TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

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

710 pointsby CodeGenieover 8 years ago

111 comments

btillyover 8 years ago
This 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.<p>See, for example, <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;thehill.com&#x2F;policy&#x2F;technology&#x2F;279361-top-republican-demands-answers-over-alleged-facebook-political-bias" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;thehill.com&#x2F;policy&#x2F;technology&#x2F;279361-top-republican-d...</a>.<p>Now they are in a situation where they are damned if they do, damned if they don&#x27;t. And people immersed in echo chambers will accuse them of bias no matter what.<p>But the entire system is fundamentally broken. Pay per ad incentives lead to rewarding viral content. And content that induces outrage is far more likely to go viral than pretty much anything else. Plus it goes viral before people do pesky things like fact checks. And the more of this that you have been exposed to, the more reasonable you find outrageous claims. Even if you know that the ones that you have seen were all wrong.<p>For an in depth treatment of the underlying issues, I highly recommend <i>Trust Me, I&#x27;m Lying</i>.
评论 #12923372 未加载
评论 #12923595 未加载
评论 #12928160 未加载
评论 #12924105 未加载
评论 #12923344 未加载
评论 #12924006 未加载
评论 #12924125 未加载
评论 #12925306 未加载
评论 #12923406 未加载
评论 #12923494 未加载
评论 #12924235 未加载
评论 #12923341 未加载
评论 #12923685 未加载
评论 #12923828 未加载
评论 #12924683 未加载
评论 #12924022 未加载
评论 #12925200 未加载
评论 #12926961 未加载
评论 #12924279 未加载
评论 #12929855 未加载
评论 #12929630 未加载
评论 #12933518 未加载
评论 #12923484 未加载
评论 #12924126 未加载
评论 #12927934 未加载
评论 #12924242 未加载
评论 #12924190 未加载
评论 #12927550 未加载
评论 #12923508 未加载
colllectorofover 8 years ago
<i>&quot;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.&quot;</i><p>If you read between the lines, this is what the article condenses to.<p>The discussion here is mostly creepy groupthink shit.<p>Social networks fact-checking their content? What&#x27;s next? Should AT&amp;T stop the spread of misinformation over its phone lines? Should USPS fact-check your mail?<p>Facebook is not a real news source and never going to be one. At best it&#x27;s a communication medium. At worst it&#x27;s a giant propaganda machine. Any moves to get it further away from the former and closer to the latter are just machinations to change <i>who</i> benefits from the propaganda and nothing else.<p>We don&#x27;t need an &quot;improved&quot; Facebook. We need a working replacement for old-school newspapers, TV stations and radio channels. The &quot;new media&quot; eroded all of those, but failed (so far, at least) to provide anything of equal utility and value. Hence all the issues involved in the coverage of these elections.
评论 #12926543 未加载
评论 #12926932 未加载
评论 #12926497 未加载
评论 #12927412 未加载
评论 #12935367 未加载
评论 #12928762 未加载
评论 #12928464 未加载
评论 #12927504 未加载
评论 #12928902 未加载
评论 #12933393 未加载
评论 #12929906 未加载
评论 #12927518 未加载
评论 #12935368 未加载
评论 #12926922 未加载
japhyrover 8 years ago
It&#x27;s also on us to resist the temptation to build social media bubbles around ourselves, and to poke into each other&#x27;s bubbles. Every time I&#x27;ve wanted to block a friend or relative on facebook, I&#x27;ve put my phone down and come back to it later. Looking away from people we disagree with isn&#x27;t working.<p>My cousin shared a post this morning asking why people on the left aren&#x27;t celebrating the fact that a female campaign manager helped put someone in the white house for the first time. I wasn&#x27;t sure what to say as his friends piled on to say things like &quot;Yeah, I thought they were for women&#x27;s rights?!&quot; Here&#x27;s the response I finally came up with:<p><i>I&#x27;m not celebrating her &quot;success&quot; because I imagine my facebook and twitter feeds look a lot different than yours. My feeds are filled with first-hand stories from women around the country who are being more openly harassed than they were last week. It&#x27;s happening often enough that&#x27;s it&#x27;s really dismissive to say &quot;Oh those are just a few assholes.&quot; People are openly harassing women in the name of Trump.</i><p>I think when we act as consumers of social media we need to stop building our own bubbles, and reach out into other&#x27;s bubbles. And when we help build social networks, we need to intentionally structure them in a way that maintains connections, rather than isolating individuals and groups.
