If measuring emotional response is a signal for trust, does non-participatory behavior yield the lowest trust "score"?
Facebook is rating the trustworthiness of its users on a scale from zero to one
151–160 of 197 posts
Re: Facebook is rating the trustworthiness of its users on a scale from zero to one
#152Earlier quoted context omitted.
> third party fact checkers Seems like infinite regress and turtles all the way down to me. Who fact checks the fact checkers?
Pretty soon you need to ask the question "what is truth?" Third party fact checkers seems like the best possible thing that could be in that box. It's not perfect, but there has never been a perfect system to determine truth so waiting until there is one is counterproductive. You do the best with the tools you have available.
"It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the—if he—if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not—that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement"
Re: Facebook is rating the trustworthiness of its users on a scale from zero to one
#153Earlier quoted context omitted.
To me, fake news also includes slanted coverage of true events (i.e. covering events in such a way as to convey a sponsored message, biased polling methodology, etc.). That encompasses statistically approaching 100% of trashy sources you’re likely to encounter as 'sponsored content', as well as a healthy portion of more established sources' content. I'd be likely to report a majority as fake news in perfectly good fa…
I think the use of "trustworthiness" is misleading. Really it's more "how likely is this person to accurately flag an article that matches Facebook's internal definition of fake news." That would mean that your number would be on the lower end, but that's not a reflection of your character. More likely it just means that whatever queue is set up for review will wait until more and higher-scoring individuals also flag…
Well said, and I agree completely about this story.
There's still an aspect of this with which I'm unsatisfied, however. What's the character of leadership who would address misuse of the feature by devising weights intended to devalue the opinions of large swaths of their engaged user base? Significant numbers of people are expressing a sentiment through their alleged abuse of the feature, and instead of trying to channel that constructively, the company is devising ways to ignore it.
Re: Facebook is rating the trustworthiness of its users on a scale from zero to one
#154Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds just like it to me, except we are being categorized by corporations instead of the state. How long until potential employers make a good social score a pre-requisite to hiring?
Will I be denied employment if I don't have social media?
I wouldn't be surprised if that's already considered a red flag. "No facebook? Sounds anti-social.."
Re: Facebook is rating the trustworthiness of its users on a scale from zero to one
#155Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a European I want to make it vocally known that in my opinion US politics has in recent times almost irrevocably poisoned HackerNews; and that is coming from someone who has been on this site eight years. One _cannot_ in _any way_ infer a lack of good intentions from a single alleged phone call. Besides, if I were a titan of industry I would do my best to call whoever the hell got elected president the night of th…
Agreed. The US is supposedly a democracy, in which people will respect the election made by others. They were proud of its System. Now it looks they have forgotten the principles of democracy as they take it for granted. The US has become bipolar, the Media has become hysterical, using war propaganda to infer the worst intentions and personal qualities to the adversaries, instead of using Truth using prejudices, cond…
Some of the comments I routinely read online now are quite shocking. If only people could put aside their partisan differences for a short time to enact electoral reform. I did a quick Google and found this site: http://www.fairvote.org/about
It explains the electoral system problems: http://www.fairvote.org/problems and a couple of possible solutions: http://www.fairvote.org/solutions
It sounds like a low-tech solution but maybe "ranked choice voting" (a.k.a. proportional representation?) could shift the needle?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_electoral_systems_by_c...
Re: Facebook is rating the trustworthiness of its users on a scale from zero to one
#156Earlier quoted context omitted.
>"As a European I want to make it vocally known that in my opinion US politics ..." "can we please please focus on tech and policy and put identity politics and tribal politics to one side on HN?" It's amusing that you start off by establishing your own identity(European) and then ask others to stop engaging in identity politics.
I'm merely pointing out that I'm not from the US so that people know that I don't have a dog in the race. Just so you know I would vote for neither of the two big teams in the US. What I am trying to do is to say that from a neutral perspective the politicking here is reaching a toxic level. It distracts from the real issues of giant monopolistic tech companies and other such real social ills. You think it's amusing,…
I know, my comment was completely rooted in sarcasm :)
I agree with you but I also think given the prominent role FB had in the last US election and the uncertainty of its potential role in the upcoming election its ensures that peoples's emotions on the subject tend to run hot. Cheers.
