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

41–50 of 239 posts

Re: Facebook to Let Users Rank Credibility of News

#41

Post by emodendroket »

ucaetano wrote: post #40
emodendroket wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suppose that's possible, but I expect that, like Google's attempts to address the same issue[0], the biggest loser in this change is going to be independent news sources. [0] https://medium.com/@evanpopp/google-changes-its-algorithm-to...

From the article, it weren't independent sources which were punished, but far-left and far-right sources. > However, in addition to AlterNet and other left-wing news sites, Rosenfeld said right-wing, alternative media outlets have also seen a reduction in viewership due to the change in Google’s algorithm.

So? Independent news sources almost always have a non-mainstream political bent; that's why the writers aren't just writing in the New York Times. I don't think most people understand "weeding out fake news" to mean "only allowing a narrow spectrum of respectable opinion." And these sources do real reporting and break real news.

Re: Facebook to Let Users Rank Credibility of News

#42

Post by themagician »

threeseed wrote: post #38
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…

This makes absolutely no sense to me. For almost all stories you can work out its popularity just by the number of comments. And you can determine the comment count (-/+ an order of magnitude) just by scrolling through the comments. The accurate number isn't important for most people. None of this will prevent the dissemination of fake news. What will do is (a) not prioritising it and (b) detecting whether it's fake.…

Remove the number of comments.

People comment on stories with the most comments and usually reply to the first set of posts because they want their post to be seen, accelerating commenting in that thread.

If you want to count comments fine. Most people won’t. FB actually makes this hard to do.

Would be fascinating to even try it here on HN. If you hit all the integer counters it would dramatically change the way people use the site.

Re: Facebook to Let Users Rank Credibility of News

#43

Post by irori929 »

oculusthrift wrote: post #15
sergiotapia wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is worse than that. Imagine your Bernie-supporting extended family voting down Fox news stories as "not credible." Expect mass brigading by /r/politics.

yeah only one side routinely falls for russian propaganda, downright lies and breitbart.

Why the generic labels?

If they mention specifics, Bernie or a particular forum, there’s usually plenty of real arguments that can separate those specific things

When the discourse devolves left/right and liberal/conservative tags you’ve landed in nonsense-land

Tear down nonsense directly and call a person out for THEIR own BS.

Re: Facebook to Let Users Rank Credibility of News

#45

Post by dvt »

emodendroket wrote: post #39
dvt wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not saying you're wrong, but I don't know, I was perfectly happy chatting with friends on AIM messenger a decade ago. Myspace was also super spammy, but never became a (literal) news feed. I don't mind stupid pro/anti-Trump memes or whatnot, but giving news distribution companies (from Breitbart to the Economist) a platform on your social network seems like an anti-pattern.

I'd much rather see a news article someone thought was trenchant or interesting than a meme image that serves no purpose but to try and rile people up. Which one is a better basis for conversation?

Let me rephrase: I think it's perfectly fine to share news articles and talk about them, etc. But the distribution of news has become fundamental to FB and Snapchat (and to a lesser extent Twitter and IG) -- see FB's trending stories, or Snapchat's "Discover" tab. It's not at all like "oh Bob thought this Fox News article was interesting" -- although to be honest, I would actively discourage that, too.

Re: Facebook to Let Users Rank Credibility of News

#46

Post by threeseed »

srcmap wrote: post #37

Perfect for collecting more user attributes and use them as future "targeted" advertising. Future Republican candidates can put out FB ads only target Orange County Voters who dislike CNN's news article on Trump. Democrat party can put FB ads asking for campaign contributions only from folks in SF that like CNN's news article on Trump.

That's not how this works. It's more like an electoral poll. From the article:

"It declined to say how many people were polled or which news outlets they were asked about."

Re: Facebook to Let Users Rank Credibility of News

#47

Post by topspin »

emodendroket wrote: post #8

This is a frankly awful idea. I do not want Facebook acting as some sort of arbiter of what information is truthful. The cure is worse than the disease.

Aren't they being forced into this role? Facebook is routinely cited as a vector for supposedly democracy wrecking Russian propaganda. There has been a stream of threats and deadlines imposed by European governments demanding that Facebook et al "stop" "hate speech."

Forgive me but if the Powers That Be were breathing down my neck 24/7 I think I might start to believe I'm expected to "do something."

Re: Facebook to Let Users Rank Credibility of News

#48

Post by themagician »

ppbutt wrote: post #28
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…

So nix free speech (and rely on unknown propietary algorithms)? I don't think that's a good idea either. Much of the time, there's more value in the comments than you could gain from an article, video, etc - as is the case here.

Nothing to do with limiting free speech. Quite the opposite.

Instead of showing people only content that they agree with, with counts that reinforce the legitimacy of that content, you would show people everything that is popular and let them determine for themselves what they think about it.

I’m not talking about removing the comments. I’m saying don’t show the count. If people want to read the comments they can.

Re: Facebook to Let Users Rank Credibility of News

#49

Post by threeseed »

emodendroket wrote: post #8

This is a frankly awful idea. I do not want Facebook acting as some sort of arbiter of what information is truthful. The cure is worse than the disease.

> I do not want Facebook acting as some sort of arbiter of what information is truthful

Facebook isn't the arbiter. Their users are.

And if a substantial percentage deem a website to be untrustworthy then Facebook simply won't display it as often.

Re: Facebook to Let Users Rank Credibility of News

#50

Post by emodendroket »

dvt wrote: post #45
emodendroket wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd much rather see a news article someone thought was trenchant or interesting than a meme image that serves no purpose but to try and rile people up. Which one is a better basis for conversation?

Let me rephrase: I think it's perfectly fine to share news articles and talk about them, etc. But the distribution of news has become fundamental to FB and Snapchat (and to a lesser extent Twitter and IG) -- see FB's trending stories, or Snapchat's "Discover" tab. It's not at all like "oh Bob thought this Fox News article was interesting" -- although to be honest, I would actively discourage that, too.

I get a lot of news in my feed, but I willingly subscribed to multiple news sources and regularly comment on articles, so I can't comment on the idea of news being foist upon me.
Post reply on HN