评论 #12925245 未加载
评论 #12924731 未加载
评论 #12925215 未加载
评论 #12924635 未加载
alexc05over 8 years ago
I think it would be relatively easy to have an &quot;auto-snopes&quot; feature which detects a URL being shared and immediately attaches a post that says &quot;this has been debunked by X&quot;<p>For example - I&#x27;ve seen dozens of links to Michael Moore&#x27;s trumpland speech which strategically ends with the phrase &quot;America will elect Trump and it will feel great&quot;<p>Sample: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.zerohedge.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;2016-10-25&#x2F;michael-moore-trumps-election-will-be-biggest-fuck-you-ever-recorded-human-history" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.zerohedge.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;2016-10-25&#x2F;michael-moore-trump...</a><p><pre><code> He concludes: Yes, on November 8, you Joe Blow, Steve Blow, Bob Blow, Billy Blow, all the Blows get to go and blow up the whole goddamn system because it&#x27;s your right. Trump&#x27;s election is going to be the biggest fuck ever recorded in human history and it will feel good. </code></pre> but the truth is that is not what he <i></i>CONCLUDED<i></i><p>He continues: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=sVLTQIUMq18&amp;t=30" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=sVLTQIUMq18&amp;t=30</a> [sic]<p><pre><code> ... and now you&#x27;re fucked. </code></pre> EDIT - I feel like I should clarify I mean &quot;auto-snopes&quot; figuratively. Auto fair-balance might be a better descriptor. Something that links to an opposing opinion automatically, in cases of absolute falsehood the debunking, or even a CSS CLASS where there is a bright red &quot;FALSE&quot; wrapper.<p>Snopes doesn&#x27;t have to be the automatic choice.<p>Breaking filter-bubbles &amp; ensuring <i>truth</i> would be my goal on an idea like this. Not strictly &quot;promoting liberal media&quot;
评论 #12923740 未加载
评论 #12924525 未加载
评论 #12924678 未加载
评论 #12923822 未加载
评论 #12923832 未加载
评论 #12923851 未加载
exabrialover 8 years ago
If Facebook wants to be a &quot;source of truth&quot; they&#x27;re going to need to hire moderators outside of Silicon Valley that represent a wide array of values, traditions, and backgrounds, in a ratio that represents the actual population, and have them peer review each other without fear of repercussion from their employer. I think it&#x27;s hard for the Silicon Valley types to surrender this type of control... For instance, would this article even be on HN if Hillary had won the election? If we&#x27;re talking about neutrality, that&#x27;s an important point to consider.<p>Actually, the lack of multiculturism is true for quite a few Silicon Valley companies. Try to find a station that has &#x27;Today&#x27;s Metal&#x27; on Google Music, good luck ...there are a couple hundred different indie channels to listen to that are very meticulously organized into genre, sub-genre, and sub-sub-genres. I&#x27;m not complaining, I simply use different products, but I think it points back to the source of where the lack of multiculturism stems from.
trynumber9over 8 years ago
You think the users are too stupid to fact check. But what makes you think the users care about the truth anyway?<p>More often than not they double down with &quot;well it&#x27;s emblematic of the greater problem&quot; 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.
评论 #12923827 未加载
评论 #12923478 未加载
rwhitmanover 8 years ago
If you do a root cause analysis of this election&#x27;s result, much of it points back to Silicon Valley in one way or another.<p>Workforce automation created millions of unemployed people in places far away from economic hubs, with no hope of employment in their hometowns or re-skilling for the new roles, leaving them desperate. Proliferation of mobile apps lead to an explosion in use of social media. The wild popularity of this democratic social media encouraged a culture that allowed misinformation to flourish without a lot of consequences.<p>Bad actors took advantage of this, and reinforced distorted false narratives. Desperate people latched onto the messages presented to them, that gave them solutions repeatedly reinforced by social media, and many took an enormous risk - they voted against their best interests in order to solve their problems with the information they had available. And that is how we got here today.
评论 #12924462 未加载
评论 #12924110 未加载
overcastover 8 years ago
This is seriously hilarious. Now that&#x27;s he&#x27;s won, against seemingly all odds, we have to find some other reason for why EVERYONE ELSE, was completely WRONG. Every media outlet, everyone in politics, all the polls, completely shit on Trump. Now look who is the most powerful person in the entire world.<p>The Democrats, and the rest, did it to themselves. Overconfidence, smear campaigns, and all of the morons doing the polls.<p>We are all sick of politicians, and the people have spoken, let&#x27;s just see what happens. Get over it already.
