Combating Misinformation • Hacker News Board

Re: Combating Misinformation

#51

Post by Calvin02 » Thu, Mar 25, 2021, 7:30 PM UTC

nillium wrote: post #26

j4yav wrote: post #12

Whatever the solution is for misinformation, if there is one, I am quite certain that it will not be invented by Facebook.

The problem with misinformation, ultimately, is that it is given a platform. We've reached an inflection point where people can truly believe these mistruths so deeply , that any fact checking is received as a personal attack -- and they get even more defensive. Facebook (or YouTube, or Twitter, or whoever) can try to come up with even more infoboxes or disclaimers, but it will continue to exist as long as it is give…

> Until we hold the reporting produced by professional reporters -- reviewed by editors, fact checked, and held in check by an editorial process -- at a higher esteem

Having worked in a news organization, I wish I had more faith in this statement. Most reporters are woefully out of touch or depth when covering complex topics. As a finance major, I'm often surprised how often the explanations for basic topics are wrong or presented without any nuance.

Re: Combating Misinformation

#52

Post by fractionalhare » Thu, Mar 25, 2021, 7:31 PM UTC

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #41

fractionalhare wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A principled commitment to fact-checking is more important than whether or not any particular fact-check is ultimately correct. Mistakes happen. If the effort results in more good calls than bad calls, it is a good initiative overall. What would you have Facebook do, fact check using Twitter because the CDC made this one bad call? Do you think the modal CDC consensus is worse than that of Twitter?

I would have them not make a blanket commitment to fact-checking, because I don't agree with the perspective that it's a good initiative if it makes mostly good calls. A "fake news suppressor" that's allowed to make any significant number of bad calls will inevitably be abused by bad actors who have specific topics they'd prefer people not to discuss.

I guess, but even if it's imperfect it still seems better than the status quo.

Re: Combating Misinformation

#53

Post by throwawaysea » Thu, Mar 25, 2021, 7:51 PM UTC

fractionalhare wrote: post #34

kikokikokiko wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ONLY way to fight misinformation, intentional or not, is to allow a free exchange of ideas. The stupid ones, in the end would be shown as stupid and sink. But in todays world people seem to think that other people, "being the dumb ones", need to be protected from their stupidity, and "us being the sage ones" need to hide the dumb ideias from the dumb ones. Such arrogance.

I don't agree. It is trivial to spread bullshit and nontrivial to show that it's bullshit. Your philosophy allows misinformation to spread because of how much harder it is to refute than create.

What you call misinformation may be truth to others. Having Facebook and a cabal of biased fact checkers control what truth is for everyone simply allows no real diversity of thought. That echo chamber will produce false information.

Re: Combating Misinformation

#54

Post by reubenswartz » Thu, Mar 25, 2021, 8:10 PM UTC

CarelessExpert wrote: post #46

reubenswartz wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. I agree, but they are also the business model. If one platform doesn't use them, another that does will come to predominate. 2. This has some merit and would be a great start (we can dream, right?), but I don't think it would solve misinformation. 3. That sounds nice, but how would it work in practice. What if moderators get death threats from bad actors?

1. That's one of the reasons we have governments: to regulate industry so capitalism doesn't run amok. 2. Nothing I listed would "solve" it. There is no one "solution". 3. We already have laws to deal with harassment. Frankly, I feel like you're falling for the nirvana fallacy, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy

I don't think I'm falling for the Nirvana fallacy, or mistaking the platform and the communities.

Yes, FB has been pretty egregious in certain areas, but the question of how to prevent misinformation in online communities is a tricky one, that goes beyond the details of a particular platform and into human nature. Government can (should?) help in certain ways, but even in the best scenarios, that will have limitations, as well.

Anyway, I appreciate your thoughts.

Re: Combating Misinformation

#55

Post by simmanian » Thu, Mar 25, 2021, 8:43 PM UTC

reubenswartz wrote: post #44

simmanian wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To answer your question, you must begin with the metaphysics i.e. our worldview. Our civilization currently operates under the assumption that there exists one truth and everyone must adhere to that truth. It worked out fine when we were in small towns, but now that literally billions of people are connected, we're realizing that not everyone can be in sync. To cut the long story short, there are many people who beli…

I don't know if we currently operate under the assumption of a single truth. There's also a big difference between different perspectives and things that are blatantly wrong. Decentralization is interesting, but 20 years ago, there were many small "social networks", even if they didn't go by that name. FB and it's portfolio are the first ones to create 1B+ member "communities". There are very strong economic incentiv…

>I don't know if we currently operate under the assumption of a single truth.

