51–60 of 268 posts
I think it's kinda pointless. By definition, false news generate some kind of shock feeling that urge people to comment and share the link, creating a viral loop of people (a digital angry mob) fueling the false content as real. Blocking it to be advertised might - just might - slow its viral expansion. Is that the best FB can do about this?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They played with flagging satirical articles back in 2014: http://mashable.com/2014/08/17/facebook-satire-tag/
I see a lot of comments on satire links that clearly demonstrate that large numbers of people can’t always spot satire. That possibly says more about the current cultural and political climate than it does about people’s gullibility though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Fake news" appears to be "news I don't like" and has no correlation with the accuracy of the content. Conveniently, Facebook seems to agree with many major media outlets about what news they don't like, so they can present their arbitrary definition of "fake" as objective and conveniently no one can break through the bubble to prove otherwise.
Some groups flat out make up news stories to fit some narrative. What else are you going to call that than 'fake news'? 'Candidate X comes out as gay.' 'Secret photos reveal candidate X at KKK lynching.' Are both rather over the top, but also the kind of lies that influence elections.
You can't trust user reports. They will say a story is fake when they don't like it.
You can't trust some worker in Bangladesh to determine this either just as easily as you can determine if something is NSFW.
You still can't trust AI.
So how? It hires specialists in each field to determine what is real and what is not?
I guess Facebook gets to decide what is "False News". This is an egregious example of Doublespeak. All news to an extent is "false" and not necessarily true. We're truly fucked
As a libertarian I never thought I'd hear myself say that.
The risk here is not that the system will have bad goals, it's that it's easy for manipulation to redefine the core terms used to classify "bad" content. Even now, we regularly see even clear terms like "correct" or "incorrect" applied by fact-checking websites through a fairly biased lens. This is not a partisan issue, when you start down the road of handing the keys to shaping public thought to a powerful party, yo…
Knowing the tactics of people behind fake news, it's good that Facebook is responding accordingly to punish and get rid of bad actors on their platform.
It's once again showing that we can't have pure anarcho decentralization. It would be a haven for bad actors that goes unpunished.
We can absolutely set definition for what is bad and what isn't bad. What is clearly bad is writing fake news about certain group of ethnic group you hate and manipulating others into believing your twisted idiosyncratic views about Jews, Hindus and Moors.
edit: there is some heavy downvote brigading going on here. I've alerted the mods.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Fake news" appears to be "news I don't like" and has no correlation with the accuracy of the content. Conveniently, Facebook seems to agree with many major media outlets about what news they don't like, so they can present their arbitrary definition of "fake" as objective and conveniently no one can break through the bubble to prove otherwise.
Some groups flat out make up news stories to fit some narrative. What else are you going to call that than 'fake news'? 'Candidate X comes out as gay.' 'Secret photos reveal candidate X at KKK lynching.' Are both rather over the top, but also the kind of lies that influence elections.
This isn't new.
I hate the idea of information being filtered through Snopes. Why is a huge global corporation like FB using a dodgy divorced couple to decide who sees what, seems ridiculous to me. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4042194/Facebook-fac... AP has other issues to put it politely.
Wait, are you critiquing Snopes based on the personal lives of the people who run it, based on an article about them in a tabloid? Are you trolling?
So yes, I'm quite interested in the personal lives of the people running a company about to be ordained as "the objective truth" by Facebook/Google/et al
So how does Facebook really know if something is fake? You can't trust user reports. They will say a story is fake when they don't like it. You can't trust some worker in Bangladesh to determine this either just as easily as you can determine if something is NSFW. You still can't trust AI. So how? It hires specialists in each field to determine what is real and what is not?
How the hell are they going to measure this?