Facebook’s Walled Wonderland Is Inherently Incompatible with News • Hacker News Board

Re: Facebook’s Walled Wonderland Is Inherently Incompatible with News

#141

Post by jerf » Mon, Dec 05, 2016, 2:13 PM UTC

grzm wrote: post #18

andrewvijay wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One concrete step would be to accept that they easily bring war/peace in any country they are allowed to operate. The moral responsibility of such a huge platform where people interact needs to be very high. Pointing fingers or giving sugar coated answers is not acceptable. Facebook's motto should be changed from 'connecting people' to 'connecting people to show only what they like'. See we both are arguing something…

Facebook's motto should be changed from 'connecting people' to 'connecting people to show only what they like'. Is this what you think Facebook should be? Or what you think is a more accurate description of what Facebook is? What would this look like in concrete steps? How do you manage bullying? Knowingly spreading misinformation and disinformation? What prevents Facebook from becoming one big flamewar? How do you d…

It will have to decentralize, because it is not possible to run one community with one set of rules at this size. The contradictions are already intense and only going to get worse, even before I consider Facebook's most psychologically-likely reactions, which generally involve the short-term trap of gathering more power and exerting more control in an endless spiral. To quote a famous philosopher, "The more you tighten your grip, [Facebook], the more star systems will slip through your fingers."

The fact that this will kill Facebook is irrelevant. The fact that decentralization is observably very difficult is irrelevant. The hardness of a task does not affect its necessity. There is no solution for Facebook that leaves Facebook recognizably like it is now. It's arguably a fluke of politics and culture that got Facebook to where it is now.

(When I say "decentralize", I don't necessarily mean full on Diaspora-style decentralization. Decentralizing into multiple social networks that are still architecturally centralized is viable, though those social networks will face the same pressures at scale.)

Re: Facebook’s Walled Wonderland Is Inherently Incompatible with News

#142

Post by twhb » Mon, Dec 05, 2016, 2:14 PM UTC

Going on a tangent for a moment, please don't take it as a comment on Facebook, Facebook's culpability, what Facebook should do, etc.

Say we have a Facebook alternative X which implements no filter, makes no effort to garner views and shares (let's elide financials for now). Say X, like Facebook, has news published on it, which users may subscribe to and receive. Is it not true that most users will more often follow news sources they're interested in, effectively self-filtering? Is it not true that news sources are financially motivated to appeal to said users by self-filtering, or even manifesting as multiple brands with different biases?

And finally, say there's no X, and each news source has its own separate channel to its users - like websites or newspapers. Are both of the above effects not still true?

Back to Facebook, we need to figure out what a solution looks like before we tell Facebook which direction to turn.

Re: Facebook’s Walled Wonderland Is Inherently Incompatible with News

#143

Post by pg314 » Mon, Dec 05, 2016, 2:16 PM UTC

herbst wrote: post #140

Pigo wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think people who are so concerned about Facebook policies and practices are way too invested in it, and should focus on spending less time on it. It's just a platform for showing grandma pictures of the kids, providing ex's a means to stalk you, and check out the latest virtue signaling. Anyone using it as a primary news source is doing everything else wrong too. I don't expect Facebook to start restructuring just…

Exactly. Lets assume the onion is suddenly the main news source for a majority even thought they are open about beeing fake. Where is the problem? If people choose to live in their bubble its their choice.

It becomes a problem if these people following the onion would affect the outcome of an election. Even a democratically elected leader can be a problem (e.g. Mussolini was democratically elected).

To function a democracy requires citizens to be well-informed and critical.

Re: Facebook’s Walled Wonderland Is Inherently Incompatible with News

#144

Post by base698 » Mon, Dec 05, 2016, 2:18 PM UTC

elorant wrote: post #28

andrewvijay wrote: post #6

> We are not in the business of picking which issues the world should read about. We are in the business of connecting people and ideas — and matching people with the stories they find most meaningful. Our integrity depends on being inclusive of all perspectives and view points, and using ranking to connect people with the stories and sources they find the most meaningful and engaging. Simply incredible. They are ass…

Ignorance is killing democracy. And that’s not Facebook’s problem. It’s an educational problem. Our education system is failing to instill critical thinking into young people. So they go out in the world and become adults who are easily duped into this idea or that because they lack the skills and the mindset to evaluate opposing viewpoints. Sure the Internet has made things worse, and that’s a bit shocking for those…

Shocking and ironic. I still remember spending my high school years reading philosophy and other topics of interest in the internet of the 90s. I had the sentiment that people will be so knowledgeable--they'll learn everything. The reverse is clearly true and now all tech breeds is greed.

Re: Facebook’s Walled Wonderland Is Inherently Incompatible with News

#145

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Dec 05, 2016, 2:25 PM UTC

pg314 wrote: post #143

herbst wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. Lets assume the onion is suddenly the main news source for a majority even thought they are open about beeing fake. Where is the problem? If people choose to live in their bubble its their choice.

