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

#91

Post by MBCook » Mon, Aug 28, 2017, 4:29 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.)

> ...after thousands of years of human history proving it hasn't.

People couldn't manipulate millions of others as easily. You couldn't even REACH millions of people easily. And you had to be an actual authority figure to be given that power (perhaps a corrupt practice but still).

The communications landscape is quite different from 2000, remarkably different from 1980, extremely different from 1960, a world away from 1920, and bares very little resemblance to 1820.

How do things in the 1500s and 1600s say that thins aren't different?

You said thousands of years, how do the lessons of 2000 BC show us things haven't changed?

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

#92

Post by gmarx » Mon, Aug 28, 2017, 4:30 PM UTC

jobu wrote: post #77

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 fri…

I find recently that on political issues you need to read Snopes carefully. Often the real answer exists in what they carefully avoid saying. There is no such thing in politics as pure "fact checking". There could be; but there isn't

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

#93

Post by smokeyj » Mon, Aug 28, 2017, 4:30 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…

So people who sell microphones should care about what's said on the microphone, otherwise they should deny the sale? That doesn't sound logical from a business perspective and would lead me to suspect an alterior motive.

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

#94

Post by msimpson » Mon, Aug 28, 2017, 4:30 PM UTC

This seems to be the same idea that Google rolled out over YouTube. Demonetize videos that "may not be appropriate for all advertisers." However, the videos which are usually being demonetized are those simply expressing a dissenting opinion. It's going to be interesting what this system classifies as "fake" or "incorrect" news.

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

#95

Post by wooter » Mon, Aug 28, 2017, 4:31 PM UTC

joshuamorton wrote: post #79

wooter wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Benjamin Franklin, a runaway, started his own newspaper - as did his brother - which were called far worse than "fake news" in an "objective" way by the british.

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

#96

Post by menacingly » Mon, Aug 28, 2017, 4:31 PM UTC

quoquoquo wrote: post #56

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…

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…

Sticking to the principles of liberty even when the prevailing cultural winds are begging us not to literally _is_ the game, and it has not changed.

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

#97

Post by FussyZeus » Mon, Aug 28, 2017, 4:31 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.)

> (inb4 1st amendment is only for the gov - that is a selective truth. the principles of free speech exist outside of government.)

You say this as if it isn't a perfectly valid point. You have the right guaranteed by law to express an opinion. No one, no matter what size corporation or platform, is expected to give you a podium from which to do so.

More to the point, freedom of speech has never been an absolute, not in the way most extremist activists would have you believe. There has always been exceptions, but the common theme of them is incitement, either incitement of panic that endangers safety (yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre), incitement of hatred against a group of people, or incitement of a riot, on and on. There are all kinds of ways the Government limits your speech.

Since your use of Facebook is effectively using their network to promote your speech, Facebook is basically speaking for you to a certain degree, that means Facebook has a vested interest to not speak hateful nonsense so it by itself does not become the subject of either lawsuits from the Government or public outcry, the latter of which has already happened, the former entirely in the scope of possibilities if they continue to act like the typical tech bro and try not to take sides in the name of "Free Speech" a.k.a maximum audience numbers.

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

#98

Post by sacheendra » Mon, Aug 28, 2017, 4:32 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 is not true. Someone who bullshits in real life can still buy a microphone and can rent a stadium for his event. People can choose to attend or not attend and listen to him.

For example, Trump has spread so many falsehoods but people still attend his events.

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

#99

Post by wooter » Mon, Aug 28, 2017, 4:32 PM UTC

MBCook wrote: post #91

wooter wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

> ...after thousands of years of human history proving it hasn't. People couldn't manipulate millions of others as easily. You couldn't even REACH millions of people easily. And you had to be an actual authority figure to be given that power (perhaps a corrupt practice but still). The communications landscape is quite different from 2000, remarkably different from 1980, extremely different from 1960, a world away fro…

so how did Hitler rise? How did freedom of speech treat the West at the time? How did the opposite help Europe?

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

#100

Post by Retric » Mon, Aug 28, 2017, 4:32 PM UTC

usefulcat wrote: post #75

Retric wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think the counter argument is tabloids are not simply called lairs.

Weekly world news can have 'Batboy returns' as a headline and sure it's false. But, bookstores also have fiction sections...