Facebook, Twitter dismantle global array of disinformation networks • Hacker News Board

Re: Facebook, Twitter dismantle global array of disinformation networks

#171

Post by filoleg » Fri, Oct 09, 2020, 7:28 PM UTC

JakeTheAndroid wrote: post #164

influx wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We just had a thread on hacker news where most folks agreed the administrations changes to the H1B program were welcome.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Competence is demonstrated over time, not in a vacuum of individual decisions. Someone that is competent at Chess proves it over an entire game. A novice can still make a few good moves over the course of that same match. Pretty much any competency can be demonstrated that way.

No need to move the goalposts. The original comment wasn't arguing whether POTUS was competent or not, which is what you are trying to argue.

The original comment was arguing whether any of the POTUS work was competent. And that H1B change seems to have been competent, according to the general consensus on HN.

Is the entirety of the rest of POTUS' work incompetent? Maybe. That wasn't the original claim though.

Re: Facebook, Twitter dismantle global array of disinformation networks

#172

Post by Balgair » Fri, Oct 09, 2020, 7:28 PM UTC

vinhboy wrote: post #74

unethical_ban wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the alternative? Think you're the smartest person on the planet, unaffected by misinformation? "Feed me the libraries worth of bullshit from the Internet, and I will sort through this free market firehose to come to a logical, evidence based conclusion", hm? Have you ever read spam ads on Craigslist, fake comments on news sites, bots on Tinder, etc? There are patterns, there are foul motives, and with their i…

> Think you're the smartest person on the planet, unaffected by misinformation? Thank goodness someone is calling this out other than me. Sites like these are filled with people who think they are smart don't need any help, and worse, expect everyone else in the world to be at their level. I too am glad social media companies are finally waking up and taking action against this stuff. Can you imagine a world where Go…

Here's a little story about one of the smartest people that ever lived, Sir Isaac Newton, and how he went broke along with most of England:

https://www.sovereignman.com/finance/how-isaac-newton-went-f...

Note the graph there showing his purchasing events.

Newton himself was well aware of his folly afterwards. He was able to admit that he was irrational and learn form the experience.

Many people that consider themselves smart would be well improved to learn the same lesson Sir Isaac did.

Re: Facebook, Twitter dismantle global array of disinformation networks

#173

Post by twitter_anon » Fri, Oct 09, 2020, 7:34 PM UTC

luckylion wrote: post #158

twitter_anon wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a popular sentiment on HN, but it oversimplifies the situation. Engagement, in the aggregate, does not pay the bills. Advertisers paying us to sponsor tweets does. Advertisers will only do that if paying to sponsor tweets results in either improving brand image or converting sales. Advertisers won't pay for ads that don't get clicked on. Political pissing matches and disinformation campaigns don't bring the k…

Do you believe the same to be true for Facebook as well? Why is Twitter encouraging outrage-engagement via the (somewhat filtered) Trending section? Why aren't you actively trying to decrease political engagement if it's a net negative?

> Do you believe the same to be true for Facebook as well?

I have no idea about Facebook. I barely even use it so all my information is second-hand.

> Why is Twitter encouraging outrage-engagement via the (somewhat filtered) Trending section?

We're not, at least not intentionally. Do you think we are? If so, why?

The Trending section is still biased towards things that are being talked about frequently. Unfortunately, that means outrage-inducing topics will tend to bubble up there. We're working on making trend identification more sophisticated in order to provide better context, but it's a really hard problem with such short snippets of context.

> Why aren't you actively trying to decrease political engagement if it's a net negative?

"Political engagement" overlaps with, but is not synonymous with, "outrage engagement". Outrage engagement is a net negative; political engagement that does not devolve into misinformation and toxicity is not. We are actively trying to decrease engagement with misinformation and outrage, but it's a hard problem. Also, frankly, it's being hampered by a lack of focus internally that is leaving the teams involved with no clear direction other than "do something, now!".

Non-toxic political engagement is a net positive for us. We don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater by shutting it all down, assuming we even could (it's fundamentally the same problem, though a little bit easier). I see how other people might see that as the better option to shut down the toxicity and misinformation, though.