评论 #12924735 未加载
评论 #12924238 未加载
评论 #12925116 未加载
评论 #12925119 未加载
gr_thrwyover 8 years ago
Another place where Facebook&#x27;s failure to detect fakeness has proved costly is in their social graph.<p>A lot of sites moved away from comments platforms like Disqus to Facebook in the hope that the quality of discourse would improve and trolling would decrease. Instead, clicking on some of the most vehement commentators&#x27; names would invariably lead to suspiciously bare accounts (and often suspiciously fake names) with a handful of friends themselves, all with similar characteristics. Unfortunately the people who are influenced by this sort of thing are not tech savvy enough to do even this basic level of checking.<p>There is a a sort of &quot;uncanny valley&quot; that a technically savvy and experienced person can detect when looking at a fake profile, that I daresay Facebook&#x27;s algorithms just can&#x27;t.<p>Then there is also the problem that Facebook really doesn&#x27;t care about blatantly fake accounts until they are reported. The sorts of people who are trapped in some filter bubbles are unlikely to be savvy enough to know how to report these profiles (I&#x27;ve reported many-dozens at least-ranging from community noticeboards to cupcake businesses, all pretending to be people and missed by FB&#x27;s much vaunted ML)<p>Of course, there is a certain irony in using a throwaway account to discuss fake accounts, but without a patina of &quot;realness&quot;, it triggers a greater level of skepticism, which is a good thing.<p>When the history of 2016 is written, a large part will be filter bubbles and trolls expertly manipulating huge swathes of electorates enabled by the hubris and greed of Social Media networks.
stevendhansenover 8 years ago
Except it isn&#x27;t just the spread of misinformation. Even more important (IMHO) is the insulating effect of showing people only like-minded opinions, effectively trapping everyone in a bubble. I can&#x27;t think of any way Facebook can solve this problem without drastically decreasing their reliance on ad revenue. What are they going to do, force people to view opinions they disagree with?
评论 #12923395 未加载
评论 #12923557 未加载
评论 #12923472 未加载
评论 #12923943 未加载
评论 #12924257 未加载
masmullinover 8 years ago
&gt; Last week Buzzfeed reported on an entire cottage industry of web users in Macedonia generating fake news stories related to Trump vs Clinton in order to inject them into Facebook’s Newsfeed as a way to drive viral views and generate ad revenue from lucrative US eyeballs.<p>Does anyone else find this incredibly ironic? Buzzfeed ratting out others doing clickbait?
评论 #12924526 未加载
reustleover 8 years ago
Not long ago I saw a post about the oil pipeline protests. It was a photo of a huge crowd, and stated that the media was not covering the protests properly and that people are taking a stand. The photo was of tens of thousands of people, and had over 230,000 shares. 230k....<p>A quick image lookup showed that it was in fact a photo from Woodstock 1969, but since the comments on the photo were restricted, nobody had been able to point it out.<p>I went to report it, but facebook seems to have removed the &quot;misinformation&quot; option when reporting content (thought there was one before?)
grandalfover 8 years ago
Trump&#x27;s strategy worked brilliantly on social media. Here&#x27;s the strategy in a nutshell:<p>1) Say something outrageous that news orgs will grab for a quick, clickbait story that will generate tons of ad revenue.<p>2) Let outraged people share via social media.<p>3) Benefit as some of the people seeing the content will not disagree and will take the candidacy seriously.<p>4) Win.<p>It doesn&#x27;t matter what Facebook does with its trending section, the real value of Trump&#x27;s strategy came with the way it exploits the basic sharing &#x2F; newsfeed mechanism&#x27;s intended behavior. Even today, many Trump opposers think that they were helping by posting their outrage at every rude comment Trump said.
评论 #12932133 未加载
评论 #12932686 未加载
Kenjiover 8 years ago
Let&#x27;s be frank here: Free speech and facebook never go together. They want to present as a respectable forum where prominent people like politicians can have their platform (same with Twitter). That needs some kind of filtering. And, as we saw with pretty much the entire American press, as soon as you start filtering and selecting, you start to induce gross biases and distortions of the truth. The truth only comes out in a clutter of contradicting opinions, engaging discussions, pieces of evidence and leaked materials. Of course, that is an ugly mess not many people want to put up with.
