Facebook is now claiming official CDC.gov links are “False Information” • Hacker News Board

Re: Facebook is now claiming official CDC.gov links are “False Information”

#551

Post by quotemstr » Fri, Jul 30, 2021, 2:25 PM UTC

intended wrote: post #484

quotemstr wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The government, in theory, is bound by the first amendment. FB being run by a government bound by traditional first amendment restrictions would be worlds better than what we have now.

If the majority of people here are software engineers, would it surprise people that someone has automated the job of crafting believable bullshit? Not to mention disseminate it faster and better than we have ever been able to? I see it as a problem that we can iterate “content” faster, identify “audience groups”, run marketing analytics, A/b test “narratives”, all to craft believable, plausible “content” and then ma…

> We’ve built systems that create content faster and better than a normal human BS filter can block.

Maybe so, but I just don't trust that the "BS filter" big tech has constructed will block only "BS" and not true things inconvenient to a certain strident brand of west coast morality. The NY Post story from last year certainly wasn't "BS".

I don't think algorithmic BS is anywhere near as big a risk as you think it is, and I think the risk of outright censorship is far larger than you imagine. Big tech should be a common carrier and viewpoint discrimination in moderation should be illegal.

Re: Facebook is now claiming official CDC.gov links are “False Information”

#552

Post by toss1 » Fri, Jul 30, 2021, 2:27 PM UTC

timdev2 wrote: post #304

toss1 wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how (although I might not object to some values of your quote). It seems a straightforward choice: 1) Go forward as a Carrier and delete ALL features with a hint of editing, promotion, or recommendation, i.e., a simple straight chronological feed of other members' posts/feed specifically selected by each user, and maybe a search function. 2) Go forward as a Publisher and select, edit, recommend, promote,…

I think option 2 is a non-starter. If you're going have newspaper-like liability, I don't think anyone can afford to do that. That leaves option 1. I suppose such a thing could exist, but it would be very different from social media as it exists. It sounds like a mash-up of twitter (accounts, follows, retweets) and 4chan (minimal moderation). Which would be interesting. But you're still talking about basically making…

For sure, the same rapid-promotion algorithms would not be workable at scale if they were to run at current speeds.

But would it be so bad to have a system that is primarily unmolested by algos (i.e., mostly Opt-1) but with a slower algo that promotes more judiciously might make for a much less toxic SocMed environment?

Re: Facebook is now claiming official CDC.gov links are “False Information”

#553

Post by intended » Fri, Jul 30, 2021, 2:46 PM UTC

tekknik wrote: post #541

intended wrote: post #484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the majority of people here are software engineers, would it surprise people that someone has automated the job of crafting believable bullshit? Not to mention disseminate it faster and better than we have ever been able to? I see it as a problem that we can iterate “content” faster, identify “audience groups”, run marketing analytics, A/b test “narratives”, all to craft believable, plausible “content” and then ma…

> We’ve built systems that create content faster and better than a normal human BS filter can block. How does this work? Specifically the faster than a normal humans BS filter.

Without access to specialized knowledge, like being an expert in a subject, users will either check the authority/standing of the speaker, the emotional appeal of an argument, or the underlying logic of it.

In my simple way of putting it - creating a website, or creating a post, and then having it disseminated is dirt cheap today. You can get an article on a news website, having it referenced by a youtube channel, have that sent to a twitter feed.

That alone is sufficient to discuss an increase in the volume of content being created - however, that volume also gets disseminated as fast as it is created, which is what accounts for the speed.

This is also without looking into the fact that people tend to use superficial traits to assess whether information is credible online.

"Yet, research shows that people rarely engage in effortful information evaluation tasks, opting instead to base decisions on factors like web site design and navigability. Fogg et al. (2003), ... They argue that because web users do not often spend a long time at any given site, they likely develop quick strategies for assessing credibility."

From: Credibility and trust of information in online environments: The use of cognitive heuristics, (Miriam J.MetzgerAndrew J.Flanagin)

So a good looking website, with content that purports to be endorsed by known authorities, and hits the right cultural blind spots for its audience will get past their filters.

Re: Facebook is now claiming official CDC.gov links are “False Information”

#554

Post by anm89 » Fri, Jul 30, 2021, 2:47 PM UTC

rossdavidh wrote: post #195

anm89 wrote: post #107

I mean, once they are in the business of fact checking, I don't see why any specific source would be off limits. On the other hand I think this shows the absurdity especially of labeling things as inaccurate without saying what specifically you are actually calling inaccurate because how would you know if the fact check is valid or not.

...plus, it's not like the CDC is incapable of error, but I trust them on this issue a whole lot more than Facebook.

Right, if they have to fact check anything, it seems like they'd have to fact check everything, and then if Facebook is capable and required to fact check every single thing on it's platform and arbitrate the truth it's like they'd have to be some kind of omniscient truth knower.

If they aren't in some privileged position of truth holding all you've got is facebook applying its narrative layer on top of everyone else's narrative layer. You're exactly where you started.

I guess a better way to say this is that I think the idea that Facebook is capable of arbitrating the truth is at its core, philosophically, a nonsense proposition.

Re: Facebook is now claiming official CDC.gov links are “False Information”

#555

Post by intended » Fri, Jul 30, 2021, 2:54 PM UTC

quotemstr wrote: post #551

intended wrote: post #484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the majority of people here are software engineers, would it surprise people that someone has automated the job of crafting believable bullshit? Not to mention disseminate it faster and better than we have ever been able to? I see it as a problem that we can iterate “content” faster, identify “audience groups”, run marketing analytics, A/b test “narratives”, all to craft believable, plausible “content” and then ma…

> We’ve built systems that create content faster and better than a normal human BS filter can block. Maybe so, but I just don't trust that the "BS filter" big tech has constructed will block only "BS" and not true things inconvenient to a certain strident brand of west coast morality. The NY Post story from last year certainly wasn't "BS". I don't think algorithmic BS is anywhere near as big a risk as you think it is…

And my answer to people who believe this is always the same - please volunteer your their time to an active subreddit of your choice, preferably one with an active political aspect.