It becomes a problem if these people following the onion would affect the outcome of an election. Even a democratically elected leader can be a problem (e.g. Mussolini was democratically elected). To function a democracy requires citizens to be well-informed and critical.

[deleted]

Re: Facebook’s Walled Wonderland Is Inherently Incompatible with News

#146

Post by wu-ikkyu » Mon, Dec 05, 2016, 2:26 PM UTC

herbst wrote: post #104

This is just getting more stupid everday. Facebook is no and never was a news platform. It is a crappy social network and only reflects your inner friend circle. Why anyone and especially facebook should care about fake news is beyond me.

>Why anyone and especially facebook should care about fake news is beyond me.

I may be wrong but didnt the outcry against fake news and Facebook come as a result of the US presidential election? Many people are looking for someone or something to blame for the unexpected results.

Re: Facebook’s Walled Wonderland Is Inherently Incompatible with News

#147

Post by icantdrive55 » Mon, Dec 05, 2016, 2:27 PM UTC

supergarfield wrote: post #121

grive wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Click the Like button on a Page that challenges your beliefs, interact with that information and you'll see more of it. That's precisely the problem with it. I'd like to read more on extremists groups and see how and why they exists, what kind of people they are, why do they think the way they do, what their fight is in our society. This is the first step to build a dialog. However, "liking" their pages is out of q…

If liking is the problem, you can usually follow pages without liking them. You can also make your following list private. However I think it's unclear what you will get from following a real extremist group, except if you like to see repetitive propaganda. Following a somewhat-reputable news source that's usually opposed to your views may be a better solution.

Or just get into the habit of deactivating.

I really thought FB would be gone by now. What have I gotten out of Facebook? I'm just more cynical of people, and the world. People can claim that about a lot of sites, but FB brings the worst out of me. I don't think I'm alone.

It just takes 10 clicks to deactivate.

(As a developer, I despise websites that use a FB login.)

Re: Facebook’s Walled Wonderland Is Inherently Incompatible with News

#148

Post by oska » Mon, Dec 05, 2016, 2:30 PM UTC

rimantas wrote: post #137

The urge to flag any post that has "Walled X" in it gets stronger every day.

Because the premise is invalid or because the ensuing discussion is low quality?

Re: Facebook’s Walled Wonderland Is Inherently Incompatible with News

#149

Post by Pigo » Mon, Dec 05, 2016, 2:32 PM UTC

wu-ikkyu wrote: post #146

herbst wrote: post #104

This is just getting more stupid everday. Facebook is no and never was a news platform. It is a crappy social network and only reflects your inner friend circle. Why anyone and especially facebook should care about fake news is beyond me.

>Why anyone and especially facebook should care about fake news is beyond me. I may be wrong but didnt the outcry against fake news and Facebook come as a result of the US presidential election? Many people are looking for someone or something to blame for the unexpected results.

Everyone is dressing it up as being about something else, but this is the central point. None of this would be an issue if Clinton had been elected. The left wants some self-flagellation now by those they thought were in their pocket.

If things had gone the other way, everyone complaining would be making Trump meme's right now to post in their favorite walled wonderland. Next we'll be hearing about how the expansion of Presidential powers is actually an issue now that it isn't their guy doing the expanding.

Re: Facebook’s Walled Wonderland Is Inherently Incompatible with News

#150

Post by dpandey » Mon, Dec 05, 2016, 2:33 PM UTC

A huge part of the story seems to be around confirmation bias (people like reading stuff that supports what they already believe).

While confirmation bias is a fact of life, reading fake stories to confirm your bias is not something that anybody wants to do, regardless of how irrational the bias is. Facebook obviously doesn't want to be seen as having influenced the election so they're unwilling to say anything that admits responsibility. But Zuckerberg has shown boldness and maturity as one of the best CEOs time and again, and I'd expect them to start filtering out fake news before the next presidential election. This is not an issue that's going to go away because it's going to get worse and it's going to get a lot more attention now that everyone knows about it.

A core part of Facebooks stand is that they don't want to be seen as taking editorial responsibility (they can't afford to). Part of the problem there is precisely defining 'fake news'. For example, if I am a conspiracy theorist and I write a blog about how NASA never landed a rover on Mars, should Facebook delete it? At what point does irrational writing turn to fake news? Anecdotally we know that the article that claimed an informer who reported on clintons emails was murdered was obviously false. Or that the pope didn't endorse trump. The key is to build a framework that allows a company like Facebook to flag these without being seen as editors.

It doesn't sound like a problem Facebook can't solve. And it has to. There's no escaping it now because political and public opinion are both going to pressure them. And it'd be unwise to ignore them.

UI wise, a clean way to do this might be to put a red banner on a corner of the article with the words 'possibly false'. So Facebook doesn't delete the article, but labels it and you can challenge it if you want. It's going to be hugely discouraging to fakers.