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

Facebook Has Repeatedly Trended Fake News Since Firing Its Human Editors

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 335 posts

Re: Facebook Has Repeatedly Trended Fake News Since Firing Its Human Editors

#121

Post by MagnumOpus »

gadders wrote: post #102
outlace wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people say it's impossible to have unbiased news. Of course this is true in a trivial sense, in that anything written by a human with intent to be interesting to read is likely to have some bias. And of course one can bias the news simply by choosing what to report and not report (eg if all you report are all the things fmr Pres. Bush did wrong, then the audience will get a bad impression). However, there is abs…

>> When you read 3 different versions of the same news story by BBC, NPR, and NYT (for example), then hopefully the biases sort of cancel out and you get something closer to the truth. You list three left-leaning news organisations, and expect their biases to cancel out? Wouldn't they reinforce each other?

It is a sad reality that by now much all "right-leaning" media in the US freely lets unchecked lies permeate their reporting. This is true even for the WSJ's political news, let alone USA Today or Fox News which give equal space to fact and fiction.

Pretty much the only readable right wing media is foreign - but if he had suggested The Economist or the Financial Times you probably would have called them left-leaning too...

Re: Facebook Has Repeatedly Trended Fake News Since Firing Its Human Editors

#122

Post by kabouseng »

jeremyjh wrote: post #92
unityByFreedom wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 10 to 1 one you're wrong. https://xkcd.com/1132/ What are the two scenarios you're referring to? That Trump does or does not contribute to a nuclear war? Trump trashes everyone who disagrees with him. He will likely increase tensions on the world stage.

Yes but if you are right and the world ends and he doesn't have to pay up. That's the joke.

Just as a discussion point (and going off topic and being maybe too pedantic) that is not how I understood the XKCD. The difference is that the one interpretation only takes into account the odds of the machine lying, the bayesian approach also takes into account the odds of the sun actually going nova, which is still neglible.

Yes as a second consideration you can also take the view of the world will end, but that is not the point of the XKCD.

And then drawing it to this discussion, yes the odds that Trump would be willing to start a nuclear war might be high, but combined with the odds of an actual nuclear war occurring the odds of it happening is still neglible.

Re: Facebook Has Repeatedly Trended Fake News Since Firing Its Human Editors

#123

Post by [deleted] »

hueving wrote: post #72
vinhboy wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am completely ok with you directing that comment at me, because I fundamentally disagree with your assessment. I have a pretty complete understanding of current events from reading those sources. For your statement to be valid, you'd have to prove that there is a considerable amount of information missing and is only available via conservative media.

>For your statement to be valid, you'd have to prove that there is a considerable amount of information missing and is only available via conservative media. No, information may have been made available by biased media, but it may have been presented in such a way to adjust the perceived significance of it. Take the email scandal for example. Every news outlet provided the information, but there are vastly different…

[deleted]

Re: Facebook Has Repeatedly Trended Fake News Since Firing Its Human Editors

#124

Post by jsmith0295 »

untog wrote: post #106
angry-hacker wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For someone outside of U.S, both right (breitbart etc.) and left (huff etc.) are propaganda all the way down . It is your left bias. And the people on other political spectrum feel the same but other way around. Watching American elections is like seeing a freak show. I don't understand who are those people who can support any of the candidates or the media.

I disagree. Not well versed in Huff Po but the left-leaning likes of NYT publish stories based in fact and backed up with reporting. Breitbart report whatever they wish without ever confirming if anything in a story is true.

NYT might publish actual stories, but they also publish what is effectively propaganda. A lot of more "legitimate" news sources also have a tendency to selective report on things which fit a pre-established narrative on a topic that can effectively bury the truth. Here's an example where CNN did this: http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/16/cnn-edits-out-...

And sadly the Washington Times is the least biased source that I could find that even talked about it. That's why sites like Breitbart are able to be so successful. It's easy to build credibility by pointing out things like this, and then the rest of it can just be propaganda.

Re: Facebook Has Repeatedly Trended Fake News Since Firing Its Human Editors

#125

Post by tdkl »

unityByFreedom wrote: post #76
paulddraper wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Personally I think the risks posed by Trump with his thumb on the nuclear button are greater than the lives saved by repealing abortion rights. 10 to 1 you're wrong. https://xkcd.com/1132/

> 10 to 1 one you're wrong. https://xkcd.com/1132/ What are the two scenarios you're referring to? That Trump does or does not contribute to a nuclear war? Trump trashes everyone who disagrees with him. He will likely increase tensions on the world stage.

> He will likely increase tensions on the world stage.

While Trumps opponent openly warns Russia of consequences. Lets be objective now.

