Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Is Facebook So Afraid of Checking Facts?

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 108 posts

Re: Why Is Facebook So Afraid of Checking Facts?

#91

Post by ksk »

neogodless wrote: post #72
ksk wrote: post #22

That's the job of news organizations and journalists who have access to experts to verify the information. Also, it seems like Facebook is just a scapegoat here. IMHO, The real problem is that people on both sides of the political spectrum are re-sharing "news" that they have zero idea if its true or not.

This is essentially an "individual responsibility" argument. Do I think people "should" be individually responsible? Yes. Do I believe that's going to happen? No. Forty years ago we got our news from a handful of networks that stuck to "the middle". It was no doubt imperfect, but if they would post crazy conspiracy on the nightly news, they would quickly vanish as a network. On the other hand, convince a few million…

Its also a "facebook is not a news organization or a fact checking organization with access to an army of experts in every domain" argument.

>Forty years ago we got our news from a handful of networks that stuck to "the middle". It was no doubt imperfect, but if they would post crazy conspiracy on the nightly news, they would quickly vanish as a network.

I do not think that rumors and misinformation were less prevalent 40 years ago. Is there any consensus (not sparse data) on that? My hunch is that we're in a much better situation today than ever before. Aanyone with an internet connection and some free time has the ability to fact-check a piece of news. This was not available to people earlier, so they had to use their judgement and either choose to believe it or not.

Re: Why Is Facebook So Afraid of Checking Facts?

#92

Post by krapp »

lucidone wrote: post #79
protonfish wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed there is no guaranteed way to only allow truth. However, there are many easy ways to remove utter nonsense. Maybe we should start with that and see how it goes.

I agree in principle (e.g., Pizzagate and similar conspiracy theories), but delegating the arbitration of facts to a private company seems dangerous territory to me. The inconvenient answer as it appears to me is that folks have to discern what is nonsense and what isn't, which leaves us exactly where we are.

>I agree in principle (e.g., Pizzagate and similar conspiracy theories), but delegating the arbitration of facts to a private company seems dangerous territory to me.

No one has delegated "the arbitration of facts" at any universal or societal scale to Facebook, nor is Facebook attempting to arbitrate all "facts" or "truth" on their own platform. The principle with which you agree appears to be the principle Facebook is actually using, and I see no "dangerous territory" in them moderating their own platform. There are plenty of other platforms where Pizzagate and other such conspiracies are taken as fact.

> The inconvenient answer as it appears to me is that folks have to discern what is nonsense and what isn't, which leaves us exactly where we are.

This is not an inconvenient answer so much as a thought terminating cliche.

Re: Why Is Facebook So Afraid of Checking Facts?

#93

Post by krapp »

thisisnico wrote: post #88
cheez wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know his name, but what was your opinion on that guy from Google who said we shouldn't force women into STEM for the equality, but let them do what they want (which may not be STEM.) Is the world better off without that opinion (or fact, depending on who you ask?)

My opinion is that you cannot fact check opinion pieces. There is a difference between news and opinion articles.

You certainly can fact check the assumptions behind opinions or their sources, particularly in a venue where the intent of the author is to influence the reader into accepting an opinion.

Re: Why Is Facebook So Afraid of Checking Facts?

#94

Post by glitchc »

catalogia wrote: post #84
glitchc wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why just stop at Facebook? All businesses operate on the model where they take dirty money and try to do clean things with at least some of that money. Heck, most charities operate this way. Let's just make everyone transparent. We should know if the Red Cross is receiving money from Smith and Wesson. Bad individuals and corporations make donations to good causes all the time. You can think of it as moral outrage, bu…

> All businesses operate on the model where they take dirty money and try to do clean things with at least some of that money. That's a bit too cynical even for me. There do still exist businesses that simply produce a product or perform a service, selling it honestly without any tricks or subterfuge.

It's realistic and not cynical at all. Just the way life really is.

Try this thought experiment: The local mafia needs to eat, sleep, buy cars, equipment. Should local restaurants, grocery stores, rental complexes, dealerships, the local Home Depot, accept their patronage? Is that dirty money or clean money? Is Home Depot morally corrupt for selling lumber to the mafia boss for his new deck?

The answer to these and more is: no. Moral policing never works. We have laws and law enforcement to pursue criminals. It's their job, not Home Depot's.

Re: Why Is Facebook So Afraid of Checking Facts?

#95

Post by TomMckenny »

aeturnum wrote: post #67
TomMckenny wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the enormously popular post telling parents to make their kids drink Lysol should not have even the slightest warning next to it because the poster could be like Galileo or Einstein?

I think you're begging the question and using reducto-ad-absurdum here. dilippkumar was highlighting that if people are prepared to believe extremely fringe ideas then simply telling them that a central authority thinks a fact is wrong will not effectively dissuade them. Your question elides that concern by simply re-pointing out that fake information is problematic. Fake information is problematic, but there is reas…

Facebook is not the web, it is a toy devoted to advertisement.

It is not were potential Einsteins or Galileos debut their big new ideas. It is not were cover ups about WMD or anything else are initially exposed. All of that is very sensibly on real sites. To the contrary, rather than being where good ideas originate, it's sole purpose is to attract eyes for advertisement.

