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

Testimony of Facebook, Google, and Twitter to US Senate

lgraham.senate.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 94 posts

Re: Testimony of Facebook, Google, and Twitter to US Senate

#11

Post by sova »

QAPereo wrote: post #9
sova wrote: post #7

Facebook Counsel says: Our authenticity policy is the cornerstone of how we prevent abuse on our platform, and was the basis of our internal investigation and what we found. From the beginning, we have always believed that Facebook is a place for authentic dialogue, and that the best way to ensure authenticity is to require people to use the names they are known by. Fake accounts undermine this objective, and are clo…

>Then, Finally, I got to Clinn Watts' testimony, and this human is a saint: I propose "nutrition labels" for information outlets, a rating icon for news producing outlets displayed next to their news links in social media feeds and search engines. The icon would provide users an assessment of the news outlet's ratio of fact versus fiction and reporting versus opinion. The opt-out rating system would not infringe free…

Ideally the icon shows a realtime value or reasonably up-to-date value of Ratio of Fact:Fiction, Ratio of Reporting:Opinion. If you saw a piece of news from YCorp and their Fact-to-Fiction ratio was 9:1 you may say, "okay, that sounds likely." If their Fact-to-fiction is 1:18 However, you might just remember to laugh instead of resharing potentially hazardous messages. To me "icon" can also mean values/numbers/measure and not just "this is healthy and green, this is toxic and glowing"

Re: Testimony of Facebook, Google, and Twitter to US Senate

#12

Post by dangerlibrary »

QAPereo wrote: post #9
sova wrote: post #7

Facebook Counsel says: Our authenticity policy is the cornerstone of how we prevent abuse on our platform, and was the basis of our internal investigation and what we found. From the beginning, we have always believed that Facebook is a place for authentic dialogue, and that the best way to ensure authenticity is to require people to use the names they are known by. Fake accounts undermine this objective, and are clo…

>Then, Finally, I got to Clinn Watts' testimony, and this human is a saint: I propose "nutrition labels" for information outlets, a rating icon for news producing outlets displayed next to their news links in social media feeds and search engines. The icon would provide users an assessment of the news outlet's ratio of fact versus fiction and reporting versus opinion. The opt-out rating system would not infringe free…

This place is not a place of honor.

No highly esteemed deed is commemorated here.

Nothing valued is here.

This place is a message and part of a system of messages.

Pay attention to it!

Sending this message was important to us.

We considered ourselves to be a powerful culture.

Re: Testimony of Facebook, Google, and Twitter to US Senate

#13

Post by sova »

Xeoncross wrote: post #10
sova wrote: post #7

Facebook Counsel says: Our authenticity policy is the cornerstone of how we prevent abuse on our platform, and was the basis of our internal investigation and what we found. From the beginning, we have always believed that Facebook is a place for authentic dialogue, and that the best way to ensure authenticity is to require people to use the names they are known by. Fake accounts undermine this objective, and are clo…

`nutrition labels` are already kind of subjective as we keep finding out just what information is actually most important to our health and revising the labels. Having a "truth vs fiction" rating next to news sites isn't as easy as you think. Sure, some things are easy to qualify - but when it comes to wars, motivations, scandals - many common stories will always be left with two equally disputed sides of the story.…

This is not an easy task, but it seems like one the Tech Giants would be able to tackle with their brainpower, resource, intelligence, outreach, and general sense of impending doom (read as "morality"). Or would it be best to focus more on emoji.

Re: Testimony of Facebook, Google, and Twitter to US Senate

#14

Post by fleitz »

sova wrote: post #13
Xeoncross wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

`nutrition labels` are already kind of subjective as we keep finding out just what information is actually most important to our health and revising the labels. Having a "truth vs fiction" rating next to news sites isn't as easy as you think. Sure, some things are easy to qualify - but when it comes to wars, motivations, scandals - many common stories will always be left with two equally disputed sides of the story.…

This is not an easy task, but it seems like one the Tech Giants would be able to tackle with their brainpower, resource, intelligence, outreach, and general sense of impending doom (read as "morality"). Or would it be best to focus more on emoji.

I assure you that outside, people are still mostly normal.

I have visited this land, and spoken to its inhabitants, most everyone is pretty chill and friendly.

