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

Facebook to Let Users Rank Credibility of News

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 239 posts

Re: Facebook to Let Users Rank Credibility of News

#171

Post by s0rce »

ctrl-j wrote: post #162
pixl97 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And if schoolbooks are filled with 'fake news'. All you've done at this point is create an appeal to authority. http://www.textbookleague.org/103feyn.htm

A good education is far more than just textbooks. Critical thinking is what is missing here - and is what needs to be taught in schools. Mindless regurgitation of facts doesn't really help anyone - and that's the majority of what I've seen in highschools in America.

I think this is the key point. Even if schools presented largely propaganda but they spent an effective amount of time teaching useful critical thinking then the students might have enough experience/tools to think for themselves and not accept everything in the books.

Re: Facebook to Let Users Rank Credibility of News

#172

Post by InternetUser »

alkonaut wrote: post #168

What they should do isn’t show me news that I’m likely to agree with, but news that nearly noone disagrees with. It should be very easy to notice what has both large numbers of people disagreeing and agreeing with, and people within the same social networks agree with eachother. That type of news could just be supressed. If all that’s left is news with kittens then that’s a glorious success. I can get actual news els…

> news that nearly noone disagrees with

Well, in a country where 30 states voted for Trump, 20 states voted for Hillary, and 100 million people chose not to vote (and that's 42% of the eligible electorate[0]), who shall be arbiter of what news, at least U.S. political news, "nearly noone disagrees with"? I mean, given that a majority of politically active people in a large majority of states voted for Trump, I expect that you'll agree with me that Alex Jones' endlessly pro-Trump daily videos should be featured right at the top of everyone's News Feed. I know I'd love that.

[0] http://archive.is/NDUkb

https://www.youtube.com/user/TheAlexJonesChannel/videos

Re: Facebook to Let Users Rank Credibility of News

#173

Post by emodendroket »

mike_hearn wrote: post #121
MBCook wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I’m not saying it was a Russian plot at all. It’s a real thing. I’m saying they seized on it as something they could use to push division between people.

I find that incredibly unlikely. I used to work in bot fighting on Google. Claims of Russian bots on Twitter and especially claims by academics are invariably riddled with methodological errors that render the "research" useless. I wrote about this problem here: https://blog.plan99.net/did-russian-bots-impact-brexit-ad66f... These studies are seeing patterns in noise. That's why the narrative changed over time - it u…

The article linked is excellent. Thanks.

Re: Facebook to Let Users Rank Credibility of News

#174

Post by jordigh »

mattferderer wrote: post #122
peoplewindow wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole idea of "fake news" came out of US politics to begin with, so no surprise organisations set up specifically with that as a mantra are ideological in nature and uninterested in actual facts.

I believe with your quotes, you may be referring to the phrase "fake news" but fake news has been around as long as humans & probably even longer. I'm glad people are giving this a discussion though.

No, "fake news" refers to a very specific phenomenon. It's not just any kind of misleading or incorrect reporting. Trump was the one to start saying "not fake news, YOU'RE fake news", but the phenomenon as initially encountered was about shoddy and small fraudulent websites, often trying to deceive their audience to believe that they were a different website, pushing the most anger-inducing news.

It's a far cry from the NYT or Fox News reporting incorrect things, whether deliberately or not, to someone called Foxx News or Non York Times reporting that Islam causes prostate cancer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fake_news_websites#Lis...

Re: Facebook to Let Users Rank Credibility of News

#175

Post by tyfon »

InternetUser wrote: post #164
belorn wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The experience from a few months ago during a conference showed me that education won't fix echo chambers. It was a conference that was organized by a organization that holds one of the major initiative against false news, and where one of the main tracks was about addressing the issue of false news. Last year they had a massive booth at the middle of the conference hall about false news. This year they brought in a…

> education won't fix echo chambers. No fewer than 6 of the coveted "swing states" switched from blue to red[0], and many counties across the country flipped as well. What persuaded hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of 2012 Obama voters to be 2016 Trump voters? Trump himself educated them, in his speeches. I'm one such person, spent the entire election season commenting and chatting with others on Reddit and Yo…

I'm seriously wondering about the education system in the US if you had to learn about lobbyists, donors and special interests from Trump.

