Facebook says Pages that regularly share false news won’t be able to buy ads • Hacker News Board

Re: Facebook says Pages that regularly share false news won’t be able to buy ads

#251

Post by sqeaky » Mon, Aug 28, 2017, 8:26 PM UTC

sqeaky wrote: post #162

menacingly wrote: post #41

The 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.

People don't like this. Please respond and tell me why.

Can you defend Trump? As near as I can tell he doesn't have any actual stances. He contradicts himself constantly. He acts like a child instead either a politician or a statesman. He turns down expert briefings. He appears to be embezzling money by having his security stay at his properties. He takes far too much vacation. He has a curiously large amoutn of ties to Russia and appears to have at least some unsavory ties with Russia. Anyone supporting this idiot is not qualified to pick a leader. I say that having voted for democrats an republicans.

Re: Facebook says Pages that regularly share false news won’t be able to buy ads

#252

Post by sqeaky » Mon, Aug 28, 2017, 9:19 PM UTC

Applejinx wrote: post #219

peoplewindow wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it complex? I don't think so at all. Facebook can easily just tag stories they think are false, and give people a button to hide or show such stories (or even show ONLY such stories to make it easier for people to build trust in the system). It would be a kind of spam filter for news stories. Facebook could then stay neutral, could avoid claims of censorship, people who want to only see "true" news could be happy,…

They're correct. People cannot spot BS and learn from it, including you and I. We'll put much effort into mastering a certain area of reality and truth, and find other horizons clouding over by the day: we cannot, as humans, reality-check everything we're confronted with, because it's too much. We're not shepherds or subsistence farmers anymore, with a world tightly constrained and comprehensible. Our world expanded,…

We live in a single objective reality. There are ways to get at the truth.

Some of those ways are even easy. Can the claims be tested, sometimes this can shortcut you strait to the truth. Knowing how to check sources gets you one step closer. Knowing how to assess the quality of sources, helps. Knowing how to understand the original source material is crucial. Checking that a multitude of sources agree. Determining if the sources are trustworthy (in the web of trust sense). In the case of claims about the natural world being able to duplicate experiments is the ultimate source of truth. There is more but much of this can be done with just a few web searches.

Many Millions of people don't or can't do any this. How many times have we fixed someone's else's computer with just a google search?

Now for the part where I get downvoted. I blame religion. If you do even the most basic checking into most religions they start seeming off. The sources are often unverifiable books. They make claims about the natural world that don't line up with evidence if they are even testable, worse they often contradict themselves. They often have a long history of actively covering up the truth of reality as best they can. What chances does a mind have at navigating a potentially nuanced modern political landscape when its critical faculties have been dulled to the point of accepting as literal truth some or all of the stories about virgin birth, miracles, resurrection, denial of evolution, implausible claims of the earth's age and many other manners of objective non-true things. Religion damages critical thinking. Demagogues and autocrats have always like reduced critical thinking.

Re: Facebook says Pages that regularly share false news won’t be able to buy ads

#253

Post by MisterBastahrd » Mon, Aug 28, 2017, 9:20 PM UTC

ctdonath wrote: post #141

MisterBastahrd wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, no. The reasons that those other systems failed has nothing to do with this particular issue. People will still be able to share their bullshit to like minded people to their hearts' content, which is how the vast majority of information gets shared through facebook. All facebook is saying is that they will not take money from these bullshit mills. The vast majority of people couldn't care less about whether Br…

Imputing & dismissing a large fraction of your audience, or friends of your audience, as "deplorable" is not a wise marketing move. They may be 50+, they may watch Fox News, but they consider Breitbart a canary in the coalmine, and may prove quick to throw their not-inconsiderable weight behind cheesy non-sequitur upstart quietly years in the making.

Again: grandparents aren't going to abandon a website en masse, a website they use primarily to view photos of their families, just because they certain ads are not being shown.

Not stories. Not shared posts. Ads. They will still get all the ads they want to their hearts content from right-wing sources should those companies buy ad space, it just won't be from knowingly bullshit sources.

Breitbart? No. Rebel Media? No.

WSJ? Yes. The Hill? Yes.