评论 #12923479 未加载
tmptmpover 8 years ago
I am not a Trump supporter, as far as his anti-Muslim stance is concerned. But I do support some of his economic stances which are labeled as &quot;protectionist&quot; by mainstream media. I may be wrong as I am not an economic expert also his take on immigration is certainly a thing of significance.<p>A related note regarding Facebook here: AFAIK, Facebook&#x27;s curators were very biased and were always removing anything to do support what &quot;mainstream vocal leftists&quot; find objectionable. e.g. Be it to do with the shameless suppression of news related to people like Geert Wilders or Pamella Geller who are not by any means right wing fanatics. Geert Wilders is a staunch supporter of homosexuals. Just because he criticizes the barbaric ideology of Islam he is labeled as a &quot;right-wing nut&quot; by leftists with covert&#x2F;overt Islam-apologetic stances.<p>It is well known that Saudi kingdom has large investments in mainstream US media, that&#x27;s what Trump drew people&#x27;s attention to. Who knows how much of Facebook is controlled by Saudi and the likes. [1]<p>It&#x27;s no surprise that mainstream media got the prediction about Trump wrong. I guess, there predictions and poll-results were in fact propaganda against Trump. I felt it that way, many people I know felt it and I am sure many more people must also have felt it.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=Ex9ldUHSgjs" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=Ex9ldUHSgjs</a>
brentmover 8 years ago
This is a tough position for FB. No matter what they do, half of the the world will think the actions they take are wrong. Most humans are intelligent enough to know that stories like Hillary Clinton running a child sex ring (or whatever) are false. People choose to share these because they want to believe it or think it&#x27;s funny. As they say in their mission statement &quot;Facebook’s mission is to give people the power to share and make the world more open and connected.&quot; it is a commendable mission but it&#x27;s also a messy one. I think inevitably they will have to do something. Maybe some kind of &quot;truth barometer&quot; on stories that attain a certain volume of engagement. At least then they can say &quot;look! we&#x27;re trying&quot; without taking away the people&#x27;s right to troll. In this particular election though I doubt anything would have helped. The winner has been openly trolling for years, his direct actions set the standard for truthfulness much lower than ever before.
malchowover 8 years ago
It seems abundantly clear that the problem isn&#x27;t low-quality content in the feed. That&#x27;s unavoidable. It&#x27;s the very small trickle of high-quality content in the feed – content from actual people who want to contribute to Facebook. There isn&#x27;t much of it. And Facebook wants to show a fresh feed every refresh.
评论 #12924456 未加载
thrdenover 8 years ago
The timing of this announcement does not seem to help assuage fears that facebook was using its platform to push an agenda. It was this accusation that initially forced them to switch from human editors to an algorithm for trending news. I suspect that we as a country are going to have a conversation regarding the nature of privately held nearly public spaces on the internet and what their obligation to us is, if any.
StanislavPetrovover 8 years ago
In corporate speak &quot;misinformation&quot; is defined as &quot;any information that doesn&#x27;t support our narrative&quot;. Certainly it is the goal of Facebook, the government, and every other large media corporation to control the flow of information. You need look no farther then Obama&#x27;s recent statement that news needs to be &quot;curated&quot; by government appointed gatekeepers, to filter out all that pesky information that doesn&#x27;t jive with government propaganda.
评论 #12924214 未加载
评论 #12924330 未加载
评论 #12924688 未加载
评论 #12925120 未加载
评论 #12924887 未加载
评论 #12924722 未加载
guycookover 8 years ago
&quot;As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth&#x27;s final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.&quot;
评论 #12924871 未加载
ausjkeover 8 years ago
the elite mainstream media and the supposed-to-be-independent reporters are the biggest losers in this election, as they took sides so strongly that the other 50% will never bother to have anything to do with them. facebook needs improvement? sure, but more important, those biased media outlets will be irrelevant for most of the people due to not only technology advancement, but also what the news industry has been doing over the last few decades, i.e. they&#x27;re all so biased, that you always know what they&#x27;re going to say, why bother reading there.<p>anyone can tell me one true independent news source in US today? there is _none_.
