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

181–190 of 239 posts

Re: Facebook to Let Users Rank Credibility of News

#181

Post by walterbell »

sanmon3186 wrote: post #107
lawlessone wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you explain this? maybe it's because of the filter bubble i live in but i almost never see this on whatsapp (then again, maybe i wouldn't know if i had.)

The fact that Facebook walls are visible to everyone, any controversial topic usually gets reaction from both sides. Whatsapp groups are formed based on likemindedness (I am excluding core family and friends). I call these groups echo-pipes which silently form a larger echo chamber.

Are these public groups? How are they discovered?

Re: Facebook to Let Users Rank Credibility of News

#182

Post by deadfish »

themagician wrote: post #16

This is the opposite of what they should have done. Shows just how much of an echo-chamber Facebook has become. This is just adding another metric by which garbage can be made legitimate and vice versa. Facebook would be a much better platform if they removed the like and comment count from every post. It’s those numbers that lead people to believe that garbage is legitimate in the first place. By hiding these number…

Surely the problem is the lack of a dislike button?

I wonder if Reddit has as much fake news as Facebook?

Re: Facebook to Let Users Rank Credibility of News

#183

Post by Erik816 »

deadfish wrote: post #182
themagician wrote: post #16

This is the opposite of what they should have done. Shows just how much of an echo-chamber Facebook has become. This is just adding another metric by which garbage can be made legitimate and vice versa. Facebook would be a much better platform if they removed the like and comment count from every post. It’s those numbers that lead people to believe that garbage is legitimate in the first place. By hiding these number…

Surely the problem is the lack of a dislike button? I wonder if Reddit has as much fake news as Facebook?

Probably less completely ridiculous stories, but it does tend towards groupthink. Popularity is not a great gauge for truth.

Re: Facebook to Let Users Rank Credibility of News

#184

Post by [deleted] »

themagician wrote: post #16

This is the opposite of what they should have done. Shows just how much of an echo-chamber Facebook has become. This is just adding another metric by which garbage can be made legitimate and vice versa. Facebook would be a much better platform if they removed the like and comment count from every post. It’s those numbers that lead people to believe that garbage is legitimate in the first place. By hiding these number…

[deleted]

Re: Facebook to Let Users Rank Credibility of News

#186

Post by fhood »

tyfon wrote: post #175
InternetUser wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Your not the first person to worry about our mandatory education. It varies enormously depending on the resources of the surrounding area, and I am sure there are some schools that cover modern politics.

Re: Facebook to Let Users Rank Credibility of News

#188

Post by emodendroket »

hackinthebochs wrote: post #180
mike_hearn wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 par…

Maybe it makes sense, but Vladimir Putin has superpowers if everything people blame on him is true. And Mr. Hearn's article nicely illustrates how shaky the foundation is for a lot of claims of Russian influence.

Re: Facebook to Let Users Rank Credibility of News

#189

Post by alkonaut »

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…

A lot of people would strongly disagree with Jones’ videos, while some would share and like them. So they are clearly controversial and “bubbly” (as those liking them and those disliking them will belong to connected groups, socially and locally) - so Facebook should simply try to limit their spread as they are likely not objective and certainly divisive. That was exactly my point.

But I still believe that Facebook could whitelist news sources too - but obviously if they do there will be a massive cry from those that thought breitbart or drudge was going to pass that cut.

Post reply on HN