Re: Facebook, Twitter dismantle global array of disinformation networks

#174

Post by eropple » Fri, Oct 09, 2020, 7:43 PM UTC

bmarquez wrote: post #126

ardy42 wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'd also argue that what's left of the corporate media is rapidly losing credibility, highly partisan and rarely objective. How so, exactly? This is kind of an odd moment, where the US president is deeply incompetent and a shameless liar, and some seem to think it's biased for the mainstream media to even point those facts out. There are definitely some aspects of the traditional media that fit your description (al…

> where the US president is deeply incompetent and a shameless liar, and some seem to think it's biased for the mainstream media to even point those facts out. Deeply incompetent is an opinion, not a fact. So yes, it is a form of bias. Actual fact-based reporting would be articles like "President did XXXX on YYYY" and leave the opinions and talking heads out. It would also be fairly dry and not generate outrage click…

So you know what's in that "actual fact-based reporting"? Editorial decision of coverage. "What you choose to talk about" is editorial. That "fact-based reporting" is no less subject to lies of omission. And, beyond that? Contextualization of those "facts". What are these facts? What do they mean? Why are they worth reporting on? Why are they worth reading about? Are they even "facts"?

I don't blame you personally for propagating this misunderstanding of journalism as there is a lot of power and money behind not having actual journalism, but "actual fact-based reporting" is a canard designed to keep the populace dumb. Reportage--journalism--has always contextualized information and explained why you should care. That cannot, repeat cannot, be divorced from the act of reporting. A stock ticker is not journalism. You can get it if you want. But it doesn't mean squat to the overwhelming majority of people, nor is it expected to, and the dull ignorance of a wave of decontextualized "facts-only" reportage is an idea designed to create a dumber and less civically capable society.

It also happens to make the comfortable and the comparatively powerful, a class to whom I belong, feel less challenged about things. Convenient, that. But bad for us, no matter how convenient it is.

Re: Facebook, Twitter dismantle global array of disinformation networks

#175

Post by UnpossibleJim » Fri, Oct 09, 2020, 7:46 PM UTC

bjelkeman-again wrote: post #136

bmarquez wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> where the US president is deeply incompetent and a shameless liar, and some seem to think it's biased for the mainstream media to even point those facts out. Deeply incompetent is an opinion, not a fact. So yes, it is a form of bias. Actual fact-based reporting would be articles like "President did XXXX on YYYY" and leave the opinions and talking heads out. It would also be fairly dry and not generate outrage click…

I would find it hard to argue that any of the current POTUS work has been competent.

I think that a very real argument could be made that this PoTUS was elected as a direct intolerance of the corruption and intolerance of the normal citizenry of the US by the professional politicians. To expect him to be competent at the job was to be naive (which a lot of people were), but it was a knee jerk reaction to the options left to them, I think.

Re: Facebook, Twitter dismantle global array of disinformation networks

#176

Post by glial » Fri, Oct 09, 2020, 7:48 PM UTC

unethical_ban wrote: post #78

glial wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Facebook and Twitter are taking what must be very careful, researched action Sorry but are we talking about the same companies? What track record do they have that helps you to believe this?

Because if they deleted 100% of the bullshit on their sites, tweet volume would be much lower. My point is, they clearly aren't removing the majority of disinformed and disinforming nonsense. And I don't think every human at the two orgs are evil. If they say "Look, we found these patterns, these correlations, this forensic data that points at coordinated disinformation", my intuition is that they have done just that…

Sure, not every person is evil. You just need evil leaders and employees that need paychecks to be in a bad spot.

The core problem is that they have two conflicting incentives. They don’t want to look bad for spreading misinformation so they try to restrict it. But, they are incentivized to make money, and posts spreading disinformation are lucrative because they appeal to eyeballs. I am extremely, extremely skeptical that this is a resolvable problem for them.

Re: Facebook, Twitter dismantle global array of disinformation networks

#177

Post by lawnchair_larry » Fri, Oct 09, 2020, 7:49 PM UTC

MrBuddyCasino wrote: post #11

hirundo wrote: post #9

I don't trust Facebook or Twitter to distinguish disinformation from information. Why would anyone?

They can’t and they shouldn’t. The potential good that could come from this does not outweigh the catastrophic failure modes of this approach. Some enlightened people understood this, hundreds of years ago. Its time for another amendment. EDIT since this is related, another horrendous idea that recently disgraced my timeline https://twitter.com/yelp/status/1314197509623947265?s=21

Wow, I had not seen that from Yelp. That is a horrible idea, and because they control brick and mortar reputation more than anything else, there is nothing that can be done about it. Hopefully they get sued for libel and realize what a dumb approach this is.