评论 #12925147 未加载
评论 #12924348 未加载
评论 #12929995 未加载
mstadeover 8 years ago
I read somewhere that Facebook isn&#x27;t liable for information posted there, that the user&#x27;s posting the information is the liable party. Here in Sweden, that&#x27;s not how news organizations work. Here, whatever they publish they are liable for, regardless of who originally wrote it.<p>I know Facebook isn&#x27;t a news organization, but it&#x27;s treading a fine line isn&#x27;t it? At some point one might argue that by being an aggregator and driving a large portion of its engagement in the sharing of stories is akin to being a publisher, and thus should be held liable for the things it publishes – regardless of who pulled the trigger. Of course, this would be a huge liability for Facebook, and a growth inhibitor because all of a sudden, a story going viral isn&#x27;t exactly a good thing if it means they can easily be sued for libel.<p>I&#x27;m not a lawyer (probably obvious given the above) but I think it&#x27;s a bit strange that given Facebook&#x27;s position they can so easily get away with a &quot;wasn&#x27;t me!&quot; kind of attitude to misinformation and straight up lies being spread around presented as though the stories were in fact news.
评论 #12924602 未加载
评论 #12924466 未加载
评论 #12933055 未加载
ihswover 8 years ago
The moderation of Facebook is outsourced to a select group of organizations, not unlike Twitter with their Trust and Safety Council.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;about.twitter.com&#x2F;safety&#x2F;council" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;about.twitter.com&#x2F;safety&#x2F;council</a><p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;blog.twitter.com&#x2F;2016&#x2F;announcing-the-twitter-trust-safety-council" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;blog.twitter.com&#x2F;2016&#x2F;announcing-the-twitter-trust-s...</a><p>Unsurprisingly, Twitter&#x27;s Safety Council members are predominantly left-leaning with ties to the (now defunct) Clinton campaign. I would presume there are plenty of seats to be filled now.
评论 #12923482 未加载
评论 #12923421 未加载
roughly27over 8 years ago
Determining what is, and what is not, misinformation seems:<p>1. Intractable. How exactly do you propose to accurately vet every bit of information posted to facebook?<p>2. Dangerous. Who does the vetting? If it&#x27;s an algorithm, who writes the algorithm? No matter which way you slice it, &quot;doing more to stop the spread of misinformation&quot; imposes someone&#x27;s &#x27;one true view&#x27; of reality and stifles the engine of western civilization: the open, competitive marketplace of ideas.<p>This is clearly an emotionally driven sentiment caused by the moral outcry of a person considered &#x27;bigoted&#x27; being elected to office. Stifling political expression will only make Trump&#x2F;next trump&#x2F;next next trump&#x27;s populist appeal stronger.
muckerover 8 years ago
Or Facebook can take their thumbs off the scale on what is supposed to be friends sharing information. Do you realize how Orwellian it is for a big company to say friends Bobby and Sally have to be monitored in what they share? How does this not bother people?<p>I don&#x27;t care if Bobby and Sally believe that we never made it to the moon and wear tin foil hats. It is _none of FB&#x27;s damn business_. They are a _platform_ not the editors of all things true. They should not issue us all with truth detectors.
piotrjurkiewiczover 8 years ago
So what do they propose? To hire more human editors&#x2F;moderators to evaluate&#x2F;censor links and stories?<p>FB already has too much power and its moderators affects &#x27;politically undesirable&#x27; content too much.<p>One week ago, FB blocked an event page of Independence March, which traditionally takes place on November 11th (Polish Independence Day) in Warsaw. This is the biggest mass event of Independence Day, having more than 100k participants each year.<p>FB also blocked or removed pages of NGOs and political parties, which are organizing or support the march (some of them had 80k or 170k followers) and personal accounts of people involved in these organizations.<p>Then FB went full rage and started to block personal accounts of everyone who invited or even positively mentioned the Independence March, including for example the personal account of editor-in-chief of the second largest daily newspaper in Poland (<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;sjastrzebowski&#x2F;status&#x2F;793001362070052864" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;sjastrzebowski&#x2F;status&#x2F;793001362070052864</a>).<p>The most extreme case was the personal account of a MP, who wrote on his timeline: &quot;I will be [on the Independence March] along with my family, whether FB likes that or not.&quot; (<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;jakubiak_marek&#x2F;status&#x2F;793497135954202625..." rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;jakubiak_marek&#x2F;status&#x2F;793497135954202625...</a>) His profile was blocked for 24 hours after that.<p>Another case was a personal profile of a retired Intelligence Agency officer, who revealed in a FB post, that a local coordinator of an anti-government liberal-left protest movement during the communist period was a colonel of Soviet-dependent military intelligence agency.<p>All of this happened just within the last month. FB actions generated a huge pushback and hit the headlines. Deputy Minister of Justice qualified FB actions as &quot;censorship&quot;. Minister of Digitization tweeted that she &quot;asked FB management for a talk&quot;. Many people started deleting their FB accounts in protest.<p>FB got frightened and reactivated the event page of Independence March, but many nationalist&#x2F;conservative organizations profiles still remain blocked.
