11–20 of 197 posts
I'll just leave this here https://www.wired.co.uk/article/china-social-credit
B. A private company scoring its users to combat spam, as all social networks do.
I wonder what the score would be if Facebook users were to rate its trustworthiness on a scale from zero to one.
Well, yes. Have they not learned from any of the preceding work on moderating?
...and so does every other big tech company that needs to deal with spam. (Ie, any social media half worth their salt.)
Can you GDPR request this?
This seems like a "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" kind of thing. On one hand, I understand not wanting to forward every single story when a troll is mass-reporting, on the other hand though, this seems like a very 1984 approach that like all algorithms is horrendously naive.
Any closed group is likely to have a skewed sense of reality. On one hand, third party fact checkers are hopefully true to their title, but on the other hand, they could just be adding their own bias to the decisions with no oversight in a way that affects users going forward.
Add in no ability to appeal and no visibility into the system, and you have a closed system ripe for abuse.
Good job Facebook, you have learned nothing.
https://web.archive.org/web/20180821143120/https://www.washi...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be fair, Facebook users can rate Facebook's trustworthiness by simply not using Facebook. Which I would recommend. What impact on physical and mental health does it have to sit around checking different screens for InstaFaceSnap or RedditTwitTube updates?
Users/useds: Bill (not FB user) Sue (FB user) Jill (FB user) Conversation: Sue: Bill is just so unreliable. He says things and doesnt do them. Jill: Yah he did the same to me! ------ (Notices Bill's ghost profile's trustworthiness score go down, without any interaction from Bill at all. What exactly do we do about that? We in the US have no rights like this. The corps can do whatever they want, and maybe just maybe,…
As my Linear Algebra prof used to say - deep down, everything is just linear algebra...
"Lyons said she soon realized that many people were reporting posts as false simply because they did not agree with the content." Well, yes. Have they not learned from any of the preceding work on moderating?
The whole article sounds more like focusing on one implementation details of review queue prioritization (i.e. what is the difference of definition of "fake news" for this user vs Facebook's definition), rather than bigger picture.