Re: Facebook, Twitter dismantle global array of disinformation networks

#178

Post by rdiddly » Fri, Oct 09, 2020, 7:51 PM UTC

dilippkumar wrote: post #61

tyre wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you propose to combat disinformation campaigns? Look at what’s happening. The end results of allowing anything to happen on social media are not good. We’re not in a good place. So we can ignore that for rigid principles, or admit that those principles don’t stand up to the real world. No, no one hundreds of years ago had any idea about the scale or effect of social networks. Yes there was propaganda and brai…

> So. What do you propose? Not GP, but I propose doing absolutely nothing. There have always been tabloid newspapers, underground conspiracy theory magazines and various AM broadcasting stations peddling all kinds of nonsense. The internet is just a new medium that’s joining the club. There is no substitute for critical thinking. There are always going to be people who will hold opinions that are anathema to your bel…

I don't necessarily disagree, but one big problem is that there is no "adult world" on the internet. If you can't function without a school teacher and aren't ready for the "adult world," you can nonetheless get a Twitter or Facebook account just like anybody else, and interact with the adults, and maybe even fool some of them. It takes a while to sort out who's an insane asshole. The only way to tell is by listening for a while to what's coming out of their megaphone that unfortunately millions of other people can also hear. Finally you decide they're a metaphorical non-adult and, I guess, block or unfriend them, but meanwhile millions of other non-adults are like "Yesss, finally someone said what my lizard-brain has been thinking all along!!" That's not what happens with the guy on the sidewalk holding the sign.

Edit: Just noticed you said lizard and I said lizard. Any resemblance is entirely coincidental. I meant something about the basal ganglia or limbic system, whereas yours is an exotic & fantastical sci-fi scenario. Although interestingly if you consider all the venality and viciousness in national politics, and the fact that every politician has that same part of the brain, it's actually kind of true that lizard-men are running the government!

Re: Facebook, Twitter dismantle global array of disinformation networks

#179

Post by olivermarks » Fri, Oct 09, 2020, 7:54 PM UTC

ardy42 wrote: post #118

olivermarks wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd also argue that what's left of the corporate media is rapidly losing credibility, highly partisan and rarely objective. this feeds social network frenzy, a lot of which is people parroting and attempting to amplify ideas from their preferred channels. There's always been a huge corporate yellow journalism problem, now it is possible to instantly orchestrate rage and frenzy repeated across countless personal accou…

> I'd also argue that what's left of the corporate media is rapidly losing credibility, highly partisan and rarely objective. How so, exactly? This is kind of an odd moment, where the US president is deeply incompetent and a shameless liar, and some seem to think it's biased for the mainstream media to even point those facts out. There are definitely some aspects of the traditional media that fit your description (al…

@ardy42 I think you just proved my point. To presume to know anything about what goes on in the rarified power struggles at an intercontinental/global levels requires free speech and giving serious researchers/writers a viewable voice. There are plenty of wonderful investigative reporters (Whitney Webb is a stellar example right now for example) but the editorial employees of oligarch owned media have marching orders and objectives to meet, so voices like Whitney's are invisible in the 'mainstream media', except to be undermined if their work gets through to an audience.

We don't know anything about the political layers of the onion batting for control of the US democratically elected leadership, but we do have a daily torrent of candidate abuse, undermining and negativity from the two big corporate camps and zero coverage of anything else (Greens, Libertarians, candidates rejected by their party etc etc). The person currently in power usually gets the worst of the abuse and second guessing as who-knows-who fights to depose and replace. (I'm a registered Dem in Cal FWIW, not arguing a political point here).

Re: Facebook, Twitter dismantle global array of disinformation networks

#180

Post by shirakawasuna » Fri, Oct 09, 2020, 7:57 PM UTC

One should be wary of promoting the idea that these companies will create a valid and trustworthy tiered system of validity in news media. News media already has serious problems that are generally ignored, go unrecognized, or become part of false partisan narratives. Indicating that they are to be trusted and this other class shouldn't be might sound fine at first, but the fight will be at the line drawn between the two.

Will less popular media outlets be flagged as illegitimate? What if a site pushes a conspiracy theory that's actually well-backed but is considered harmful by one of these companies? Even assuming good faith, look at the coronavirus filtering and compare it to what the "trusted" media sources and CDC were saying back in January and February regarding masks. If you were to independently say, "hey, what they're saying about mask efficacy doesn't make much sense. Everyone should wear some kind of mouth covering just in case", would you be flagged as dangerous misinformation? Because that position would be correct and warranted but also fly in the face of the cited authorities and experts (who were curated in a biased way to begin with, ignoring Chinese scientists' recommendations and the experiences of East Asian countries with other pandemics). Remember, in January and February, those in the US and often EU were being told that masks didn't really protect you, could even increase your risk, and to specifically not purchase and wear them. This was always an inconsistent narrative, of course, because the point of this misinformation was to reserve stock for healthcare professionals because masks do work and healthcare professionals needed them.

We need better systems for addressing misinformation than placing the burden on platforms who will inevitably work in their own interest and attempt to automate processes that should be manually (and expensively) done on an individual basis.