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

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

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 268 posts

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

#131

Post by menacingly »

ebola1717 wrote: post #118
menacingly wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't like that, you're going to hate the physical realm, where anyone can make any claim and you're left with nothing but your wits to discern the truth

This misunderstands the way technology, social media in particular, have exacerbated problems with misinformation. No one is claiming the media was perfect before. Obviously hoaxes and false rumors have always been a thing. But social media has made disinformation scalable .

Speed and scale of speech do not impact whether or not it's got an equal seat at the table. It just means you're cool with any expression as long as it's not threatening. Which there's nothing special about, it's how basically everyone is by default. There's no principle there.

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

#132

Post by verelo »

verelo wrote: post #12
olivermarks wrote: post #4

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.

I'm personally unsure how their relationship status impacts the credibility of the service, but it bring brought up by you does make me question the validity of your statement.

Really, a down-vote for this? Go back to the 1950's, that's the only place where someone's relationship status belongs in your judgement. If you cannot accept divorced groups, no wonder we suck at gender diversity and LGBTQ rights/representation.

Before someone asks, I'm not divorced or a member of the LGBTQ community, I just believe in the rights of others.

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

#133

Post by Retric »

menacingly wrote: post #131
ebola1717 wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This misunderstands the way technology, social media in particular, have exacerbated problems with misinformation. No one is claiming the media was perfect before. Obviously hoaxes and false rumors have always been a thing. But social media has made disinformation scalable .

Speed and scale of speech do not impact whether or not it's got an equal seat at the table. It just means you're cool with any expression as long as it's not threatening. Which there's nothing special about, it's how basically everyone is by default. There's no principle there.

Propaganda is used because it works and scale ends up changing type. Consider the difference from 1 dead cell vs 1 million dead cells at the tip of your finger vs 1 billion dead cells in your arm.

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

#134

Post by yorwba »

neuronexmachina wrote: post #85

Back in November, PC World did some testing with fake FB accounts to see what fake news would be targeted at them. It was pretty eye-opening: http://www.pcworld.com/article/3142412/windows/just-how-part... > The Macedonians may still be at it, because our Republican supporter, Todd White, was flooded with partisan posts. Worse, over a little more than two days, we counted 10 such posts in his feed that were fake, mos…

Sounds like there is an untapped market segment. By the next US election, someone will have figured out what kind of content gets Democrats riled up, and makes a ton selling headlines to the highest bidder.

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

#135

Post by samstave »

jdc0589 wrote: post #66
samstave wrote: post #40

Uh? What about "fake ads"? What about the billions of page views for spammy bs on all platforms and sites, shouldn't those be taken out?

good luck with that. those fake ads make Facebook money.

That was my point :-)

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

#136

Post by samstave »

pdkl95 wrote: post #69
samstave wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't forget this infamous onion revelation, way before Snowden: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJ380SHZvYU

Another infamous Onion video in a similar style is "The Power Of Selling Out: Your Customers As Political Capital". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8c_m6U1f9o

"Facebook former head of security now works for the NSA"

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/06/faceb...

Not to mention the cadre of other governmentalistia that work there...

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

#137

Post by brandonmenc »

FussyZeus wrote: post #97
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.)

> (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…

> No one, no matter what size corporation or platform, is expected to give you a podium from which to do so.

The intersection of people arguing that ISPs are common carriers and also that corporations can deny you a platform.

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

#138

Post by claytonjy »

briholt wrote: post #90
jobu wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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'd be careful, both Politifact and Snopes have been caught pushing their own slanted narratives. Example: When Bernie says black youth unemployment is ~50%, it's true. When Trump says the same, it's false. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/... http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2016/jun/20/do...

I've had similar thoughts on where they draw the line between "Mostly False" and "Mostly True", but in this case it seems reasonable to give more credit to the one who responded to request for clarification and pointed to a specific study the number was drawn from. Still, I think "Mostly True" is a bit too generous for Bernie's claim.

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

#139

Post by Frondo »

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.)

Here's how I've come to feel about this:

If this is the world we're headed into, by treating free speech as an absolute and inviolate, then I'm not sure it's a world I want to live in.

When nazis start inciting riots against my friends and loved ones, and quislings defend that speech as ok to disseminate because free speech, is this the world I want to live in?

I'm lucky, I don't look like anyone who's a target for white supremacists. Most of my friends and loved ones aren't that lucky.

I have a little bit of a different perspective because of that--the violence is already coming to our door and no amount of talking is going to cool white supremacist or nazi heads when they're out there.

So, universal, absolute free speech...is this building a world I want to inhabit? Increasingly, no. And proponents of an absolute and inviolate principle of free speech have no answer to the violence that's coming.

I'd love to be able to say I supported that principle that thoroughly, so if you've got one besides "just talk them out of attacking your friends and loved ones," I'm all ears.

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

#140

Post by ksk »

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?

If I had to guess, they will probably deploy a human assisted AI that barely works, and rely on public outrage to handle any outliers that turn into a PR problem. It's worked so far for other internet companies.
Post reply on HN