The catastrophic problem is their algorithm that massively pushes conspiracy theories, outrage and demagogue's propaganda that would otherwise never be seen and would never get beyond the crackpot website they happened to be posted on.

Facebook is not were any valuable information originates, it is instead where failed ideas and advertisements are endlessly push on it's users. But any attempt to correct that algorithm, manually or otherwise is now portrayed as censorship by those who benefit form it to get support from everyone else. Likewise, it is very effectively used as a propaganda tool by some parties yet ironically any attempt to slow that is portrayed as censorship.

It is not remotely where ideas fairly compete. To the contrary: shocking but false ideas are given an enormous advantage but adding an annotation contradicting them is called censorship. To such an extreme that there is a warning on Lysol bottles not to drink it but if a meme on Facebook telling people to drink Lysol has a similar warning attached by Facebook, it is called censorship.

The notion Facebook could ever afford to bother with any but a tiny silver of the most conspicuously false and harmful posts, let alone judge every post for accuracy, is not reasonable. It could not remotely be picking sides on every tv debate, reading every user's post or reviewing posts about the photoelectric effect for accuracy. And at any rate, Facebook is not the web.

Re: Why Is Facebook So Afraid of Checking Facts?

#96

Post by dang »

TomMckenny wrote: post #20
dilippkumar wrote: post #10

This article misses a crucial point: I do not want fact checked information. I do not want a ministry of Truth telling me what’s an acceptable set of statements to trust. I do not want a third party providing unsolicited opinions on how much I conform with the acceptable statements a ministry of Truth has blessed for public use. I’ll provide three arguments. First, how will Facebook or any other entity that takes on…

So the enormously popular post telling parents to make their kids drink Lysol should not have even the slightest warning next to it because the poster could be like Galileo or Einstein?

Please don't post in the flamewar style to HN. We're trying to avoid the tedious, nasty, predictable road to hell.

If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and sticking to the rules when posting here, we'd be grateful. Note this one:

"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."

Re: Why Is Facebook So Afraid of Checking Facts?

#97

Post by catalogia »

glitchc wrote: post #94
catalogia wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> All businesses operate on the model where they take dirty money and try to do clean things with at least some of that money. That's a bit too cynical even for me. There do still exist businesses that simply produce a product or perform a service, selling it honestly without any tricks or subterfuge.

It's realistic and not cynical at all. Just the way life really is. Try this thought experiment: The local mafia needs to eat, sleep, buy cars, equipment. Should local restaurants, grocery stores, rental complexes, dealerships, the local Home Depot, accept their patronage? Is that dirty money or clean money? Is Home Depot morally corrupt for selling lumber to the mafia boss for his new deck? The answer to these and m…

Not all businesses pay tribute to or otherwise knowingly deal with local mafias. That's not realistic.

Re: Why Is Facebook So Afraid of Checking Facts?

#98

Post by lucidone »

protonfish wrote: post #89
lucidone wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree in principle (e.g., Pizzagate and similar conspiracy theories), but delegating the arbitration of facts to a private company seems dangerous territory to me. The inconvenient answer as it appears to me is that folks have to discern what is nonsense and what isn't, which leaves us exactly where we are.

That does not sound like a good solution to the problem of powerful bad actors using social media to spread conflict and misinformation. In fact, it is not a solution at all. I don't understand this attitude of defeatism. Clearly how things are is bad. We should explore solutions. Is that too radical for you? Asking private companies to discern between nonsense of good facts is something that is commonly done with al…

I pay a newspaper to discern the "truth" of real world events. They sell credibility. They have an interest (both ethical via their staff - most journalists want to tell the truth, and financial - why pay for a garbage paper) in being credible.

Facebook sells ads and has a history of poor decision making with regards to their platform. Would facebook improve the credibility of their platform at the expense of their bottom line? I doubt it. Facebook won't solve this problem for us. This is a human issue, not a technological one.

Re: Why Is Facebook So Afraid of Checking Facts?

#99

Post by cheez »

krapp wrote: post #93
thisisnico wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My opinion is that you cannot fact check opinion pieces. There is a difference between news and opinion articles.

You certainly can fact check the assumptions behind opinions or their sources, particularly in a venue where the intent of the author is to influence the reader into accepting an opinion.

What is a fact when it comes to sociological research?

Re: Why Is Facebook So Afraid of Checking Facts?

#100

Post by lucidone »

krapp wrote: post #92
lucidone wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree in principle (e.g., Pizzagate and similar conspiracy theories), but delegating the arbitration of facts to a private company seems dangerous territory to me. The inconvenient answer as it appears to me is that folks have to discern what is nonsense and what isn't, which leaves us exactly where we are.

>I agree in principle (e.g., Pizzagate and similar conspiracy theories), but delegating the arbitration of facts to a private company seems dangerous territory to me. No one has delegated "the arbitration of facts" at any universal or societal scale to Facebook, nor is Facebook attempting to arbitrate all "facts" or "truth" on their own platform. The principle with which you agree appears to be the principle Facebook…

I don't think Facebook has the public good in mind when they develop their product, but their bottom line first and foremost. They're a private company, they're beholden to their shareholders.

I also don't think that shifting responsibility from software to humans is a "thought terminating cliche" but a necessary step in how we orient the conversation about the mass dissemination of propaganda via tech platforms. There's a reason folks are eager to believe conspiracy theories and misinformation.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

Post reply on HN