This is primary school stuff in my country at least, along with the explanation for why political ads on TV are banned here.

Re: Facebook to Let Users Rank Credibility of News

#177

Post by gnicholas »

askvictor wrote: post #70
excalibur wrote: post #4

BuzzFeed. The most trusted name in news.

Actually BuzzFeed has recently been doing some excellent investigative and long-form journalism. Surprising turnaround; kind of like Vice.

True; but as of 2014, they had the dubious honor of being untrusted by both Dems and Repubs.

http://www.journalism.org/2014/10/21/political-polarization-...

Re: Facebook to Let Users Rank Credibility of News

#178

Post by booleandilemma »

jsjohnst wrote: post #176

I just wish they would implement a "Snopes.com filter" which marked things as proven false. I would say something like 1/5 posts some of my relatives make is easily disproved by Snopes.

I liked snopes.com more when they were a site that debunked urban legends and not a place people went to for political info.

Re: Facebook to Let Users Rank Credibility of News

#179

Post by soundwave106 »

InternetUser wrote: post #172
alkonaut wrote: post #168

What they should do isn’t show me news that I’m likely to agree with, but news that nearly noone disagrees with. It should be very easy to notice what has both large numbers of people disagreeing and agreeing with, and people within the same social networks agree with eachother. That type of news could just be supressed. If all that’s left is news with kittens then that’s a glorious success. I can get actual news els…

> news that nearly noone disagrees with Well, in a country where 30 states voted for Trump, 20 states voted for Hillary, and 100 million people chose not to vote (and that's 42% of the eligible electorate[0]), who shall be arbiter of what news, at least U.S. political news, "nearly noone disagrees with"? I mean, given that a majority of politically active people in a large majority of states voted for Trump, I expect…

Not all news is political news.

I don't use my Facebook much except to occasionally share vacation photos these days. Checking recently seems to show no news of any sort. Just some silly memes, weather phenomenon (supermoons!), pop-geek-culture stuff, and daily status updates. Since it's the season, there's some American football discussion, which people obviously have disagreements on, of course, but in that "sport" sort of way. :) I'm sure major news (like major weather events) will still make my feed, but there seems to be a noticeable decrease in political stuff.

My cynical take on this announcement is that, for those that post and share a lot of news, there is a high probability that your news bubble will be more heavily reinforced. Not all Trump voters are Alex Jones heads, of course, but if you are one, maybe Alex Jones will still be at the top of your news feed, and you will get all of the Alex Jones-y shares you want. It just won't be on the feed of the friend who prefers is apolitical merely sharing silly cat videos, or the person who is sharing Rachel Maddow clips. Facebook, in other words, will strive to bring you the best news feed that you will never disagree with, all the better for dopamine-inducing clicks and likes.

(I don't really know, of course, if my cynicism is off the mark, but these sort of opaque-algorithm news feed games Facebook plays are a large reason why I rarely use my Facebook feed. :) )

Re: Facebook to Let Users Rank Credibility of News

#180

Post by hackinthebochs »

mike_hearn wrote: post #121
MBCook wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I’m not saying it was a Russian plot at all. It’s a real thing. I’m saying they seized on it as something they could use to push division between people.

I find that incredibly unlikely. I used to work in bot fighting on Google. Claims of Russian bots on Twitter and especially claims by academics are invariably riddled with methodological errors that render the "research" useless. I wrote about this problem here: https://blog.plan99.net/did-russian-bots-impact-brexit-ad66f... These studies are seeing patterns in noise. That's why the narrative changed over time - it u…

>the new spin doesn't even make logical sense.

Sure it does. The appearance of a wide division in our political landscape leads to a wide division in our political landscape. People tend to "pick sides" in political fights and when something gives the appearance of a serious political dispute, people are motivated to pick sides and entrench their opinions. This is in keeping with getting Trump elected, as a large part of his support was due to the fear created by the appearance of growing civil unrest. None of this is particularly hard to understand.

Post reply on HN