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

Facebook, Twitter dismantle global array of disinformation networks

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 265 posts

Re: Facebook, Twitter dismantle global array of disinformation networks

#251

Post by csnover »

twitter_anon wrote: post #134
aresant wrote: post #21

Disinformation content works because it drives huge engagement. Huge engagement pays the bills for FB and twitter. If we expect change we need an analog to a carbon or pollution tax for social. “Show me the incentives and I will show you the outcome.”- Charlie Munger

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…

While I agree the parent is oversimplifying the connection between engagement and ad revenue, I would say that there is also an oversimplification in the way you represent the usefulness of engagement to the company and the people working there.

First, when a company has shitty earnings, what metrics do they typically use in their investor reports to make the company still look palatable? New user acquisitions. Increased engagement. It doesn’t matter that the engagement is not generating money because it still lets them say “well, we lost a billion dollars this quarter, but user engagement is up 80% YOY so things are looking good for the future! (Please keep buying our stock/fund our next round!)”

Second, engineers working at a social networking company can’t directly influence what advertisers spend, but they can influence the behaviour of users, and leverage that for personal gain. “Look at how valuable I am, I developed this enhanced rage generating machine that increased engagement by 20% in A/B testing! Give me the big bonus now!” It’s a much harder sell to say “hey, Boss, I deleted a feature which was causing immeasurable subjective harm to society! It probably caused 100,000 users to delete their accounts and move to Gab! Give me the big bonus now!”

Re: Facebook, Twitter dismantle global array of disinformation networks

#252

Post by ajxs »

Barrin92 wrote: post #233
ajxs wrote: post #206

I always find it disheartening that people see the propagation of 'bad' information on social-media networks as a bigger risk to society than said networks becoming the gatekeepers of all propagated information. The term 'Orwellian' has become so overused that it seems to have lost all currency. When we're confronted with an actually Orwellian phenomena people seem to either not notice or not care. It's not as though…

>actually Orwellian phenomena This isn't an Orwellian phenomenon. This is just the typical bad reading of Orwell that Americans have tried to squeeze out of the book because of their free speech fetish. The central key issue of the book isn't a big scary guy with a mustache stealing your newspaper, it's reality inversion, it's the inability of everyone in society to distinguish between what is real and what is fictio…

> The real Orwellian phenomenon is not some kind of scary gatekeeper separating truth from fiction, which is actually a productive use of authority and necessary in any civilisation that doesn't want to turn into a clowncar...

From this sentence, I assume that Stalinist Russia's approach to the subject of 'truth' would constitute a 'productive use of authority'?

Do you think that the reporting in the early 2000s mainstream media regarding Saddam Hussein's supposed stockpile of chemical weapons constitutes a good example of the establishment media being good stewards of the truth? This propagation of blatantly false information by the establishment led all the way up to the invasion of Iraq. A war that is these days generally seen as a regime change for the benefit of interested parties, established under false pretenses.

Or is all of this just 'not true communism' to you? Do you support the ways that governments, intelligence agencies and the media have been proven to have colluded to invert our reality? Or would you support some other, idealised government doing it? I have no idea what world your head lives in.

Re: Facebook, Twitter dismantle global array of disinformation networks

#253

Post by ardy42 »

olivermarks wrote: post #245
ardy42 wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. I spent about a half hour scanning some of her stuff, and I'm getting a stro…

@ardy42 voices like Whitney need to be heard whether you agree or not, there are vast swathes of 'unreported' things going on right now, my original point. The mainstream media is anodyne in comparison... Separately the term 'conspiracy theorist' is both anti free speech and extremely unhealthy in a democracy. One person's investigative reporter is another persons 'conspiracy theorist'...

> @ardy42 voices like Whitney need to be heard whether you agree or not, there are vast swathes of 'unreported' things going on right now, my original point. The mainstream media is anodyne in comparison...

The mainstream media is usually anodyne in comparison to conspiracy theories, because the latter can have extra drama injected into them and push more emotional buttons.

Take that first article I linked to above. The "clear Trump win" scenario Whitney's article dwells upon and gives a sinister cast also included a large popular vote win for Biden, which she completely failed to mention and which would have undermined her "planned power grab" narrative significantly if she had. A constitutional crisis is much more understandable if the winner of the electoral college lost the popular vote badly, given it's always been a broken system and it seems illegitimate to a lot of people for the winner of an election is not be the person who got the most votes.

But it's way more dramatic if you can make it sound like the Democrats are planning on stealing the election regardless of what happens.

> Separately the term 'conspiracy theorist' is both anti free speech and extremely unhealthy in a democracy. One person's investigative reporter is another persons 'conspiracy theorist'...

Nope, sorry. I'm not impinging on anyone's free speech rights by using the term "conspiracy theorist." I'd argue it's also rather healthy term to use in a democracy, since a democracy will fail to function effectively if such thinking becomes too dominant.

Re: Facebook, Twitter dismantle global array of disinformation networks

#254

Post by free_rms »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #237
free_rms wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, what, we're gonna decide what's "suitable" for normal people to see? Half of mainstream society, respectable people with respectable jobs, just spent 4 years engaged in a conspiracy theory about Russians and Cambridge Analytica which has quietly fallen apart into "nevermind, we just biffed the election is all". But if one had said that in, say, 2017, they'd be accused of being a Russian bot. Bias passes everywher…

The Russians engaged in a campaign to disrupt the US elections. That is not in dispute. They were effective in this by hacking the DNC and Podesta and by using thousands of troll accounts to pretend there was anything scandalous in that data. Cambridge Analytica had negligible role in affecting the election. That was just a privacy scandal for Facebook.