Look, I am not unsympathetic. I have personally gone through the whole cycle - I started from "the antidote to bad speech is more speech, not censorship", To advocating for better tools to handle misinformation.

I would honestly LOVE for the world to work how I thought it did. I worry about the tools we create to clean our "gardens". Yet, without those tools I know most large communities would fail to be governed.

I am largely tired, of these debates on HN where old arguments are rehashed, un-tempered with empirics. Heck, people should be upset that the data that can answer these questions is under NDAs.

Re: Facebook is now claiming official CDC.gov links are “False Information”

#556

Post by lern_too_spel » Fri, Jul 30, 2021, 3:36 PM UTC

blindmute wrote: post #540

lern_too_spel wrote: post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Calling getting vaccines and wearing masks indoors "locking the whole country down indefinitely" is definitely hyperbolic. Is the germ theory of disease really not common sense anymore?

I'll be sure to tell all the thousands of small business owners who were forced to permanently shutter their business that it was just a simple mask mandate after all.

You're attacking a strawman here. Nothing that was marked as misinformation was about the economic effects of lockdowns. If those effects concern you, you should be concerned with vaccine misinformation prolonging lockdowns, whether those lockdowns are government-enforced or due to individuals concerned about risk.

Re: Facebook is now claiming official CDC.gov links are “False Information”

#557

Post by coryrc » Fri, Jul 30, 2021, 3:42 PM UTC

Terretta wrote: post #530

coryrc wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a friend who posts once in a blue moon. When he posts, it's usually the first thing on my feed, even many days later. My wife's cousin posts batshit stuff multiple times a day. I fail to see how a strict timeline won't result in my stream being more looney?

Before the algo feed they’d already implemented filtering so you could stop seeing social addict connections’ posts. You could also do groups with different notifications and post filtering. If you really wanted to catch up on your wife’s cousin’s train-wreck of thought, you could still click into her.

You claimed the algorithm is responsible for increasing virality of dumb thoughts. Yet my counterexample is that it reduces it. I believe removing the algorithmic feed alone is not going to solve the problem of misinformation.

Re: Facebook is now claiming official CDC.gov links are “False Information”

#558

Post by l33t2328 » Fri, Jul 30, 2021, 4:05 PM UTC

ALittleLight wrote: post #329

colejohnson66 wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure the check (if implemented) wouldn't be a naive regex that would fail that easily

The example regex would fail on that url. More generally I was trying to suggest with an example that filtering credible information with a regex is error prone.

Yes, and the example was naive. It’s trivial to make regex identify TLDs.

Re: Facebook is now claiming official CDC.gov links are “False Information”

#559

Post by cbsmith » Fri, Jul 30, 2021, 4:07 PM UTC

gunapologist99 wrote: post #176

cbsmith wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Context is king. I can easily imagine this content being used to present false narratives. This is the underlying problem we're dealing with.

So you can easily imagine something being used to create a false narrative? Is that the standard to determine whether to censor the speech?

I think you misunderstand. It's not about whether one can easily imagine it being used to create a false narrative, but whether those false narratives are being broadly deployed. In other words, it's an empirical, not theoretical model.

Re: Facebook is now claiming official CDC.gov links are “False Information”

#560

Post by SV_BubbleTime » Fri, Jul 30, 2021, 4:17 PM UTC

jjeaff wrote: post #465

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The people that >They >us How do you know “your side” is right? Read your comment again, but consider a hypothesis that you are entirely wrong about most things - how would you know? Everyone seems to lack a consideration that there is even a possibility they could be wrong. If they are exposed two sides, and you one, how do you know you are right? You probably are. But… it’s the absolutism that is starting to becom…

While there is disinformation out there, it is rare to see completely fabricated primary sources. For example, when a bunch of news sources are saying things like the election was rigged, you can go to the published court cases and the handwritten affidavits. You can then see that 87 judges of all types totally rejected the ridiculous arguments. You can then read through about 250 pages of affidavits and see that the…

>You can then see that 87 judges of all types totally rejected the ridiculous arguments.

Not one election fraud case was rejected on merit and claims. None were heard. All were denied via process. This isn't a surprise. All lower courts are going to boot them, they aren't the place to hear this, I watched the hearings where the judges rejected and immediately facilitate getting the time sensitive paperwork ready for appeals. The higher courts rejected even the idea of hearing them for various reasons including the establishment right wanted Trump to remain in office as much as the establishment left.

Including the Supreme Court that ruled that potential federal election fraud or process violations in states wouldn't effect another state. So in this case despite Texas correctly pointing out that other states unquestionably and admittedly violated Article2 by approving election protocols without the consent of their legislatures, that Texas had no standing to sue.

This doesn't mean there was fraud. Doesn't mean there wasn't. But in terms of the scotus case, that was bullshit of the century and if you don't understand what happened (McConnell picked "Trump's" judges and McConnell wanted Trump gone as fast as possible) then you will never understand what really happened.

But to just wave your hands and say "They didn't win trial, all fake!" without admitting none were ever heard, is a willfully ignorant view of what happened. Even the courts sympathetic to Trump weren't going to rock the boat like that. It was always going to go to scotus and they signaled bright and early they weren't going to do it.