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

191–200 of 268 posts

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

#191

Post by majewsky »

joshuamorton wrote: post #143
wooter wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

my point is that anyone who explicitly refused to reprint Benjamin Franklin's writings on the realities of the US because they were declared fake and treasonous deserved to be called censorious and biased against freedom of speech. Mind you, more than a couple of his articles were actual fake news meant to stoke discussion on British policies.

So to be clear here, it was the British government declaring his speech treasonous and attempting to censor him? If so then yes I agree. Government censorship is unacceptable. But that's not really comparable to private entities censoring on their own private whims.

For all intents and purposes, Facebook is the government of a large part of the internet.

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

#192

Post by bduerst »

TallGuyShort wrote: post #174
bduerst wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 differen…

The Gigapixel is a 360 of the stage so you can see which politicians attended, and not of the crowds in attendance, which the National Park Service's drones captured.

You said 'high resolution video' which the gigapixel is not. Can you link these reliable sources you keep eluding to?

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

#193

Post by kadenshep »

olivermarks wrote: post #186
kadenshep wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You backed up your point with a website that is staunchly pro pseudo-science and fear mongering, which contains multiple sources from the Daily Mail yet again to make their point. Of course you won't have to go far to find circular sources in an echo chamber, but finding qualified sources for your point seems to be difficult.

You are clearly debating based on perceptions of my being part of 'a certain segment of people with particular persuasions'. I gave up Facebook but I am very interested in who gets to decide what information I am allowed to see via the internet. I don't think either the Daily Mail or Snopes are credible information filters. I would hope for something better. 'Pseudo science' is another case in point. who gets to deci…

>You are clearly debating based on perceptions of my being part of 'a certain segment of people with particular persuasions'.

No I'm not. I asked a very concise question that you could not answer. You replied with junk. The optics are just icing on the cake.

Also real science adheres to the scientific method.

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

#194

Post by thomnottom »

TallGuyShort wrote: post #183
thomnottom wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You know you can rotate the image, right? There are clear landmarks along the mall, countable rows of people, and but a single section where it even comes close to matching up.

Of course I rotated it. And my point stands. The perspective is still different. The rows of people are countable, and looking at some of the further sections there is no way I would be able to count as many rows as at the other. There are 2 sections filled with people at the Obama one that are completely blocked off on the Trump one. That can't be argued with at all.

There are people who are good at estimating crowd sizes and I'll let them do their job. But, once again, this picture in no way contradicts the others.

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

#195

Post by peoplewindow »

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…

I very very rarely downvote anything on HN. I feel downvoting should be used for empty or "me too"-like comments that don't add anything. Your post isn't like that, but in your case I made an exception anyway because you started like this:

trying to manipulate the naive herd of sheep who blindly follows whatever people like on Facebook

I realise you genuinely do believe that there are vast numbers of people who are literally programmable through their Facebook news feeds as if they were a television set, and that your own vastly superior intellect would ensure that this never happens to your good self, but it's a fantastically offensive, trollish and flame-o-riffic position to take ... every bit as awful as outright racism/sexism/whatever (except your views of intellectual and moral superiority are a lot more common than actual racism or sexism in the HN community). Moreover you provide no actual evidence that such people exist in vast herd-like numbers.

When your entire contribution to the debate is "the world is full of sheep and Facebook must herd them for their own good" are you really surprised that this is considered not particularly helpful? It's like starting an argument with "people with low IQ should be affixed with ankle bracelets to ensure they don't wander around and cause trouble".

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

#196

Post by TallGuyShort »

bduerst wrote: post #192
TallGuyShort wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 differen…

The Gigapixel is a 360 of the stage so you can see which politicians attended, and not of the crowds in attendance, which the National Park Service's drones captured. You said 'high resolution video' which the gigapixel is not. Can you link these reliable sources you keep eluding to?

Nah I'm done commenting on this. There's clear imagery from both ABC and CNN I've referred to elsewhere in this thread. And it's a bloody 360 image - how hard is that?. If you want to pretend those sources are right-leaning and pretend this is actually a clear-cut case of people being willfully ignorant, whatever.

edit: knock yourself out then if you really couldn't find it from all my other comments on the topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nieiu8tmLIM.

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

#197

Post by peoplewindow »

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.

According to the article Facebook is using the term "false news" to try and sidestep that issue.

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

#199

Post by FussyZeus »

rout39574 wrote: post #177
FussyZeus wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (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 c…

I think protesters of any stripe that turn violent should be arrested. I have zero problem with peaceful protesters.

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

#200

Post by briholt »

peoplewindow wrote: post #195
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…

I very very rarely downvote anything on HN. I feel downvoting should be used for empty or "me too"-like comments that don't add anything. Your post isn't like that, but in your case I made an exception anyway because you started like this: trying to manipulate the naive herd of sheep who blindly follows whatever people like on Facebook I realise you genuinely do believe that there are vast numbers of people who are l…

The biggest fake news story is that all of my news is true.
Post reply on HN