They really should just disallow all posting from Nov 1 until after the elections. It would be much more effective
Facebook to ban misinformation on voting in upcoming U.S. elections
121–130 of 151 posts
Re: Facebook to ban misinformation on voting in upcoming U.S. elections
#122Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wish it was a matter of outreach, but I I fear people won’t remember your wonderful analogy unless they identify as a member of your tribe. Instead, putting skeptics on TV who are a member of their tribe, and who assured them it is nothing to worry about, allows them to carry on mining coal and driving their SUVs where they need to go and not updating any of their beliefs. All those things are expensive and painful…
I heard that story in college. It stuck out because it was pithy and convincing. If you think people don't listen to new ideas or change their minds, do you think people should only be allowed to hear what you think is true, so that they don't hear wrong ideas to begin with?
Nope, I’m just disillusioned that everyone is as open as college you to new ideas and that we can simply go reach the people who don’t want to be reached.
I suspect that the fact that you were taking chemistry in college means you were already in a very different state to receive new ideas compared with your average TV news viewer who is currently skeptical of climate change, and that difference is really important.
I’m not saying let’s throw up our hands, but people like Gore and Billy Nye are trying outreach, and it isn’t because they are bad at articulating ideas that this is still a problem.
Re: Facebook to ban misinformation on voting in upcoming U.S. elections
#123The ban on misinformation is only on information regarding how you can vote, which seems reasonable since it is something that can be fairly easily fact-checked - either you can vote over mail, or you can't, there isn't an in-between. However I think it would be better if they didn't try and limit the spread of false articles - instead maybe they could put some kind of disclaimer on the post, saying "Facebook fact-checkers believe this to be false" or something like that. Then the actual distribution of the content isn't up to the fact-checkers.
Obviously Facebook can do what they want, they are a private company, but I think it is best if they treat everyone's opinion/articles equally as much as possible, so long as they are not violating the content guidelines on the website.
Re: Facebook to ban misinformation on voting in upcoming U.S. elections
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
Feel free to look at the list of fact-checkers that Facebook uses for any particular country, if you're so inclined: https://www.facebook.com/help/publisher/182222309230722
[flagged]
It's a journalism startup much like ProPublica, i. e. taking on long-term projects with in-depth reporting.
And take your anti-semitism elsewhere.
Re: Facebook to ban misinformation on voting in upcoming U.S. elections
#125Earlier quoted context omitted.
Herbert Marcuse picked up on this idea that mass media broadcasts any opinion no matter how stupid and misinformed in 1965, and it's only gotten worse: >Within the affluent democracy, the affluent discussion prevails, and within the established framework, it is tolerant to a large extent. All points of view can be heard: the Communist and the Fascist, the Left and the Right, the white and the Negro, the crusaders for…
At the same time, sometimes the informed are wrong because of fundamentally flawed assumptions. Most of science at one point thought the world was flat. More recently, the mainstream experts have been wrong on: - the superiority of American mass motorization - the environment - the drug epidemic - the economic sustainability of a housing-investment-centered economy So on and so forth. Democracy is great because it al…
Most of science at one point thought the world was flat.
The flatness that some in Abrahamic traditions clung to was partially motivated by apparent conflict with scripture, such as explaining the stoppage of the sun miracle.
Re: Facebook to ban misinformation on voting in upcoming U.S. elections
#126I really don't think you should remove information (or even be able to sue someone, except for defamation) for it being false, because it gives people the false impression that if information is printed or allowed on Facebook that it's probably accurate. We need to give everyone the impression that whatever they read might be false, because it actually might be false. Maybe that will make people think critically abou…
This. Assume everything is false until proven otherwise.
So every time you let your spouse take your car you do a DNA test to make sure they haven't been switched with a look-alike?
That's just a somewhat extreme illustration of how you, and everybody else, has to rely on heuristics to evaluate statements. It's impossible to even prove a tenth of percentage points of the facts you rely on daily from first principle.
Re: Facebook to ban misinformation on voting in upcoming U.S. elections
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
I heard that story in college. It stuck out because it was pithy and convincing. If you think people don't listen to new ideas or change their minds, do you think people should only be allowed to hear what you think is true, so that they don't hear wrong ideas to begin with?
Nope, I’m just disillusioned that everyone is as open as college you to new ideas and that we can simply go reach the people who don’t want to be reached. I suspect that the fact that you were taking chemistry in college means you were already in a very different state to receive new ideas compared with your average TV news viewer who is currently skeptical of climate change, and that difference is really important.…
people like Gore and Billy Nye are trying outreach
Re: Facebook to ban misinformation on voting in upcoming U.S. elections
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
They spent over $100,000 on ads during the 2016 campaign. You can't deny that the voters were manipulated! /s
The scale of people affected went beyond ads - there was a lot of group creation and stirring controversy. They also got Americans to organize protests, I think the full reach was around 126 million people. "When Facebook first acknowledged last year the Russian intrusion on its platform, it seemed modest in scale. The $100,000 spent on ads was a trivial sum compared with the tens of millions spent on Facebook by bot…
the full reach was around 126 million
Re: Facebook to ban misinformation on voting in upcoming U.S. elections
#129Facebook needs to be regulated or the US will become the next China. Once the other tech companies see that they can censor political views they disagree with, they will and the US will have what China has without even the state mandating it.
Re: Facebook to ban misinformation on voting in upcoming U.S. elections
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
You find it concerning because it's easy to abuse. The fact-checkers get to decide what is "true", and other Facebook users are unlikely to listen to you if you try and convince them that the fact-checkers are wrong.
Easy to abuse has nothing to do with it. Positioning anyone to be an information filter is wrong. Full stop. This is totalitarianism 101. It doesn't matter if they're right or wrong. Freedom isn't predicated on moral superiority - it is the polar opposite. Freedom is exactly for those who are "wrong". I cannot imagine a more dangerous position for Facebook to take.
Ok, then how do you prevent things like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18225364 ?