Re: Facebook Has Repeatedly Trended Fake News Since Firing Its Human Editors

#126

Post by TeMPOraL »

dlss wrote: post #113
unityByFreedom wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think he's serious. This is the nationalist mindset. "Create more walls. Diversity is difficult." We all know what happens when we stop reaching across the divide. We go into our holes, there is miscommunication, and small disagreements turn into wars. Focusing on the areas where we disagree widens the chasm. We can bridge it by looking for common goals.

Hmm. Now I can't tell if your reply is serious :p As near as I can tell, the political process converts ideas from logical propositions into group signaling devices. Once a idea becomes a signal, any question of its truth or falsehood is commonly ignored for several human generations. Keeping ideas that have already become signals quarantined, and minimizing overlap between groups in a context where they are likely t…

> As near as I can tell, the political process converts ideas from logical propositions into group signaling devices. Once a idea becomes a signal, any question of its truth or falsehood is commonly ignored for several human generations.

I love the way you put it; this goes straight into my quotes file.

> Keeping ideas that have already become signals quarantined, and minimizing overlap between groups in a context where they are likely to "go tribal" and convert more ideas into signals seems vitally important to me.

In a way, it's what some people do without realizing the idea. It's obvious that once a topic becomes a political issue, the general population loses the ability to discuss it in any reasonable way, so it's best to ignore that topic altogether until at least it falls off the news cycle. But maybe we need a more social-wide tools to "cordon off" topics that were exposed to the disease politics is.

Re: Facebook Has Repeatedly Trended Fake News Since Firing Its Human Editors

#127

Post by jsmith0295 »

vinhboy wrote: post #34

Thank god someone is writing about this. Recently I've been on the Yahoo's homepage a lot, because of Fantasy Football, and I noticed that a lot of the content is exactly like the article says, fake news from right-wing propaganda sites. And no, this is not me expressing my liberal bias. It's one thing to have opinionated headlines like the Huffington Post, it's another thing to have a completely fictional headline c…

My perspective is that they're basically the same, The NY Times (and CNN and Fox and many others) are just a lot more subtle about it than Breitbart. But fundamentally it's the same thing. There's a pre-established narrative, and they find a way to make everything fit it. If there's something that contradicts it directly they don't even report on it.

Re: Facebook Has Repeatedly Trended Fake News Since Firing Its Human Editors

#128

Post by jgalt212 »

untog wrote: post #106
angry-hacker wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For someone outside of U.S, both right (breitbart etc.) and left (huff etc.) are propaganda all the way down . It is your left bias. And the people on other political spectrum feel the same but other way around. Watching American elections is like seeing a freak show. I don't understand who are those people who can support any of the candidates or the media.

I disagree. Not well versed in Huff Po but the left-leaning likes of NYT publish stories based in fact and backed up with reporting. Breitbart report whatever they wish without ever confirming if anything in a story is true.

I mostly read Huff Po when I, as a white man, am feeling too good about myself. Then I go to Huff Po and read 20 articles about how horrible white men are.

It's basically like watching a Lifetime Movie. All the villains are straight white males. Except around Christmas, when all of sudden, they become caring selfless individuals.

Re: Facebook Has Repeatedly Trended Fake News Since Firing Its Human Editors

#129

Post by jsmith0295 »

hueving wrote: post #72
vinhboy wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am completely ok with you directing that comment at me, because I fundamentally disagree with your assessment. I have a pretty complete understanding of current events from reading those sources. For your statement to be valid, you'd have to prove that there is a considerable amount of information missing and is only available via conservative media.

>For your statement to be valid, you'd have to prove that there is a considerable amount of information missing and is only available via conservative media. No, information may have been made available by biased media, but it may have been presented in such a way to adjust the perceived significance of it. Take the email scandal for example. Every news outlet provided the information, but there are vastly different…

Here's an example of something that was not reported outside of conservative media: http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/16/cnn-edits-out-...

Re: Facebook Has Repeatedly Trended Fake News Since Firing Its Human Editors

#130

Post by gadders »

MagnumOpus wrote: post #121
gadders wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> When you read 3 different versions of the same news story by BBC, NPR, and NYT (for example), then hopefully the biases sort of cancel out and you get something closer to the truth. You list three left-leaning news organisations, and expect their biases to cancel out? Wouldn't they reinforce each other?

It is a sad reality that by now much all "right-leaning" media in the US freely lets unchecked lies permeate their reporting. This is true even for the WSJ's political news, let alone USA Today or Fox News which give equal space to fact and fiction. Pretty much the only readable right wing media is foreign - but if he had suggested The Economist or the Financial Times you probably would have called them left-leaning…

I'd have thought the WSJ was pretty reliable. I'm not sure whether they permeate lies, but on the other side you have the NYT giving Hilary's campaign team copy-approval on what they write.

If you're after other right-wing UK publications you could try the Daily Telegraph or the Spectator.

Post reply on HN