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

Post by jerkstate » Fri, Nov 11, 2016, 3:03 AM UTC

EvilTerran wrote: post #331

nkassis wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would argue that wikileaks on it's own can also be very misleading. Reading emails out of context and without knowing if they've been altered is probably not the best way to get a full picture. The value add of media looking at them is they can also go and get other sources to add context or to corroborate what they are reading in the wikileaks releases. Sources which aren't available to everyone. It's also easy to…

Give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, and I would find something in them to have him hanged. ... and now Wikileaks has invited the whole internet to come play Richelieu with them, only with ten thousand times the ammunition the Cardinal (apocryphally) asked for. The online mob has been accusing (eg) Podesta and his correspondents of all kinds of insane things - from corruption & arms dealing t…

Post by kmtrowbr » Fri, Nov 11, 2016, 3:06 AM UTC

makecheck wrote: post #274

There are two big problems shown by this. First, that any one service like Facebook could become so large and unopposed that we need to care how it handles something like this. And second, that people seem fine with the idea of living only inside Facebook, unfriending or muting anyone who disagrees with them, until nothing else matters. This is an utterly unhealthy way for people to be. If you want to combat misinfor…

Post by justinpombrio » Fri, Nov 11, 2016, 3:12 AM UTC

jklinger410 wrote: post #393

colllectorof wrote: post #363

"OMG, Trump has won through lies and deception! We failed to stop him. How on Earth did that happen? We must out-manipulate our opponents next time." If you read between the lines, this is what the article condenses to. The discussion here is mostly creepy groupthink shit. Social networks fact-checking their content? What's next? Should AT&T stop the spread of misinformation over its phone lines? Should USPS fact-che…

The irony here is also the idea that all of this so-called propaganda comes from the right. The left is constantly selecting it's own set of "facts" and tactfully leaves out whatever doesn't agree with their agenda. Simply look at all the disingenuous pro-Clinton fact checking throughout the election. Just look at the number of rape, assault, race-baity bullshit that is circulated by liberals every day. There article…

Post by kmtrowbr » Fri, Nov 11, 2016, 3:16 AM UTC

tn13 wrote: post #148

btilly wrote: post #11

This article criticizes Facebook for firing the human editors that had been keeping things sane. However they were pushed to that by accusations of bias in the right-wing media. Accusations that looked likely to lead to a Congressional investigation. See, for example, http://thehill.com/policy/technology/279361-top-republican-d... . Now they are in a situation where they are damned if they do, damned if they don't. A…

Human editors can separate sane from insane ? I dont think so. The recent presidential poll fiasco is prime example. All the large media houses like CNN, ABC, WaPo, NYT complete failed to detect and acknowledge the silent righ-wing voters claiming Clinton would win hands down. This is not just about political bias of the media but more importantly their complete failure to judge the pulse of the nation. In my opinion…

Post by kmtrowbr » Fri, Nov 11, 2016, 3:24 AM UTC

will_pseudonym wrote: post #364

We obviously need a commission that determines what things are facts and which things are fiction. It will be comprised of experts who know more than the populace, so it will be much better. It will be called the Ministry of Truth.