Facebook's Fix-It Team

Post by pentae » Fri, May 25, 2018, 2:31 PM UTC

bonniemuffin wrote: post #29

pentae wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well from an engineering perspective you could create a blacklist and a whitelist. There's not a huge amount of variance in news sources out there, i'd say 80% of news sources being shared on social media are less than 100 domains. The rest of the fake news sites domains could be added to the blacklist based on a combination of user reporting and moderation. You could literally put a team of about 5 people on this an…

There's a huge long tail of small publishers though-- probably tens of thousands, and shadier fake news sites can always put up a new domain if they get blacklisted.

Post by bluntfang » Fri, May 25, 2018, 2:51 PM UTC

borplk wrote: post #11

sanderjd wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the kind of empathy that I think lots of people fail to have when it comes to sites with user-generated content. As another example, lots of people seem to think Facebook is negligent for failing to properly delineate between fake and real news articles or between organic political speech and propaganda. Purely from an engineering perspective, I just don't see how they could possibly do even an adequate, let…

It's only recently that people have started to assign blame and responsibility to the platform hosting the content (really only after the US election drama). Back in the earlier days of the internet the attitude was quite different. It was all celebrated free speech and "anyone is empowered to do anything it's all open and free and happy for everybody and there's some bad stuff so what" (happy early Web 2.0 days wher…

Post by sp332 » Fri, May 25, 2018, 3:01 PM UTC

chrisseaton wrote: post #17

gkanai wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> creating a system where you realize people are sharing their suicide on. They should have planned for that pre-launch and had a plan in place to deal with users like that. When Live was launched, journalists asked Zuckerberg about this exact topic and he would not believe the Live platform would be used in that way. Of course murders and suicides were streamed on the platform and FB was yet again on the back foot.…

> They should have planned for that pre-launch That's easy to say with hindsight isn't it?

Post by krageon » Fri, May 25, 2018, 3:07 PM UTC

thecatspaw wrote: post #30

billysielu wrote: post #25

When I click the link to this article all I see is a terms and conditions document which I don't agree to. I should not have to sacrifice privacy just to read a public web page. The content pasted below for those who can't see it / already agreed it: About Your Privacy on this Site Welcome! To bring you the best content on our sites and applications, Meredith partners with third party advertisers to serve digital ads…

> To avoid personalized advertising based on your mobile app activity, you can install the DAA’s AppChoices app here. this is ridiculous. Is this even GDPR compliant?

Post by cjhopman » Sat, May 26, 2018, 7:58 AM UTC

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #26

For 20 minutes on the morning of May 1, Facebook users saw a curious query at the end of every update on their feeds. “Does this post contain hate speech?” they were asked, in small font next to “yes” and “no” buttons. I once believed this ultra basic, explicit supervised reinforcement learning query system would be the future of user interfaces and AI. That if you asked people to close the loop in a learning system,…