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

171–180 of 268 posts

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

#171

Post by Retric »

menacingly wrote: post #153
Retric wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

but look at how you're framing it. the undesirable speech isn't a disease the body has, it's a part of the body. we are the collective, even the gross parts. if we want to change what we don't like, we do it with competing ideas, not by cutting them off

These are not competing ideas, they are just lies. I have no problem with the Weekly World News being on a fiction shelf, but we have libel laws for a reason. The truth does not have a sign outside saying 'This is true' and lies repeated often enough get a following.

PS: There is a huge difference between blowing things that actually happened out of proportion to support an argument and saying anything that someone might believe.

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

#172

Post by kelukelugames »

bduerst wrote: post #146
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.) Except they don't. You should have said "inb4 John Stuart Mill", one of the founders of free speech philosophy who said that that the harm principle trumps freedom of speech (i.e. if an expression causes harm, then that expression can be silenced). This idea of freedom of speech "as a prin…

Can someone please explain to me what is the modern day freedom of speech?

I know the 1st amendment protects Americans from the government but today's free speech advocates, warriors, or whatever they are called look a bunch of angry men.

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

#173

Post by MBCook »

kumarvvr wrote: post #113
MBCook wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...dangerous slippery slope of putting too much power into a single,private, profit-seeking entity. That's the problem. We're ALREADY THERE. It happened years ago. It's not a slippery slope, it's the thing behind us. And that's not even mentioning Google. At least they're trying (VERY late, if you ask me). They could have chosen to let it continue and profit off it. After all we know it makes lots of clicks and ad…

They are trying it now because the negative press about their main products role in the election debacle might hurt their bottomline. IMV their response is very late, very weak and a half hearted attempt.

I agree COMPLETELY. All I can say is 'at least they're trying' even if it's years late. I'd hate to see what happened if they didn't do anything at all.

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

#174

Post by TallGuyShort »

bduerst wrote: post #166
TallGuyShort wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If anyone wants an example of this, look at the coverage of the crowd size at Trump's inauguration. That's still held up as the canonical example of the Trump administration's "alternative facts" (in fact that's when the phrase was coined, I believe). But there's high resolution video of the crowds during the ceremony that clearly contradicts the photos of sparse crowds. I also think the guy is a lying moron, but the…

Can you share this 'high resolution video'? AFAIK, those videos were debunked as fake news because the National Park Services photos showed sparse crowds during the ceremony.

Yeah - see the CNN Gigapixel linked to in another reply. I was watching ABC's live feed, which is 8 hours on YouTube I don't feel like sifting through. Much of the debate is over whether or not it was bigger than Obama's, which I really couldn't care less about, and I'm hardly defending Trump's obsession with the comparison, but there's reliable sources matching Trump at the podium with a good view of a very different looking crowd. It's just hardly the case I would make about how it's all just "alternative facts".

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

#175

Post by sageikosa »

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…

People can only manipulate millions of others easily when they are led to believe that they should be led.

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

#176

Post by thomnottom »

TallGuyShort wrote: post #163
jhpriestley wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a photo by the National Parks Service, timestamped 11:51AM, according to the Washington Post. Frankly I trust high-resolution photographic evidence vetted by the National Parks Service and the Washington Post reporting staff, over your memory of unnamed, unsourced live video. But yeah both sides, totally. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/03/06/...

http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2017/01/politics/trump-in... Really - there are stronger arguments against Trump.

And that photo is from the opposite direction, focuses on a different part of the crowd, and in no way contradicts the smaller crowd shown in the other picture.

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

#177

Post by rout39574 »

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…

> [...] (yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre) [...]

Please read up on this concept. It does not mean what you think, and is so frequently voiced as part of a case advocating restrictions on speech, it's become something of a hot-button topic.

https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha...

Money quote:

  After Holmes' opinions in the Schenck trilogy, the law of the United States 
  was this: you could be convicted and sentenced to prison under the Espionage
  Act if you criticized the war, or conscription, in a way that "obstructed" 
  conscription, which might mean as little as convincing people to write and 
  march and petition against it. This is the context of the "fire in a theater" 
  quote that people so love to brandish to justify censorship.
So if you think war protesters should be jailed, then you've found your precedent; carry on. But if you think that notion is heinous, you might want to think again about your example.

You might even want to reconsider your position.

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

#178

Post by fullshark »

0xbear wrote: post #86

Part of the strategy employed by mainstream media to misinform the public is _selective_ reporting. That is, either the entire event is not reported if it doesn't fit the narrative, or parts that don't fit the narrative are simply omitted or deemphasized. Will FB detect and demonetize that as well?

No, do you have a suggested way to do this? Seems impossible at FBs scale.

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

#179

Post by cjslep »

wooter wrote: post #99
MBCook wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...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?

Read "The Coming Of The Third Reich" by Richard J Evans to see how a very liberal democracy (Weimar Republic) was undermined:

1) No strong sense of "norms" in the culture

2) Manipulation of "Free Speech" into "Equal Speech"

3) Manipulation of a populist movement entirely built on nostalgia, the-jews-backstabbed-the-kaiser mythology, and "Germany First" so that they were far enough from Hitler that he could claim to not control them directly, but everyone else feared touching him would start a nationwide riot.

4) Political violence was normalized

5) Everything (churches, tennis clubs) had political party variants (ex: the socialist democrat Protestant church vs a communist one)

6) Terrorist attack on the Reichstag was a huge opportunity and turning point

There's a world of difference between the Internet of 2017 and Germany of 1932 that I really do suggest keeping them apart, and pick up the book.

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

#180

Post by ricw »

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.)

Thousands of years? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's really only been put into a constitution a smigeon more than 200 years ago.

But that's besides the point. Freedom of speech has always been an imperfect principle. At anytime we are and have been censored in any society. In the west we probably have fewer censorships, but still we censor child porn, financial cheating / insider trading as well as "hate speech". And that is good. Other societies such as china do exactly the same just that the goal post has shifted a little more.

The point is this: freedom of speech is a relative term and has changed between societies and in time. It's never been free in absolute terms.

It's also recently not revealed the truth and made us less just, which is what it's only real purpose is.

The goalpost needs changing to make it achieve that again.

Post reply on HN