Re: Facebook is rating the trustworthiness of its users on a scale from zero to one
#157Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed. The worst of US politics is due to its two party system that invites a two team mentality. Any thinking in terms of us vs them or we vs they invites all kinds of conformance stupidity. I am fully capable of forming my opinions. I don't need a political label or their respective team to help me along with what my personal opinions need to be.
And from an outsider's perspective it's madness. Case in point: https://www.google.com/search?q=majority+of+Americans+single... The majority of Americans support single payer healthcare! Coincidentally (except it's not a coincidence at all) out of OECD countries the U.S. has the most amount of completely uninsured citizens (about 1 in 10!): https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=HEALTH_PROT but also pays on av…
Research that I have seen largely suggests that health care is more expensive in the US compared to similar quality health care elsewhere. The primary cause, though not the only cause, for this cost imbalance is largely due to a variety of administrative inefficiencies that have grown out of balance over time. These inefficiencies are economically allowed to exist because many forms of health care are a basic need rather than a luxury want.
Some additional data from the insurance side of things is that about 5% of patients account for about 50% of health care expenses and about 1% of patients account for about 25% of expenses. This is not something to primarily solve for, but it is something the insurance industry must account for.
Solving even for the some of the most basic cost insecurities of health care is hard, because some side of the industry always benefits from a particular angle of each inefficiency. You have to be willing to financially harm a large segment of that industry to make it better for everybody else. Realizing this each segment of that industry (all industries) will maximize identity politics and team identity as necessary to ensure the survival of their collective business interests.
Re: Facebook is rating the trustworthiness of its users on a scale from zero to one
#158Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the use of "trustworthiness" is misleading. Really it's more "how likely is this person to accurately flag an article that matches Facebook's internal definition of fake news." That would mean that your number would be on the lower end, but that's not a reflection of your character. More likely it just means that whatever queue is set up for review will wait until more and higher-scoring individuals also flag…
Well said, and I agree completely about this story. There's still an aspect of this with which I'm unsatisfied, however. What's the character of leadership who would address misuse of the feature by devising weights intended to devalue the opinions of large swaths of their engaged user base? Significant numbers of people are expressing a sentiment through their alleged abuse of the feature, and instead of trying to c…
> "Significant numbers of people are expressing a sentiment through their alleged abuse of the feature, and instead of trying to channel that constructively, the company is devising ways to ignore it."
What's the character of leadership who would unjustly silence group A just because significant numbers of people are expressing sentiment to silence group A? Not sure if not doing what they are doing is actually better.
On another note:
This is not necessarily abuse. Even with no abuse, you can have different definition of fake news, than FB have. In such case, you report, someone at FB reviews, and nothing happens. Having weight on you does not change this. The "leadership" is "ignoring you" in a same way as before. Apart from the fact that it's not "ignoring you". They just have different opinion than you.
Note: I used "you" but I don't think that you necessarily have different definition than FB, if was just more convenient to formulate it this way.
Re: Facebook is rating the trustworthiness of its users on a scale from zero to one
#159I am tempted to paraphrase the Elephant man, "I am not a sigmoid function, I am a human being!" in response to that headline :-) That said, I think it is great that they are trying to characterize this sort of thing. The second law of institutions is that every process must require more people to execute than can conspire without being detected[1]. But relying so much on humans in one way or another is going to gum i…
> every process must require more people to execute than can conspire without being detected Step 1 - let users report posts that are false Step 2 - human fact checkers investigate user reports Step 3 - rely more on users who report posts as false that really are false, and less on users who report posts as false that really are true Step 4 - repeat step 3 but for the fact checkers themselves Step 5 - train an ML mod…
Step x - sell ability to target users based on gullibly and trustworthness scores
Re: Facebook is rating the trustworthiness of its users on a scale from zero to one
#160I'm here for the Black Mirror 'Nosedive' comparisons.
It's very Bookerian.
I think we can all agree that the secret algorithm is going to be in the social signalling - job status, who you know, where you live.
Make everyone's rating public and you're there, or worse make it available to whoever pays.