This is perhaps too big a topic to discuss on HN comments, but the idea that there are absolute & unchanging truths goes all the way back to Plato. The Western Civilization is founded on top of a very specific worldview that is "centered" on these absolute truths. This is the reason why a lot of traditionalists see postmodernism as the root of all evil.

>There's also a big difference between different perspectives and things that are blatantly wrong.

I don't disagree. What I'd like to focus on is not basic logic like 1 + 1 = 2, but rather the implications of these. That some people are born with XY or XX chromosomes is a fact. What we do with those facts is entirely context dependent.

>Decentralization is interesting... There are very strong economic incentives for smaller communities to grow into larger communities

Recent decentralization trends are designed to combat this exactly at the protocol level.

Re: Combating Misinformation

#56

Post by reubenswartz » Thu, Mar 25, 2021, 10:37 PM UTC

simmanian wrote: post #55

reubenswartz wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know if we currently operate under the assumption of a single truth. There's also a big difference between different perspectives and things that are blatantly wrong. Decentralization is interesting, but 20 years ago, there were many small "social networks", even if they didn't go by that name. FB and it's portfolio are the first ones to create 1B+ member "communities". There are very strong economic incentiv…

>I don't know if we currently operate under the assumption of a single truth. This is perhaps too big a topic to discuss on HN comments, but the idea that there are absolute & unchanging truths goes all the way back to Plato. The Western Civilization is founded on top of a very specific worldview that is "centered" on these absolute truths. This is the reason why a lot of traditionalists see postmodernism as the root…

> This is perhaps too big a topic to discuss on HN comments,

Ha ha-- so true. But thanks for making a valiant effort. ;-)

> but the idea that there are absolute & unchanging truths goes all the way back to Plato. The Western Civilization is founded on top of a very specific worldview that is "centered" on these absolute truths. This is the reason why a lot of traditionalists see postmodernism as the root of all evil.

You could argue that it predates Plato... But even before postmodernism, people seemed to have trouble agreeing on one truth.

>There's also a big difference between different perspectives and things that are blatantly wrong. >> I don't disagree. What I'd like to focus on is not basic logic like 1 + 1 = 2, but rather the implications of these. That some people are born with XY or XX chromosomes is a fact. What we do with those facts is entirely context dependent.

This is a great example of an issue that I've seen on FB. Most people do have XY or XX, but a small percentage of people have something different. Beyond that, the way those genes get expressed can lead to different phenotype outcomes, which is a scientific "fact", but I've seen a lot of people, including from folks who claim to have MDs, who say that it's just XX or XY. Is this "misinformation"? Probably depends on who you ask...

>Decentralization is interesting... There are very strong economic incentives for smaller communities to grow into larger communities >> Recent decentralization trends are designed to combat this exactly at the protocol level.

Please explain more. I don't dispute that their are notions of smaller communities, I'm just thinking that there are structural reasons why those smaller communities will get eclipsed by communities focused on growth.

Re: Combating Misinformation

#57

Post by quijoteuniv » Fri, Mar 26, 2021, 9:41 AM UTC

readflaggedcomm wrote: post #47

quijoteuniv wrote: post #15

I lost my faith in Facebook moderation the day I reported a Coke ad as scam (water with color and sugar, is the greatest scam of the century) . After they review it, they did not consider it was a scam. I do not trust this guys anymore.

Was their ad fraudulent? Just because Coca-Cola doesn't share your values doesn't mean it's misinformation or a scam.

No,but that is exactly the point.How can you trust a company that make their money by advertising to users. They will always respond to the interest of the poeple with money. And the fact their are attempting to «be better» it has more to do with backslash and the fact that they will lose more money if they do not do something. The truth is pennyless cannot pay for ads! I was just adding a bit of humor to the conversation with the Coke story. Coke is definetely better than Pepsi.