[deleted]
Facebook admits it must do more to stop the spread of misinformation
481–490 of 645 posts
Re: Facebook admits it must do more to stop the spread of misinformation
#482Earlier quoted context omitted.
As someone who vehemently opposes Trump, I feel that allegations of anti-Trump bias in the mainstream media were entirely correct and somewhat to be expected. Although Trump is certainly a name that sells papers, Trump's repeated threats to open up news media to broader libel laws were not well received. The news organizations' endorsements were pretty one-sided[0]. I don't want to take you too literally, but it seem…
What do you think was unfair about the Trump coverage in mainstream newspapers? What is the correct balance of endorsements? Is anything other than 50:50 incorrect?
0:0 would be fair.
It won't be reached in practice, but if you make it the policy, you have an argument to take down any bullshit. With 50:50 it's going to be an endless quarrel over who has had enough so far, who is underrepresented and why everything is dominated by two polar opposites with no voice given to people who don't want to belong to either camp.
Re: Facebook admits it must do more to stop the spread of misinformation
#483Throwaway for obvious reasons. It's dangerous to support reform against the reactionary left.
I'm a Trump voter. I consider myself pretty well educated (M.Sc. CS/EE, honors), and I work in a research lab. I'm not your typical Trump voter. Full disclosure: I'm also an immigrant (legal one, nearly 20 years), naturalized US citizen, I make several hundred thousand dollars a year, and pay a ton in taxes. I'm liberal on social issues. I support LGBT and gay marriage. I'm an atheist. I have a wife and a kid. I'm also pro-gun, pro marijuana, and pro letting people do whatever they want with their lives. I'm also extremely fiscally conservative, and against illegal immigration.
My FB feed was so skewed against Trump I had to close my account. Bombshell stories on Clinton wouldn't trend, while the most inane BS about Trump would immediately reach the top and stay there.
It is strange for me to hear FB being accused of being "too conservative". I certainly saw nothing like that "red" feed on WSJ.
BTW, I could elaborate why I voted for Trump if anyone is interested. I don't agree with him on everything, but on the balance he seemed like the lesser of two evils to me.
Re: Facebook admits it must do more to stop the spread of misinformation
#484Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your statement is that of an atheist. You don't seem to realize that many of the followers of these religions believe their assertions to be factual in every way. When I got off the subway today, at the Port Authority, in New York City, there were 2 women, holding up signs about Jesus. One of the signs literally said "Historical fact: Jesus rose from the dead".
To me that's less of an issue than a statement like "if Trump is elected Jesus will return."
This statement is true because Jesus promised to return regardless of election results :)
Re: Facebook admits it must do more to stop the spread of misinformation
#485This 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…
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…
indeed, it would take more than likes and shares, just an election of just votes and promisses is insufficient, yet, there we are.
Re: Facebook admits it must do more to stop the spread of misinformation
#486"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…
Couldn't agree more.
There is no actual problem: social networks are simply not the right media to be a news source, and they were never meant to be.
Moreover, to expect to be fed "correct" information all the time, without no effort on the consumer's part, is flat out delusional. What we need, and what we have always needed, is to apply critical thinking.
Do you believe everything someone says? Well, then you have a problem.
Re: Facebook admits it must do more to stop the spread of misinformation
#487I think it would be relatively easy to have an "auto-snopes" feature which detects a URL being shared and immediately attaches a post that says "this has been debunked by X" For example - I've seen dozens of links to Michael Moore's trumpland speech which strategically ends with the phrase "America will elect Trump and it will feel great" Sample: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-25/michael-moore-trump... He conc…
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).…
I too don't trust "any of them". I don't trust news sites or channels at all anymore, because there aren't any that even _pretend_ to be impartial. The biggest loser by far in this election cycle is the media, especially on the left side of the spectrum. No one will trust them again in the foreseeable future. As someone joked on Reddit: "If Donald Trump walked on water, healed cripples and turned water into wine, the headline would be: "Trump can't swim, takes jobs from doctors, and is a raging alcoholic". That's essentially how Trump's supporters perceived the media towards the end of the campaign, and in my opinion, very deservedly so. They're shameless shills, pure and simple. For the record: I don't consider Breitbart or Fox News to be a valid news source either.
Re: Facebook admits it must do more to stop the spread of misinformation
#488Throwaway for obvious reasons. It's dangerous to support reform against the reactionary left. I'm a Trump voter. I consider myself pretty well educated (M.Sc. CS/EE, honors), and I work in a research lab. I'm not your typical Trump voter. Full disclosure: I'm also an immigrant (legal one, nearly 20 years), naturalized US citizen, I make several hundred thousand dollars a year, and pay a ton in taxes. I'm liberal on s…
I would like to hear you elaborate on your reasons for voting Trump, particularly what kinds of changes you are expecting/looking forward to.
Re: Facebook admits it must do more to stop the spread of misinformation
#489Earlier quoted context omitted.
The only reason it looks alt-right white-nationalist to you is because anyone on the left who disagrees with prevailing left wing dogma is branded a heretic and a bigot, and shut down quickly. Take The Guardian. They employ people like Jessica Valenti and Laurie Penny who publish feminist clickbait. Then they aggressively moderate comments which explain why those two are ill-informed at best and dishonest manipulator…
Incidentally, which pew studies? In my anecdotal experience, harassment is a pervasive issue e.g. I personally dont know of any urban woman not adversely affected by street harassment. Like a lot of things, it is a couple of men doing a whole lot of damage. I keep feeling like the whole alt-right anti-PC movement seems to be born of things people said online or corner case behavior in insulated Universities. Like, wh…
> Most men I know who love the anti-PC movement would, in the moment, gladly intervene if a woman is getting verbally harassed and is visibly shaken up. Mention Valenti to the same person and they fly into a rage. Like wut?!
I'm a man, I dislike men who are asses to women and women who are asses to men. I'm finding it consistent and deeply un-wut-worthy. Heck, it seems I sometimes even care about men vs men and women vs women too.
Re: Facebook admits it must do more to stop the spread of misinformation
#490I love it when engineers try to fix social problems. When the constructs of the solutions are human-made then they are gameable and therefore not a solution. And also why is this suddenly a problem? I would wager that if Hillary won there would be much less talk of "bias" and "misinformation".