Re: Testimony of Facebook, Google, and Twitter to US Senate

#15

Post by QAPereo »

dangerlibrary wrote: post #12
QAPereo wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Then, Finally, I got to Clinn Watts' testimony, and this human is a saint: I propose "nutrition labels" for information outlets, a rating icon for news producing outlets displayed next to their news links in social media feeds and search engines. The icon would provide users an assessment of the news outlet's ratio of fact versus fiction and reporting versus opinion. The opt-out rating system would not infringe free…

This place is not a place of honor. No highly esteemed deed is commemorated here. Nothing valued is here. This place is a message and part of a system of messages. Pay attention to it! Sending this message was important to us. We considered ourselves to be a powerful culture.

The WIPP?! I love it... a desolate plain of windblown sand, gathering around the base of massive, repulsive obsidian and concrete pillars.

Then again, maybe we just go with, "There be dragons."

Re: Testimony of Facebook, Google, and Twitter to US Senate

#16

Post by ou89 »

Hey Russians! If you guys have worked out how to get the herd to stampede, then why for the love of cabbage, do you need to use this skill to just cause randomness???

I mean can't you guys get the herd to buy Russian iPhones or line up for Russian super hero movies or something?

I really can't understand what the Russians have gained here. If Mueller's final report says the Russians had a major influence on the election, then what happens? I can't imagine it being good for anyone.

Re: Testimony of Facebook, Google, and Twitter to US Senate

#17

Post by sjeohp »

sova wrote: post #7

Facebook Counsel says: Our authenticity policy is the cornerstone of how we prevent abuse on our platform, and was the basis of our internal investigation and what we found. From the beginning, we have always believed that Facebook is a place for authentic dialogue, and that the best way to ensure authenticity is to require people to use the names they are known by. Fake accounts undermine this objective, and are clo…

> The icon would provide users an assessment of the news outlet's ratio of fact versus fiction and reporting versus opinion.

Yes, we should always trust powerful institutions to tell us what the truth is...

Re: Testimony of Facebook, Google, and Twitter to US Senate

#18

Post by jonny_eh »

sjeohp wrote: post #17
sova wrote: post #7

Facebook Counsel says: Our authenticity policy is the cornerstone of how we prevent abuse on our platform, and was the basis of our internal investigation and what we found. From the beginning, we have always believed that Facebook is a place for authentic dialogue, and that the best way to ensure authenticity is to require people to use the names they are known by. Fake accounts undermine this objective, and are clo…

> The icon would provide users an assessment of the news outlet's ratio of fact versus fiction and reporting versus opinion. Yes, we should always trust powerful institutions to tell us what the truth is...

I agree, sans-sarcasm. It's better than the alternative, which is allowing Russian disinformation to determine facts.

Re: Testimony of Facebook, Google, and Twitter to US Senate

#19

Post by sjeohp »

sova wrote: post #11
QAPereo wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Then, Finally, I got to Clinn Watts' testimony, and this human is a saint: I propose "nutrition labels" for information outlets, a rating icon for news producing outlets displayed next to their news links in social media feeds and search engines. The icon would provide users an assessment of the news outlet's ratio of fact versus fiction and reporting versus opinion. The opt-out rating system would not infringe free…

Ideally the icon shows a realtime value or reasonably up-to-date value of Ratio of Fact:Fiction, Ratio of Reporting:Opinion. If you saw a piece of news from YCorp and their Fact-to-Fiction ratio was 9:1 you may say, "okay, that sounds likely." If their Fact-to-fiction is 1:18 However, you might just remember to laugh instead of resharing potentially hazardous messages. To me "icon" can also mean values/numbers/measur…

> potentially hazardous messages

THOUGHTCRIME ALERT

Must protect fragile minds from dangerous messages...

Re: Testimony of Facebook, Google, and Twitter to US Senate

#20

Post by r00fus »

Xeoncross wrote: post #10
sova wrote: post #7

Facebook Counsel says: Our authenticity policy is the cornerstone of how we prevent abuse on our platform, and was the basis of our internal investigation and what we found. From the beginning, we have always believed that Facebook is a place for authentic dialogue, and that the best way to ensure authenticity is to require people to use the names they are known by. Fake accounts undermine this objective, and are clo…

`nutrition labels` are already kind of subjective as we keep finding out just what information is actually most important to our health and revising the labels. Having a "truth vs fiction" rating next to news sites isn't as easy as you think. Sure, some things are easy to qualify - but when it comes to wars, motivations, scandals - many common stories will always be left with two equally disputed sides of the story.…

Nutrion labels - would you consider them harmful? I see them as a net positive.
Post reply on HN