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

Facebook, Twitter dismantle global array of disinformation networks

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 265 posts

Re: Facebook, Twitter dismantle global array of disinformation networks

#131

Post by ardy42 »

> Facebook also banned a U.S. marketing firm named Rally Forge, which it said had worked with conservative activism organization Turning Point USA and a self-proclaimed environmental body called Inclusive Conservation Group.

> Accounts controlled by Rally Forge attempted to influence public conversations around news events by flooding the comments section of news articles from prominent outlets, Facebook said.

Wow, a literal American 50 cent party-like effort.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/05/19/meet-the-chinese-intern...

Re: Facebook, Twitter dismantle global array of disinformation networks

#132

Post by marketingPro »

kache_ wrote: post #19

My dream is to work for the engineering divisions for these companies regarding automation around controlling the flow of information. It seems like such a fascinating problem

I'm sure it's not so simple. You do the tasks you are told. There are departments you never heard of tell you "we need a backdoor in the event of an Emergency"

That department doesn't realize they were told to do this by a director who knows the true purpose is propaganda.

Re: Facebook, Twitter dismantle global array of disinformation networks

#133

Post by bobthepanda »

ardy42 wrote: post #118
olivermarks wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd also argue that what's left of the corporate media is rapidly losing credibility, highly partisan and rarely objective. this feeds social network frenzy, a lot of which is people parroting and attempting to amplify ideas from their preferred channels. There's always been a huge corporate yellow journalism problem, now it is possible to instantly orchestrate rage and frenzy repeated across countless personal accou…

> I'd also argue that what's left of the corporate media is rapidly losing credibility, highly partisan and rarely objective. How so, exactly? This is kind of an odd moment, where the US president is deeply incompetent and a shameless liar, and some seem to think it's biased for the mainstream media to even point those facts out. There are definitely some aspects of the traditional media that fit your description (al…

There was an interesting article the other day how the current president of CNN emphasized Trump coverage prior to the last election because it boosted ratings. Coincidentally, he was also the president of NBC and in charge of entertainment programming when he signed Trump for The Apprentice. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/20/business/media/jeff-zucke...

Re: Facebook, Twitter dismantle global array of disinformation networks

#134

Post by twitter_anon »

aresant wrote: post #21

Disinformation content works because it drives huge engagement. Huge engagement pays the bills for FB and twitter. If we expect change we need an analog to a carbon or pollution tax for social. “Show me the incentives and I will show you the outcome.”- Charlie Munger

This is a popular sentiment on HN, but it oversimplifies the situation. Engagement, in the aggregate, does not pay the bills. Advertisers paying us to sponsor tweets does. Advertisers will only do that if paying to sponsor tweets results in either improving brand image or converting sales.

Advertisers won't pay for ads that don't get clicked on. Political pissing matches and disinformation campaigns don't bring the kind of engagement that results in clicking on ads and buying things, or of making positive brand associations.

Engagement costs us money. It increases system load and the resources required to actually run the platform. Raising engagement for the sake of raising engagement is a net negative in the long run, because it results in too much engagement that doesn't sell products (and thus ads).

I suspect there are some here who won't believe this; a few may be tempted to throw out a certain pithy Upton Sinclair quote. I'd like to know from this camp why you think that way.

Re: Facebook, Twitter dismantle global array of disinformation networks

#135

Post by krapp »

RandomTisk wrote: post #128
krapp wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first amendment allows companies to "censor people," that is part of the people's freedom of speech and freedom of association. It only prevents Congress from doing so.

It ensures the freedom of the press, and had the founders envisioned a day when three corporations miles from each other had more power than the entire press and government combined to censor citizen's speech I have no doubt that the first amendment would read a bit differently today. For a lot of people, social media has become the press in some ways.

Nevertheless, there seems to be a disturbing trend in these conversations of implying that the first amendment means something it doesn't.

If people want to advocate for nationalizing social media and forcing platforms to publish speech against their will, and making it illegal for them to moderate content, then they shouldn't pretend they're doing so in the spirit of the first amendment or what the founding fathers envisioned free speech to be.

