Facebook says Pages that regularly share false news won’t be able to buy ads • Hacker News Board

Re: Facebook says Pages that regularly share false news won’t be able to buy ads

#71

Post by 659087 » Mon, Aug 28, 2017, 4:22 PM UTC

ctdonath wrote: post #44

I've followed social media for a long time (starting back when one could actually read every single Usenet post daily). There is a definite life cycle to social media sites. Those reaching the "too big to fail" stage are usually about to. AOL, CompuServe, MySpace, etc were all indominately massive juggernauts reaching to take over the media world - and vanished almost overnight. The sudden influx of editorial censors…

None of those previous platforms had anywhere near the reach Facebook has, or the amount of control Facebook has over the private and public communications and content seen by their users.

Re: Facebook says Pages that regularly share false news won’t be able to buy ads

#72

Post by meri_dian » Mon, Aug 28, 2017, 4:24 PM UTC

Unfortunately we are stuck between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, we could have completely open and unfiltered platforms which guarantee freedom of expression but at the same time leave our institutions (public and private) vulnerable to malicious influence.

On the other hand, we could attempt to build systems whose purpose is to remove fake news, so defending ourselves against a particularly aggressive form of attack on our institutions, but at the same time creating a situation in which that system is given the power to decide what is fake and what is not.

Are highly speculative opinion pieces which make accusations far from the main stream fake? What about when a complex event takes place and there are numerous 'takes' on how the event played out. Whose version of the events - whose version of reality reality - does the system use to make judgments on the veracity of news?

The situation is complex and we must tread carefully.

Re: Facebook says Pages that regularly share false news won’t be able to buy ads

#73

Post by AckSyn » Mon, Aug 28, 2017, 4:24 PM UTC

JacobJans wrote: post #68

menacingly wrote: post #41

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…

> This is no different than being able to tell when someone is bullshitting just as you walk through every day life, and thinking we need to shield the poor naive populace from harmful ideas is borderline stereotypical paternalism. There is a huge difference. If someone is bullshitting you in real life, you don't give them a giant microphone so they can reach millions of people. You ignore them, or politely engage in…

This isn't about giving people a platform but monetizing it.

I'm against Facebook for this particular stance. They think people are idiots and try to shape their version of what they consider facts and truth to suit their own bias.

Re: Facebook says Pages that regularly share false news won’t be able to buy ads

#74

Post by briholt » Mon, Aug 28, 2017, 4:25 PM UTC

Retric wrote: post #39

briholt wrote: post #28

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.

"Some groups" includes the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, Rolling Stone, etc.

Re: Facebook says Pages that regularly share false news won’t be able to buy ads

#75

Post by usefulcat » Mon, Aug 28, 2017, 4:25 PM UTC

Retric wrote: post #39

briholt wrote: post #28

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.

"Some groups flat out make up news stories to fit some narrative. What else are you going to call that than 'fake news'?"

Thankfully we have a word for that, and it even has a relatively well agreed upon meaning: lies.

The problem with the label "fake news" is, as has been pointed out, that it can mean different things to different people.

Re: Facebook says Pages that regularly share false news won’t be able to buy ads

#76

Post by quoquoquo » Mon, Aug 28, 2017, 4:25 PM UTC

wooter wrote: post #61

quoquoquo wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The game has changed. There are people with intolerant and twisted views trying to manipulate the naive herd of sheep who blindly follows whatever people like on Facebook. 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 f…

sad to me that people are so quick to dismiss the principles of free speech on the basis that "the game has changed" after thousands of years of human history proving it hasn't. (inb4 1st amendment is only for the gov - that is a selective truth. the principles of free speech exist outside of government.)

So do you support people manipulating and creating fake news but not the people who are trying to prevent it from happening?

Facebook can absolutely kick out people who don't behave on their platform. Playing the freedom of speech card doesn't work when you actively try to oppress other's freedom of speech through tactical manipulation.

Punishing individuals and groups who willfully and knowingly engage in spreading information containing false facts concocted to support their intolerant views is absolutely necessary to protect freedom of speech.

Re: Facebook says Pages that regularly share false news won’t be able to buy ads

#77

Post by jobu » Mon, Aug 28, 2017, 4:26 PM UTC

kumarvvr wrote: post #18

It is unfortunate that platforms like Facebook have become the beacons of pessimism. I am talking in the context of the usage of social media tools to harm society, rather than help it. For me, FB, TW, etc have become unreliable sources of news. Here, FB is trying to limit ads from pages that share false news, but who will decide that?? 1. FB - Leads to a dangerous slippery slope of putting too much power into a sing…

> For me, FB, TW, etc have become unreliable sources of news.

For me, it has shown that a large chunk my social network is incapable of detecting bullshit. Last year I tried linking to Snopes or Politifact when people would post obvious falsehoods, but most people just don't care.

What I want from FB is a feed that doesn't include shares or likes of any external content. Seeing and reading about life events of my friends and family is what got me hooked on FB, but right now that's all lost in the torrent of bullshit.

Re: Facebook says Pages that regularly share false news won’t be able to buy ads

#78

Post by YCode » Mon, Aug 28, 2017, 4:26 PM UTC

pier25 wrote: post #54

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?

Which is strange, because didn't they just get a lot of flak for having "editors" that they subsequently had to let go?

Re: Facebook says Pages that regularly share false news won’t be able to buy ads

#79

Post by joshuamorton » Mon, Aug 28, 2017, 4:26 PM UTC

wooter wrote: post #61

quoquoquo wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The game has changed. There are people with intolerant and twisted views trying to manipulate the naive herd of sheep who blindly follows whatever people like on Facebook. 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 f…

sad to me that people are so quick to dismiss the principles of free speech on the basis that "the game has changed" after thousands of years of human history proving it hasn't. (inb4 1st amendment is only for the gov - that is a selective truth. the principles of free speech exist outside of government.)

> "the game has changed" after thousands of years of human history proving it hasn't.

But it clearly has. Only in the past 5 year did it become possible for one guy in Romania to pose as a small town Ohio news agency (or 4) and spread nonsense to millions of people.

Do you feel that academic journals violate the principle of free speech? If not, why is what facebook is doing any different?

Re: Facebook says Pages that regularly share false news won’t be able to buy ads

#80

Post by jonathanjaeger » Mon, Aug 28, 2017, 4:26 PM UTC

I'm an ad buyer on Facebook and sometimes Facebook gets very strict, and they ultimately come to a compromise between ad performance/advertisers and their policies.

I know people are scared of 'censorship', but they probably will end up just targeting those crazy conspiratorial pages that clearly share the most bogus stuff to prey on people to later sell bogus products to. You'd be surprised at what's out there..