Live data from Hacker News

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

techcrunch.com

561–570 of 645 posts

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

#561
post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're misinterpreting me, and also distorting my words significantly, which I object to. I didn't say we should tell people "who aren't aligned with the liberal intelligentsia" to fuck off. I was speaking narrowly about lawyers from places like Breitbart; i.e., the kinds of folks who have been trying to apply pressure to Facebook and making accusations. NOT the general population.

Sorry, I apologize as I definitely was using your comment as more of a general soapbox than directly responding. Upvoted.

Don't apologize, it's how I took the comment as well. You can assume someone is guilty of generalizing when they generalize.

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

#562

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

That's the first-level analysis. Let's dig deeper... 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…

Well, for many of your examples I would say they fit both candidates, with small adjustments. So the only choice is to go with the one that currently states what the voters agree with.

I'm always fascinated that people don't realize that what one side says today the other side said yesterday.

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

#563

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that what the person you are replying to is essentially saying? That it's both sides, not just the right?

Is it? I took it to mean that it's coming from one side. Maybe I'm mis-understanding?

Yes, you are misunderstanding. The comment correctly accuses both sides of misleading propaganda.

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

#564

Trump's strategy worked brilliantly on social media. Here's the strategy in a nutshell: 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 t…

I agree, I place a great deal of responsibility on the news media for popularizing the circus mentality of the election cycle for profit.

Trump saw it for what it was near the beginning and took advantage. Every time the news media focused on his antics, true or not, and not on the issues pushed him closer to the Presidency.

Well, that and the fact they apparently had problems with admitting Clinton was a flawed candidate.

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

#565

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would like to hear you elaborate on your reasons for voting Trump, particularly what kinds of changes you are expecting/looking forward to.

Happy to oblige. Let's get the big one out of the way: I disagree with Trump on climate change. That said, the current president did jack sh#t about it, and so would Clinton (who is owned by her wealthy donors). Combined with the fact that the President can't enact policy unilaterally, and there's broad consensus around climate change in the legislative branch, I don't think too much damage will be done if any at all…

> That said, the current president did jack sh#t about it

Did you get a chance to see this?

https://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/climate-change

> In September 2013, EPA announced proposed standards for new power plants and initiated outreach to a wide variety of stakeholders to help inform the development of emission guidelines for existing plants. In June 2014, EPA released the Clean Power Plan — the first-ever carbon pollution standards for existing power plants that will protect the health of our children and put our nation on the path toward a 30 percent reduction in carbon pollution from the power sector by 2030.

> Since President Obama took office, the U.S. has increased solar electricity generation by more than ten-fold, and tripled electricity production from wind power. Building on the advancements of the first term, we continue to take new and comprehensive action to encourage cleaner forms of American-made energy. Through public-private partnerships, streamlining the federal permitting process, and furthering American leadership in clean energy, we are on track to meet our clean-energy goals: to install 100 megawatts of renewable capacity across federally subsidized housing by 2020, permit 10 gigawatts of renewable projects on public lands by 2020, deploy 3 gigawatts of renewable energy on military installations by 2025, and double wind and solar electricity generation in the United States — once again — by 2025.

> That is why President Obama created the Advanced Research Project Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) in 2009. This Agency helps to advance high-impact energy projects that have the potential to transform the way we generate, store, and use energy. Every year, the President’s budget continues to invest in the crucial programs that will keep the United States at the forefront of clean energy research, development, and deployment.

> The Obama administration has proposed the toughest fuel economy standards for passenger vehicles in U.S. history, requiring an average performance equivalent of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. The Administration has also finalized the first-ever fuel economy standards for commercial trucks, vans, and buses for model years 2014-2018. These standards are projected to save over 500 million barrels of oil and save vehicle owners and operators an estimated $50 billion in fuel costs.

And I'm quoting about a fifth of what's written there. I am honestly surprised that you can dismiss everything here. Even more so in comparison to the person who tweeted like this.

http://www.ecowatch.com/6-of-donald-trumps-most-outrageous-t...

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

#566

Facebook isn't the problem. It's a function of its users. It is as much responsible for misinformation as a city park is responsible for the crazy guy shouting about the lizard people. The problem is all the users who actually believe anything they read via facebook.

Systems are functions of nodes, and edges, and the biases and characteristics among them.

Facebook's users, absent Facebook, weren't influencing world events without Facebook. Now they are.

What changed wasn't the nodes. It was how the edges (Facebook) connected them.

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

#567
post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).…

This is something that concerns me a lot as well. How do we rebuild this?

By meeting the other side, if at all possible in person but at least by video chat, show respect and genuinely care about their side.

Either that or find a common enemy, such as Mexico (after the civil war).

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

#568
post #99

You think the users are too stupid to fact check. But what makes you think the users care about the truth anyway? More often than not they double down with "well it's emblematic of the greater problem" or something to that effect. They then look for new evidence to support their views. Like it or not, some sites are designed to build echo chambers and are not for general discourse.

A lot of people don't care. They believe an image on facebook that reaffirms their belief. You try to counter with statistics from the FBI, DOJ, BLS, DOL, or any other organization and the numbers are 'made up'. And studies have been done that when presented with counter arguments it strengthens the original misperceptions. Corrections also don't get much traction. I've seen many conspiracy theories pop up for a week…

The problem is that there are no organizations that can give out unbiased facts. This includes the FBI, DOJ, etc. If you have grown up in a household that were in opposition to either of these organizations (and that could be either democract or republican, I can't imagine a poor black person in the Ghetto likes the FBI more than a Montana rancher), why should you trust their statistics? Heck even if you do trust them, don't forget the old saying: lies, damned lies and statistics.

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

#569

I deleted my Facebook account and suggest others do the same.

Are you going to suggest this solution to every mass media channel which turns out to have perverse or pathological dynamics?

Do you realise your personal actions in this case don't have any impact (at the margin) on the whole?

Are you willing to entertain that perhaps there's something in the function of Facebook (and other online sites) that leads to information flows with strongly negative social welfare outcomes?

(I don't have, and have never had, a personal Facebook account.)

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

#570
post #24

Good luck with that. Reddit's failed at it. Twitter's failed at it. It's almost always bundled with some sort of hate speech or political rhetoric that triggers swaths of people when they feel like they're being silenced. There probably is no right way to do it.

I'm willing to allow that approaches to collaborative filtering fail at some level. I've tried a few myself that failed.

Drawing expert opinion into the equation, and looking at how concepts spread, and who spreads them, might be useful.

Post reply on HN