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

Facebook admits it must do more to stop the spread of misinformation

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 645 posts

Re: Facebook admits it must do more to stop the spread of misinformation

#351

Post by emp_zealoth »

Bud wrote: post #58
DanielBMarkham wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. We're talking about a platform that at it's best is birthday wishes, vacation and cat pictures. It's running on a paid content model, with advertisers selling through viral videos and click-bait. It's good not to expect too much out of it.

We're actually not; that's simply false. No, Facebook is not "at it's best" [sic] when it sticks to birthday wishes and cat pictures. It's actually at its best when it is truly social , in all senses of the word. When it facilitates real communication on real issues across a broad spectrum of people. When it spreads information, not misinformation.

When Facebook is at it's best is taking money from nefarious actors and fucking up democracy

In Poland, for good half year before our presidential election, then a year after I was getting obviously paid for posts from dozens upon dozens of right wing extremists.

I am left-centrist (although my dad jokes at me that im a bolshevik). I don't have many friends who skew righ-wing either. Yet, there was my wall, chock full of sensationalist bs, for over A YEAR

Wonder how much money Facebook earned in that time just from sad little Poland

Re: Facebook admits it must do more to stop the spread of misinformation

#352

Post by hawkice »

darawk wrote: post #349
jerf wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, trying to solve this problem by creating a definition of "misinformation" sufficiently precise to act on it for all possible articles, then trying to remove it somehow is probably an AI-complete problem. If it's not AI-complete it's probably just plain an ill-formed question. That's before we ask questions about the biases that get embedded into the misinformation detector. This can't be fixed at Facebook scales…

I think I would argue that this is beyond an AI-complete problem, it is an unanswerable problem. For instance, consider the following spectrum of ideas: - The earth is flat - 9/11 conspiracy theories - Barack Obama was born in Kenya - Anti-vax - Climate change denial - Anti-GMO - Denial of underlying quantum randomness in the universe - The Clinton Foundation has been or is involved in some shady dealings - Muslims w…

Man, it must be me, but you ranked "Monetary policy" WAY more likely than I would (rates near zero for so long doing so little must at least put SOME doubt in your model), and "denial of quantum randomness" way less credible than I see it as. Like, man, reasonable people can disagree about pilot waves and many worlds.

Are there some confusing, emotionally laden, difficult questions of fact in there? Yes. Are some things ultimately unknowable (like what people want, which involves scrying into their minds)? Yes.

These, as it turns out, are not the things I can't help but be side-tracked on. I'm diverted by you claiming monetary policy has an effect with nearly the certainty of the sun rising.

Re: Facebook admits it must do more to stop the spread of misinformation

#353

Post by severine »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #113
Bud wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not anymore. I'm sorry, but that that view is now obsolete. The fact is that large and increasing quantities of our social communication now occur online. I'm not claiming this is salutary or calling it a good thing. I'm just stating the fact.

I have no doubt that a lot of social information is being transferred in a new way, much the same as the introduction of the telephone allowed a lot of social information to be transferred in a new way. My point is that true socializing and socialization are human, not digital experiences. Not trying to be pedantic here. It's just important to sort out the terms used if any analysis is going to be useful. What's happ…

Aren't Bud and you socializing right now? Hell, I even feel I'm socializing a bit with you, how wrong am I?

Re: Facebook admits it must do more to stop the spread of misinformation

#354

Post by joggery »

ben010783 wrote: post #298
joggery wrote: post #189

You can't prevent false ideas spreading by censorship; quite the contrary. The idea that one can create an AI or censor or committee to separate truth from falsehood and then put it in charge is plainly authoritarian.

What about just keeping out stories that are patently false? If I did an image search for cars, I wouldn't want a boat in there. If I did a search for news, I wouldn't want a fabricated story.

Such stories would not go viral.

