instant question: which entity decides and how does such entity decide what news is true news ?
The question would have been answered if you read the article.
Facebook says Pages that regularly share false news won’t be able to buy ads
161–170 of 268 posts
Re: Facebook says Pages that regularly share false news won’t be able to buy ads
#162The risk here is not that the system will have bad goals, it's that it's easy for manipulation to redefine the core terms used to classify "bad" content. Even now, we regularly see even clear terms like "correct" or "incorrect" applied by fact-checking websites through a fairly biased lens. This is not a partisan issue, when you start down the road of handing the keys to shaping public thought to a powerful party, yo…
> thinking we need to shield the poor naive populace from harmful ideas is borderline stereotypical paternalism
More than 30% of Americans still support Trump, clearly they do need adult supervision.
Re: Facebook says Pages that regularly share false news won’t be able to buy ads
#163Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm talking about images like this: https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/01/20/us/politics/trump... . You can count the lanes that run across the mall before you see any open space, and the photo on the right was clearly not taken any time near the actual ceremony because my memory of live video and recorded video during the ceremony simply doesn't come close to matching. I really don't care how it actually compares…
That's a photo by the National Parks Service, timestamped 11:51AM, according to the Washington Post. Frankly I trust high-resolution photographic evidence vetted by the National Parks Service and the Washington Post reporting staff, over your memory of unnamed, unsourced live video. But yeah both sides, totally. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/03/06/...
http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2017/01/politics/trump-in...
Really - there are stronger arguments against Trump.
Re: Facebook says Pages that regularly share false news won’t be able to buy ads
#164Earlier quoted context omitted.
> (inb4 1st amendment is only for the gov - that is a selective truth. the principles of free speech exist outside of government.) You say this as if it isn't a perfectly valid point. You have the right guaranteed by law to express an opinion . No one, no matter what size corporation or platform, is expected to give you a podium from which to do so. More to the point, freedom of speech has never been an absolute, not…
> No one, no matter what size corporation or platform, is expected to give you a podium from which to do so. The intersection of people arguing that ISPs are common carriers and also that corporations can deny you a platform.
That intersection sounds like hypocrisy until you think about how being a common carrier is a government rule and it really is the government that needs to restrained to prevent censorship.
I definitely accept the need for that intersection for the USA at this point.
Re: Facebook says Pages that regularly share false news won’t be able to buy ads
#165Earlier quoted context omitted.
Eve if you ignore theoretical bias it may have terrified them to realize that they may have unintentionally had a SERIOUS effect on the ruler of the free world by not only allowing but accidentally promoting obviously fake content. There was plenty of relief content that would have defected the election. The fake stuff may not have actually changed the outcome. But to realize your 'keep up with my friends' business h…
> Eve if you ignore theoretical bias Real bias, but moving on... > But to realize your 'keep up with my friends' business has the power swing elections? That has to be a terrifying prospect. I really doubt anyone at Facebook, Twitter, or Google would have said "oh my God, what have we done???" if some insidious bit of "fake news" helped Hillary be elected.
> Real bias, but moving on...
I wasn't trying to talk to these specific cases, but I would agree the valley leans left.
> I really doubt anyone at Facebook, Twitter, or Google would have said "oh my God, what have we done???" if some insidious bit of "fake news" helped Hillary be elected.
Really? If my choice got elected because of my site I would be happy I didn't lose but I would be TERRIFIED that I had so much accidental power. What if I'm not a good steward? What if I accidentally misuse it? What if someone else takes over and REALLY misuses it?
I think (hope?) people would understand the power involved and not want to mess with to much.
Re: Facebook says Pages that regularly share false news won’t be able to buy ads
#166Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Fake news" appears to be "news I don't like" and has no correlation with the accuracy of the content. Conveniently, Facebook seems to agree with many major media outlets about what news they don't like, so they can present their arbitrary definition of "fake" as objective and conveniently no one can break through the bubble to prove otherwise.
If anyone wants an example of this, look at the coverage of the crowd size at Trump's inauguration. That's still held up as the canonical example of the Trump administration's "alternative facts" (in fact that's when the phrase was coined, I believe). But there's high resolution video of the crowds during the ceremony that clearly contradicts the photos of sparse crowds. I also think the guy is a lying moron, but the…
Can you share this 'high resolution video'? AFAIK, those videos were debunked as fake news because the National Park Services photos showed sparse crowds during the ceremony.
Re: Facebook says Pages that regularly share false news won’t be able to buy ads
#167Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is no different than being able to tell when someone is bullshitting just as you walk through every day life, and thinking we need to shield the poor naive populace from harmful ideas is borderline stereotypical paternalism. There is a huge difference. If someone is bullshitting you in real life, you don't give them a giant microphone so they can reach millions of people. You ignore them, or politely engage in…
This is not true. Someone who bullshits in real life can still buy a microphone and can rent a stadium for his event. People can choose to attend or not attend and listen to him. For example, Trump has spread so many falsehoods but people still attend his events.
The people selling microphones get to decide that. This is Facebook's microphone to sell, the liars are free to buy another.
Re: Facebook says Pages that regularly share false news won’t be able to buy ads
#168Earlier quoted context omitted.
The game has changed. There are people with intolerant and twisted views trying to manipulate the naive herd of sheep who blindly follows whatever people like on Facebook. Knowing the tactics of people behind fake news, it's good that Facebook is responding accordingly to punish and get rid of bad actors on their platform. It's once again showing that we can't have pure anarcho decentralization. It would be a haven f…
what I love about this site is even when I disagree with a position, I would be hard-pressed to find it worded better and more clearly stated
I thought it was clearly stated. It's just not one of those things that adds to the conversation, except perhaps by demonstrating the same principles of the direct action via the downvote. It's so rare I get something I both disagree with and which demonstrates immediately by its subject matter how to deal with it.
Re: Facebook says Pages that regularly share false news won’t be able to buy ads
#169Earlier quoted context omitted.
sad to me that people are so quick to dismiss the principles of free speech on the basis that "the game has changed" after thousands of years of human history proving it hasn't. (inb4 1st amendment is only for the gov - that is a selective truth. the principles of free speech exist outside of government.)
>(inb4 1st amendment is only for the gov - that is a selective truth. the principles of free speech exist outside of government.) Except they don't. You should have said "inb4 John Stuart Mill", one of the founders of free speech philosophy who said that that the harm principle trumps freedom of speech (i.e. if an expression causes harm, then that expression can be silenced). This idea of freedom of speech "as a prin…
The problem is when certain groups take the definition of harmful speech beyond all reasonable limitations. Certain powerful groups spoke of favorably by the media would designate the Google memo as harmful hate speech that needs to be suppressed. Then they will go one step further and say sympathizing with the memo is also naturally a form of harmful speech. We've already slid too far down this slope. I expect in the future I will be mandated to clap and bawl uncontrollably while my great liberal leader makes a speech on pain of death for the crime of facism
Re: Facebook says Pages that regularly share false news won’t be able to buy ads
#170Earlier quoted context omitted.
> ...after thousands of years of human history proving it hasn't. People couldn't manipulate millions of others as easily. You couldn't even REACH millions of people easily. And you had to be an actual authority figure to be given that power (perhaps a corrupt practice but still). The communications landscape is quite different from 2000, remarkably different from 1980, extremely different from 1960, a world away fro…
so how did Hitler rise? How did freedom of speech treat the West at the time? How did the opposite help Europe?
That was less than 100 years ago, after the invention of radio and newsreels; I'm not shire how it proves the point of unfettered free speech either.
I'd love to see examples of unfettered free speech from the 1600s or much MUCH easier.