Re: Facebook, Twitter dismantle global array of disinformation networks

#136

Post by bjelkeman-again »

bmarquez wrote: post #126
ardy42 wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'd also argue that what's left of the corporate media is rapidly losing credibility, highly partisan and rarely objective. How so, exactly? This is kind of an odd moment, where the US president is deeply incompetent and a shameless liar, and some seem to think it's biased for the mainstream media to even point those facts out. There are definitely some aspects of the traditional media that fit your description (al…

> where the US president is deeply incompetent and a shameless liar, and some seem to think it's biased for the mainstream media to even point those facts out. Deeply incompetent is an opinion, not a fact. So yes, it is a form of bias. Actual fact-based reporting would be articles like "President did XXXX on YYYY" and leave the opinions and talking heads out. It would also be fairly dry and not generate outrage click…

I would find it hard to argue that any of the current POTUS work has been competent.

Re: Facebook, Twitter dismantle global array of disinformation networks

#137

Post by twitter_anon »

marketingPro wrote: post #132
kache_ wrote: post #19

My dream is to work for the engineering divisions for these companies regarding automation around controlling the flow of information. It seems like such a fascinating problem

I'm sure it's not so simple. You do the tasks you are told. There are departments you never heard of tell you "we need a backdoor in the event of an Emergency" That department doesn't realize they were told to do this by a director who knows the true purpose is propaganda.

That is most certainly not the way engineering at Twitter works.

Re: Facebook, Twitter dismantle global array of disinformation networks

#138

Post by steplock »

mistermann wrote: post #104
drawkbox wrote: post #33

Repeat after me, social media is not reality. Social media is the new tabloid salacious media. Yes it can be fun, entertaining, informative and educational, it can also be propaganda, misinformation, astroturfing, and a big high school like popularity contest where people are fake and narcissistic but probably insecure. The truth is the internet is teaching the biggest lesson ever in critical thinking and getting you…

You're "not wrong", but my reading of your comments leads me to believe that you're pointing the finger exclusively (or at least, overwhelmingly and possibly disproportionately) at one side of the dispute. > Yes it can be fun, entertaining, informative and educational, it can also be propaganda, misinformation, astroturfing, and a big high school like popularity contest where people are fake and narcissistic but prob…

Qui es veritas?

Re: Facebook, Twitter dismantle global array of disinformation networks

#139

Post by RandomTisk »

krapp wrote: post #135
RandomTisk wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It ensures the freedom of the press, and had the founders envisioned a day when three corporations miles from each other had more power than the entire press and government combined to censor citizen's speech I have no doubt that the first amendment would read a bit differently today. For a lot of people, social media has become the press in some ways.

Nevertheless, there seems to be a disturbing trend in these conversations of implying that the first amendment means something it doesn't. If people want to advocate for nationalizing social media and forcing platforms to publish speech against their will, and making it illegal for them to moderate content, then they shouldn't pretend they're doing so in the spirit of the first amendment or what the founding fathers…

They have that right regardless, they just have to declare themselves publishers.

Re: Facebook, Twitter dismantle global array of disinformation networks

#140

Post by soindepend »

meekmind wrote: post #89
drawkbox wrote: post #33

Repeat after me, social media is not reality. Social media is the new tabloid salacious media. Yes it can be fun, entertaining, informative and educational, it can also be propaganda, misinformation, astroturfing, and a big high school like popularity contest where people are fake and narcissistic but probably insecure. The truth is the internet is teaching the biggest lesson ever in critical thinking and getting you…

Yes. This. Thinking is hard and it requires training and conditioning to do. I'm not talking about what to think, but rather how to think. It's an incredible convenience to delegate thinking, like the difference between spending 3 hours debugging some code versus having the answer readily available on StackOverflow. Conversely, that convenience comes with a cost of a stunted intellect, where an individual can become…

This is a tangent but is the meme about programmers being dependent on Stack Overflow really all that true? It's something I've heard about a lot -- I've been coding for fifteen years, professionally for seven, and certainly I have used Stack Overflow occasionally, but I go to the language documentation a lot more often, and honestly write a lot of code without looking at more than the source of the libraries I'm interacting with -- which are often proprietary so SO wouldn't be any help anyway -- or the standard library.

Who's on Stack Overflow all the time? I've never even made an account. I guess I referenced it more often when I was a younger programmer but never all that much..

Post reply on HN