It's not difficult to understand, and it isn't going to change anyone but a handful of nutball's facebook habits. There's no alternative platform in this space that isn't app-first, which eliminates it from consideration for generations that are and will continue to be desktop-first.

Re: Facebook says Pages that regularly share false news won’t be able to buy ads

#254

Post by majewsky » Mon, Aug 28, 2017, 9:22 PM UTC

joshuamorton wrote: post #241

majewsky wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is there some social contract that all people are entered into with Facebook? They have written community rules (don't know the exact name) that members are expected to comply with. > What large portion of the internet do they "govern"? The Facebook website (duh). Which, for a surprising amount of people, is literally "the internet" (or at least the part of it that they most interact with). > As best as I can tell…

This entire argument is predicated on a misapplication of the term "government". Something that sets rules is not a government in the same way that an actual government is a government, and confusing the two interpretations cannot lead to productive discourse. Just to be clear, this definition also makes Walmart the government of all Walmart stores, and me the government of my bedroom. Neither of those are in any way…

That's why I qualified "for all intents and purposes" in my first post, and used "governance" in the second one. Walmart very much does govern its stores [1]. And a government is defined as the entity governing a state. States, of course, require physical extent, which doesn't exist on the internet, so yes, there technically can't be a government over virtual space (only over the physical space that the people using it inhabit).

[1] Edit: Within the boundaries of the law. But if that were a problem with your definition of "governance", then state governments (which operate within the boundaries of federal law) would not be governing either.

Re: Facebook says Pages that regularly share false news won’t be able to buy ads

#255

Post by 0xbear » Mon, Aug 28, 2017, 9:23 PM UTC

fullshark wrote: post #178

0xbear wrote: post #86

Part of the strategy employed by mainstream media to misinform the public is _selective_ reporting. That is, either the entire event is not reported if it doesn't fit the narrative, or parts that don't fit the narrative are simply omitted or deemphasized. Will FB detect and demonetize that as well?

No, do you have a suggested way to do this? Seems impossible at FBs scale.

Then it's just one-sided censorship in favor of narrative peddlers who run major media corporations, and it has nothing to do with suppressing "fake news".

Re: Facebook says Pages that regularly share false news won’t be able to buy ads

#256

Post by MBCook » Mon, Aug 28, 2017, 9:38 PM UTC

wooter wrote: post #220

MBCook wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ancient Athenians adored freedom of speech. Naming a warship after the very concept. 399BC - Socrates speaks to jury at his trial: 'If you offered to let me off this time on condition I am not any longer to speak my mind... I should say to you, "Men of Athens, I shall obey the Gods rather than you."' 1516 - The Education of a Christian Prince by Erasmus. 'In a free state, tongues too should be free.' In the 1600s, Ga…

Those are examples of free speech being liked.

Based on the post I was expecting examples of where free speech overcame the kind of 'there are my kind of lies so they must be true you liar' stuff we're seeing now.

Re: Facebook says Pages that regularly share false news won’t be able to buy ads

#257

Post by Frondo » Mon, Aug 28, 2017, 9:44 PM UTC

gozur88 wrote: post #234

Frondo wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you. Fetishization of free speech is a good way to put it--and it's a position that I would say comes from people who lack perspective; the people who are going to be the last ones targeted by the actual violence that's already happening. Again I'd like to ask, what's the free speech answer to nazis and white supremacists raising their fists to my friends and loved ones? How do we free-speech our way out of the…

>Again I'd like to ask, what's the free speech answer to nazis and white supremacists raising their fists to my friends and loved ones? How do we free-speech our way out of the violence that's already coming? One, you respond to violence with violence, but that's not what we're talking about. And two, the best way to hurry along the violence you think is coming is to close down other people's free speech. Speech is t…

"You'd love to be a free speech absolutist, as long as the people talking agree with you."

I'd love to be a free speech absolutist but where that's been taking us, my friends and loved ones are at the receiving end of fists, guns, and cars.

So... just to clarify, you're telling me I should be a free speech absolutist and say, "yes, let's just talk that car out of plowing into us"?

Serious, honest question. The violence is already here. Is that--more talking in the face of violence against vulnerable communities--where you see free speech absolutism leading us? Is that the place we, as a society, want to be headed?