You've identified the only claims that hold up. Compare to the crazy rhetoric and insinuation we saw for years, and it's clear people were way ahead of themselves.

Re: Facebook, Twitter dismantle global array of disinformation networks

#255

Post by olivermarks »

ardy42 wrote: post #253
olivermarks wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

@ardy42 voices like Whitney need to be heard whether you agree or not, there are vast swathes of 'unreported' things going on right now, my original point. The mainstream media is anodyne in comparison... Separately the term 'conspiracy theorist' is both anti free speech and extremely unhealthy in a democracy. One person's investigative reporter is another persons 'conspiracy theorist'...

> @ardy42 voices like Whitney need to be heard whether you agree or not, there are vast swathes of 'unreported' things going on right now, my original point. The mainstream media is anodyne in comparison... The mainstream media is usually anodyne in comparison to conspiracy theories, because the latter can have extra drama injected into them and push more emotional buttons. Take that first article I linked to above.…

One person's investigative reporter is another persons 'conspiracy theorist' depending on your beliefs and views. You are promoting your beliefs and views on this thread, and attempting to argue about the credibility of a writer you don't agree with or believe. This is what the broader thread is about, you're proving my point again.

Re: Facebook, Twitter dismantle global array of disinformation networks

#256

Post by andy_ppp »

kchr wrote: post #149
bentcorner wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO removing clickable links and link previews would go a long way to make social media better.

This! Also remove re-posting functionality.

Maybe posting links could just be paid for?

Re: Facebook, Twitter dismantle global array of disinformation networks

#257

Post by dang »

sthnblllII wrote: post #244
npunt wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah freedom in America tends to favor 'freedom to' rather than 'freedom from'. Cutting these disinformation sources off gives us freedom from some amount of manipulation. Meanwhile, if we're more concerned with the freedom to say anything anywhere, whatever limits imposed will be perceived by default in a negative light. There's merit in examining from both perspectives for any given issue. However, if our objective…

From your most recent blog: > any individual's reputation, perspectives, and history are difficult to ascertain, and therefore their words must be taken at face value. Coupled with an almost complete lack of standards for participation in the community Let me translate that out of new-speak: "On the internet no one cares about my credentials (or is afraid of my power) so I must defend my positions on their own merits…

I've asked you to stop posting ideological flamewar comments to HN

Re: Facebook, Twitter dismantle global array of disinformation networks

#258

Post by ardy42 »

olivermarks wrote: post #255
ardy42 wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> @ardy42 voices like Whitney need to be heard whether you agree or not, there are vast swathes of 'unreported' things going on right now, my original point. The mainstream media is anodyne in comparison... The mainstream media is usually anodyne in comparison to conspiracy theories, because the latter can have extra drama injected into them and push more emotional buttons. Take that first article I linked to above.…

One person's investigative reporter is another persons 'conspiracy theorist' depending on your beliefs and views. You are promoting your beliefs and views on this thread, and attempting to argue about the credibility of a writer you don't agree with or believe. This is what the broader thread is about, you're proving my point again.

> One person's investigative reporter is another persons 'conspiracy theorist' depending on your beliefs and views. You are promoting your beliefs and views on this thread, and attempting to argue about the credibility of a writer you don't agree with or believe. This is what the broader thread is about, you're proving my point again.

And some people think ancient aliens and UFOs are serious areas of study, but most reasonable people think it's nonsense. That disagreement on this kind of thing is possible doesn't make every perspective equally credible or vital.

I actually agree with your 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.

Where I disagree is that people like Whitney Webb can shed any more light on those power struggles than Bob Lazar. If the article of hers that I read is a good representation of her oeuvre, she offers tendentious and misleading interpretations of already public information. I think the best that can do is offer a false sense of deeper understanding.

A real deeper understanding needs someone to take serious risk, like Edward Snowden did, to bring secret things into the light.

Re: Facebook, Twitter dismantle global array of disinformation networks

#259

Post by zalkota »

npunt wrote: post #238
Barrin92 wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>actually Orwellian phenomena This isn't an Orwellian phenomenon. This is just the typical bad reading of Orwell that Americans have tried to squeeze out of the book because of their free speech fetish. The central key issue of the book isn't a big scary guy with a mustache stealing your newspaper, it's reality inversion, it's the inability of everyone in society to distinguish between what is real and what is fictio…

Yeah freedom in America tends to favor 'freedom to' rather than 'freedom from'. Cutting these disinformation sources off gives us freedom from some amount of manipulation. Meanwhile, if we're more concerned with the freedom to say anything anywhere, whatever limits imposed will be perceived by default in a negative light. There's merit in examining from both perspectives for any given issue. However, if our objective…

Who says that this information is bad untrue?

Re: Facebook, Twitter dismantle global array of disinformation networks

#260

Post by lern_too_spel »

free_rms wrote: post #254
lern_too_spel wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Russians engaged in a campaign to disrupt the US elections. That is not in dispute. They were effective in this by hacking the DNC and Podesta and by using thousands of troll accounts to pretend there was anything scandalous in that data. Cambridge Analytica had negligible role in affecting the election. That was just a privacy scandal for Facebook.

You've identified the only claims that hold up. Compare to the crazy rhetoric and insinuation we saw for years, and it's clear people were way ahead of themselves.

Some people insinuated that Trump worked with the Russians to get their help, but the consistent message that came from his cast off associates and from journalists with access like Woodward was that he was too stupid to set anything like that up. I don't think anybody reasonable ever believed otherwise.

The Russians didn't give a damn what Trump wanted. He was simply a useful buffoon that they could use to disrupt the election, and they succeeded beyond their wildest hopes.

Post reply on HN