551–560 of 645 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Telling people who aren't aligned to with the liberal intelligentsia to fuck off is exactly what got us in the current mess. I am so sick of this argument that Trump's victory is somehow the fault of bubble-trapped city-dwelling liberals for not understanding how the rest of the country thinks. Trump supporters are the ones who have either been manipulated to vote against their own interests; implicitly elected a Re…
> vote against their own interests If an unemployed factory worker votes for a protectionist who promises to bring back factories, how is he voting against his own interests?
Why would one believe a so-called "protectionist" who has actually off-shored jobs?
Why would one believe a billionaire who claims to not be part of the establishment? A billionaire who was a celebrated part of the establishment during the '80s, in New York. That den of conservative values?
Why would one trust a candidate who was essentially a left-leaning Democrat until he decided to run for President?
Why would one believe a candidate who contradicts himself, is difficult to pin down on any policy details, and who says different things to different groups to a degree that's unprecedented, even for a politician?
Anybody can say anything. If you believe someone this erratic, you almost have to be wilfully ignorant of human nature.
1) Say something outrageous that news orgs will grab for a quick, clickbait story that will generate tons of ad revenue.
2) Let outraged people share via social media.
3) Benefit as some of the people seeing the content will not disagree and will take the candidacy seriously.
4) Win.
It doesn't matter what Facebook does with its trending section, the real value of Trump's strategy came with the way it exploits the basic sharing / newsfeed mechanism's intended behavior. Even today, many Trump opposers think that they were helping by posting their outrage at every rude comment Trump said.
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…
There is no need to create a Grand Unified Theory of misinformation, here. This problem isn't that hard. You filter this stuff and rank it by its SOURCE, not by the content of individual articles. It's not hard to figure out which online sources are pushing out most of the abjectly-bad propaganda, and de-rank them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I may be missing something here, but what do your two paragraphs of axe-grinding about women have to do with his remark about American "alt-right white-nationalist thug media"?
What does two paragraphs of axe-grinding about woman like Jessica Valenti and Laurie Penny have to do with American "alt-right white-nationalist thug media"? Take a look at the narratives they've been pushing about Truump and the evils of the alt-right lately.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The polls weren't that off actually. They missed the mark overall by about 2%, which is actually pretty similar to the error in past elections. That's not very surprising because without being able to sample the actual distribution you need to make some assumptions for the statistics to work.
> They missed the mark overall by about 2% This is misleading. Only on a national level were the polls that close. In the actual swing states that gave Trump the presidency, the polls were off well outside the margin of error. For instance, in Wisconsin no poll ever showed Trump winning that state, and the closest IIRC showed Client winning by 3%. The average was significantly higher than 3%.
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…
There is no need to create a Grand Unified Theory of misinformation, here. This problem isn't that hard. You filter this stuff and rank it by its SOURCE, not by the content of individual articles. It's not hard to figure out which online sources are pushing out most of the abjectly-bad propaganda, and de-rank them.
1. Editors/writers/management changes, since quite a few media publications have gone from being fairly reliable to biased as all hell based purely on who's taken over there. Or in some (rarer cases), the opposite has happened.
So you'd have to make sure older less biased pieces weren't being punished for the actions of the publication in the present.
2. A lot of sources are correct about some things but not about others. It's very possible to have a publication that's terrible at writing about politics in an accurate and unbiased way, but fantastic at writing about technology or sports. So ideally your system would have to detect the subject of the article as well as the publication.
However, I guess you could at least add known 'satire' and fake information sites to a 'non credible' list. Like the ones listed here:
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Telling people who aren't aligned to with the liberal intelligentsia to fuck off is exactly what got us in the current mess. Most people are reasonable, but when the reasonable and rational media ignores their issues, we leave the door open to demagogues and dictators. How else could a silver spoon like Donald Trump ever claim to represent the everyman?
You make some good points, but this: > Most people are reasonable Is blatantly false. People are tribal.