(If it's easy for you to say, "yes," then I'm assuming you feel safe knowing you'd never be at the receiving end of a car plowing through a crowd.)

Re: Facebook says Pages that regularly share false news won’t be able to buy ads

#258

Post by gozur88 » Mon, Aug 28, 2017, 10:03 PM UTC

Frondo wrote: post #257

gozur88 wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Again I'd like to ask, what's the free speech answer to nazis and white supremacists raising their fists to my friends and loved ones? How do we free-speech our way out of the violence that's already coming? One, you respond to violence with violence, but that's not what we're talking about. And two, the best way to hurry along the violence you think is coming is to close down other people's free speech. Speech is t…

"You'd love to be a free speech absolutist, as long as the people talking agree with you." I'd love to be a free speech absolutist but where that's been taking us, my friends and loved ones are at the receiving end of fists, guns, and cars. So... just to clarify, you're telling me I should be a free speech absolutist and say, "yes, let's just talk that car out of plowing into us"? Serious, honest question. The violen…

>So... just to clarify, you're telling me I should be a free speech absolutist and say, "yes, let's just talk that car out of plowing into us"?

Is a moving car "speech"? You seem to keep trying to blur the line between speech and violence. Why is that? Is it that you don't recognize the difference, or is it that you realize there hasn't actually been much violence, and most of it's coming from your "friends and loved ones" on the left?

>Serious, honest question. The violence is already here. Is that--more talking in the face of violence against vulnerable communities--where you see free speech absolutism leading us? Is that the place we, as a society, want to be headed?

Who are you talking about when you say "vulnerable communities"? The communities with all the institutional protection, from colleges to employers to the state?

And it's not free speech that's turning up the antagonism, but rather the opposite, as more and more pressure is put on people to refrain from, you know, speaking their mind.

>(If it's easy for you to say, "yes," then I'm assuming you feel safe knowing you'd never be at the receiving end of a car plowing through a crowd.)

Again, that was one incident. One. By a guy who'd most likely just been assaulted by communists. To make policy based on what one person does is idiotic.

But if that's what we're going to do, shouldn't we look into yanking MSNBC's broadcast license? I mean, the guy who shot Scalise was a big Maddow fan.

Re: Facebook says Pages that regularly share false news won’t be able to buy ads

#259

Post by ZeroGravitas » Mon, Aug 28, 2017, 11:53 PM UTC

sqeaky wrote: post #251

sqeaky wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

People don't like this. Please respond and tell me why. Can you defend Trump? As near as I can tell he doesn't have any actual stances. He contradicts himself constantly. He acts like a child instead either a politician or a statesman. He turns down expert briefings. He appears to be embezzling money by having his security stay at his properties. He takes far too much vacation. He has a curiously large amoutn of ties…

I think many people are having to face what their "side" has become, in a bit more clarity than they are comfortable with. The Republicans traditionally kept the fascism and racism hidden to some degree, but Trump simply isn't capable of that.

So they retreat into philosophical arguments about how you can't deny Nazi's free speech, because that's unamerican and a slippery slope. While Republicans continue their decades of voter suppression in plain view, which is apparently cool. What about "I may not agree with your vote but I'll fight to the death to ensure it gets cast and counted"?

No, they know they need the votes of Nazis and racists, they know they need to suppress minority votes. They know they need to tell horrible lies to get angry rubes to vote against their own interests. They know they need to demonise minorities. And they're slowly coming to terms with the fact that "their side" could never win without all this. But they still feel dissonance so they down-vote and try to think of a way to spin it so they have the moral high ground. As if Trump isn't going to remind us they don't, every single day.

Re: Facebook says Pages that regularly share false news won’t be able to buy ads

#260

Post by zaro » Tue, Aug 29, 2017, 5:04 AM UTC

quoquoquo wrote: post #56

menacingly wrote: post #41

The 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…

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…

There is a degree of truth in what you say, and there are bad actors, what makes you think Facebook isn't a bad actor either?

After all they care only about profit and keeping the users in their walled garden. So when you are talking about manipulation, do you consider that Facebooks actions as a company are very manipulative?