Re: Facebook admits it must do more to stop the spread of misinformation

#355

Post by DrScump »

dmode wrote: post #289
StanislavPetrov wrote: post #75

In corporate speak "misinformation" is defined as "any information that doesn't support our narrative". Certainly it is the goal of Facebook, the government, and every other large media corporation to control the flow of information. You need look no farther then Obama's recent statement that news needs to be "curated" by government appointed gatekeepers, to filter out all that pesky information that doesn't jive wit…

Please point to the Obama quote on government appointed gatekeepers.

Here's one relevant monologue:

"We are going to have to rebuild within this wild-wild-west-of-information flow some sort of curating function that people agree to," Obama said at an innovation conference in Pittsburgh.

"There has to be, I think, some sort of way in which we can sort through information that passes some basic truthiness tests and those that we have to discard, because they just don't have any basis in anything that's actually happening in the world"

Obama in Pittsburgh PA 10/13/2016

Re: Facebook admits it must do more to stop the spread of misinformation

#357

Post by tomp »

gdulli wrote: post #304
japhyr wrote: post #210

It's also on us to resist the temptation to build social media bubbles around ourselves, and to poke into each other's bubbles. Every time I've wanted to block a friend or relative on facebook, I've put my phone down and come back to it later. Looking away from people we disagree with isn't working. My cousin shared a post this morning asking why people on the left aren't celebrating the fact that a female campaign m…

When I knew people who supported Romney, I felt no need based on that to exclude them from my life or my social media circles. One's ability to support Trump tells me much more about a person. There are too many things that are good and should be fundamental about a functional, enlightened society that one must reject in order to support Trump. Prejudice, fraud, bullying, and sexual harassment must all be accepted. P…

And to support Hillary, one must accept lies, corruption, warmongering, corporatism, voter manipulation and unfettered globalization.

It's a choice between two evils, however you look at it.

Re: Facebook admits it must do more to stop the spread of misinformation

#358

Post by akhilcacharya »

tropo wrote: post #344
Spellman wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have personally asked an individual why they don't trust snopes. Their claim is that it's a Democrat rag towel and shill. I then ask, then what fact-checker would you trust? Their response: None of them. Congratulations. We've reached a point, for this individual, where "facts" as decided in the common forum are suspect and the only thing they trust is themselves (and whatever non-Mainstream Media they listen to).…

Well, is there a fact-checker that doesn't claim Trump's very unenthusiastic acceptance of war with Iraq when asked by surprise on the Howard Stern show means that Trump is somehow lying when he says he didn't support the war? It's stuff like this, turning a single reluctant "I guess so" or "probably" or "it seems we should" into support, that make supposed fact-checkers suspect. Who will fact-check the fact checkers…

He said "I guess so" before the war started, and then started opposing it when others started opposing it. That's hardly the political courage he was attempting to convey here, especially when he says "I was against the Iraq war from the start"

Re: Facebook admits it must do more to stop the spread of misinformation

#359

Post by reustle »

Not long ago I saw a post about the oil pipeline protests. It was a photo of a huge crowd, and stated that the media was not covering the protests properly and that people are taking a stand. The photo was of tens of thousands of people, and had over 230,000 shares. 230k....

A quick image lookup showed that it was in fact a photo from Woodstock 1969, but since the comments on the photo were restricted, nobody had been able to point it out.

I went to report it, but facebook seems to have removed the "misinformation" option when reporting content (thought there was one before?)

Re: Facebook admits it must do more to stop the spread of misinformation

#360

Post by tomp »

knz wrote: post #291
gregpardo wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem these 'fact' checkers have become leftist doctrines... You just point to snopes or politifact and that is end of discussion? That's not how the world works. Wikileaks is a far more credible source than either of these. People need to do their own research if they want to form conclusions not just little to prepackaged conclusions.

Wikileaks has it's own issues - the suggestions of Russian influence, the timing of their data releases, questions about Assages political bias against the US/Clintons etc. "People need to do their own research if they want to form conclusions not just little to prepackaged conclusions." - I could not agree more.

Would you rather that Wikileaks kept the information for itself? Wouldn't that be just as much of an influence on the election?
Post reply on HN