicated him.

More importantly, what's the alternative? Turning it all off and thinking independently is one option. Kudos to those who do that, but if you're here reading this, by definition you want to participate in social media. So then the question becomes how do we build a less toxic and more productive social media?

Re: News Feed FYI: Addressing Hoaxes and Fake News

#124

Post by halpiamaquark »

trashtoss wrote: post #118
halpiamaquark wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Politifact and Snopes push their opinionated worldview as though it is objectively true and morally righteous.

> Your belief is that Politifact and Snopes push their opinionated worldview as though it is objectively true and morally righteous. Wouldn't want to be guilty of the same sin, right?

I do not put myself out there as a disinterested arbiter of fact.

Facebook isn't going to be appending my critical analysis to alleged fake news stores.

Re: News Feed FYI: Addressing Hoaxes and Fake News

#125

Post by trashtoss »

halpiamaquark wrote: post #124
trashtoss wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Your belief is that Politifact and Snopes push their opinionated worldview as though it is objectively true and morally righteous. Wouldn't want to be guilty of the same sin, right?

I do not put myself out there as a disinterested arbiter of fact. Facebook isn't going to be appending my critical analysis to alleged fake news stores.

Given this:

> I do not put myself out there as a disinterested arbiter of fact.

...all I can say to this:

> Facebook isn't going to be appending my critical analysis to alleged fake news stores.

...is quelle surprise.

Were you expecting some other outcome?

Re: News Feed FYI: Addressing Hoaxes and Fake News

#126

Post by dabockster »

tyleraldrich wrote: post #97
r2dnb wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just posted on an another thread that the problem here is that Facebook positionning / PR is to be say that they are a neutral agent. "Share what you want with your friends / family etc." This is why this case is different. If I use ExxonMobilBook, I kind of know what to expect of Greenpeace related stories. Given their size, extra-precaution needs to be taken. They either need to rollback, or make their agenda mor…

"They either need to rollback, or make their agenda more appearent." That is an opinion. They, in reality, don't need to do anything, nor do they owe you anything. Just because their positioning/PR makes them seem neutral, that doesn't mean they are required to be. They don't need to take precaution, and I will eat my shoe if this decision is what causes Facebook to lose users. Fact of the matter is, 99.9% of users d…

> 99.9% of users don't care

More like 99.9% of users don't know enough about the situation to warrant an opinion.

I mean, if you asked random passerby on the street about Facebook's neutrality in terms of freedom of speech, I guarantee you that 99.9% of them will respond with something along the lines of "I don't know, I just use it to share funny cat videos with my friends lmao xD" or "If you don't like it you don't have to click on it".

Re: News Feed FYI: Addressing Hoaxes and Fake News

#127

Post by dabockster »

dragonwriter wrote: post #117
r2dnb wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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. I have no problem with that. I have a problem with them choosing what I can share with my friends, and more generally what people can share with each other. "Sorry it's fake news so we limited the reach". The problem is that they are not open. My only problem is opacity…

> I have no problem with that. I have a problem with them choosing what I can share with my friends, and more generally what people can share with each other. " They don't choose that, they choose what you can share via their platform. You can share whatever you want with friends, etc., using your own resources instead of theirs, and Facebook has no say. Facebook limiting the use of Facebook's resources to things Fac…

> Facebook limiting the use of Facebook's resources to things Facebook is comfortable with may not make them your ideal service, but why should they be obligated to be that?

Ideally, they shouldn't. But, as of this writing, they have a virtual monopoly on social media.

- Want to talk to your friends? Message them on Facebook Messenger/WhatsApp/Instagram.

- Want to share photos? Send them via Facebook Messenger/WhatsApp/Instagram.

- Want to see what kinds of events are happening in your city/town? Facebook Events.

- Want to see different stories of the day (the whole "staying informed" thing)? Facebook Pages

- Want to use a different service other than Facebook? Good luck, because everyone else who may not be as skilled in tech as you are still hooked on the service.

If another IM or events service gets popularized, then FB's foothold might be loosened. But, until that happens, we have to actively make sure that the things shared on the platform are as free as possible.

Re: News Feed FYI: Addressing Hoaxes and Fake News

#128

Post by dabockster »

morgante wrote: post #85
r2dnb wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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. I have no problem with that. I have a problem with them choosing what I can share with my friends, and more generally what people can share with each other. "Sorry it's fake news so we limited the reach". The problem is that they are not open. My only problem is opacity…

> I have no problem with that. I have a problem with them choosing what I can share with my friends, and more generally what people can share with each other. They're not policing what you share with your friends, just what you can do on their platform. They are under no obligation to provide infinite reach for whatever drivel you want to share. If you're sitting in a bar sharing racist anecdotes with your friends, t…

> If you don't like what Facebook's policies, go share somewhere else.

Okay, I'll just go find another social network where millions of non-technical individuals congregate en masss.

Oh wait...

Re: News Feed FYI: Addressing Hoaxes and Fake News

#129

Post by dabockster »

basch wrote: post #14
gfodor wrote: post #4

ok, so now the obvious question becomes, who fact checks the fact checkers? i don't blame facebook, but the people that have been asking for this i guess are about to get what they deserve: more consolidation of the power of persuasion of the masses into the hands of facebook. want to instantly discredit a story? just UPDATE stories SET disputed = t WHERE ID = ?

Why cant facebook just go after blogspam clickbait in general? If a story is a copy of a copy, have the algorithm favor the original instead of the blogspam. If a local news agency copies an AP/Reuters story word for word, have the software suggest replacing the replica with the original. Treat local news duplicates the same as any wordpress+adsense blog. If journalists are adding commentary thats a different story (…

> Why cant facebook just go after blogspam clickbait in general?

Hard to do with just a few algorithms. They would need human eyes reviewing sources. And since Facebook seems keen on eliminating its human workforce through AI/ML, I doubt that they would suddenly embrace human reviewers again.

Re: News Feed FYI: Addressing Hoaxes and Fake News

#130

Post by dabockster »

floatrock wrote: post #123
DrScump wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"fact checkers comes from community consensus on the legitimacy of fact checkers..." There's a danger there. "Community consensus" condemned Galileo when he dared mention a heliocentric solar system, for one example. Did that make the Earth-centered solar system "fact"?

Community consensus also eventually vindicated him. More importantly, what's the alternative? Turning it all off and thinking independently is one option. Kudos to those who do that, but if you're here reading this, by definition you want to participate in social media. So then the question becomes how do we build a less toxic and more productive social media?

> So then the question becomes how do we build a less toxic and more productive social media?

1. Enforce a basic standard of conduct. That is, define the point at which a conversation becomes toxic. Encourage people to "respectfully disagree" with each other so conversations don't degrade too far.

2. Enforce posting/commenting styles similar to something like the AP Style Guide. Encourage proper punctuation and grammar throughout the platform. Also encourage the community to enforce this on their own. (Yes, I am a grammar nazi in this case. But I'm tired of seeing things like "u r stoopid !!!" as a post or comment.)

3. Hire or appoint real people to review complaints. Do not rely on an automated system for this.

4. Use a temporal based feed only (newest posts first). Do not show an algorithmic feed "tailored" to a user's current interests.

5. Operate as a small group/company. Don't try to become a publicly traded multinational corporation with too many investors to answer to.

6. Be as transparent and neutral as possible. Have a place for users to chime in on the development of new features and bug fixes.

Post reply on HN