OliverJonesover 8 years ago
Here&#x27;s what to do about Facebook.<p>(1) permanently close your account. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.facebook.com&#x2F;help&#x2F;delete_account" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.facebook.com&#x2F;help&#x2F;delete_account</a><p>(2) if you&#x27;re like me and you can&#x27;t do that, &quot;unfriend&quot; everybody except the people you work with. Delete all your affiliations and locations.<p>If enough people did this FB would have to do a little struggling to retain membership. That&#x27;s the kind of incentive they need. Altruism demonstrably doesn&#x27;t work, especially Sand Hill Road altruism.<p>(I help a couple of little nonprofits so it happens that I need a fb account.)
评论 #12925295 未加载
评论 #12926435 未加载
kiryklover 8 years ago
Wouldn&#x27;t Facebook have the perverse incentive to define &#x27;misinformation&#x27; to be any information which offends the most people, regardless of truth, in order to keep users from leaving
评论 #12924662 未加载
Hydraulix989over 8 years ago
I don&#x27;t understand how this is different than any other communication medium.<p>Telegraph operators shouldn&#x27;t feel any onus to ensure that they stop the spread of misinformation, right?<p>In fact, I think it is VERY detrimental for them to step in and started editing posts, bringing back the human editors. Humans have biases, ML less so.<p>If an algorithm decides that something is trending, even if it is &quot;incorrect&quot; to some interpretation of the word, then it should be treated the same. It&#x27;s just a matter of principles.
belornover 8 years ago
How are we to ever prevent misinformation when news papers are happy to publish that &quot;political candidate did crime X! anonymous john&#x2F;jane doe said&quot;.<p>If news papers were held to ethical requirements that prevented mere accusations from being news, I could see how Facebook should also be held liable for not following the same rules. As it is now, someone could just append &quot;john doe said&quot; at the end of any conspiracy theory and by news standard, its fact checked and ethical.
SeanDavover 8 years ago
It is a temporary aberration. In due course, people will come to realize that they can&#x27;t believe everything they read on the internet (duh), especially where provenance is not clear, and Facebook will improve their algorithms.<p>Some kind of reasonable balance will be found.<p>People blaming Facebook for Trump is far more a reflection of themselves than of FB news algorithms.
评论 #12924845 未加载
joggeryover 8 years ago
You can&#x27;t prevent false ideas spreading by censorship; quite the contrary.<p>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.
评论 #12925202 未加载
TrumpVoter12345over 8 years ago
Throwaway for obvious reasons. It&#x27;s dangerous to support reform against the reactionary left.<p>I&#x27;m a Trump voter. I consider myself pretty well educated (M.Sc. CS&#x2F;EE, honors), and I work in a research lab. I&#x27;m not your typical Trump voter. Full disclosure: I&#x27;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&#x27;m liberal on social issues. I support LGBT and gay marriage. I&#x27;m an atheist. I have a wife and a kid. I&#x27;m also pro-gun, pro marijuana, and pro letting people do whatever they want with their lives. I&#x27;m also extremely fiscally conservative, and against illegal immigration.<p>My FB feed was so skewed against Trump I had to close my account. Bombshell stories on Clinton wouldn&#x27;t trend, while the most inane BS about Trump would immediately reach the top and stay there.<p>It is strange for me to hear FB being accused of being &quot;too conservative&quot;. I certainly saw nothing like that &quot;red&quot; feed on WSJ.<p>BTW, I could elaborate why I voted for Trump if anyone is interested. I don&#x27;t agree with him on everything, but on the balance he seemed like the lesser of two evils to me.
评论 #12928934 未加载
danblickover 8 years ago
Neil Postman argued in &quot;Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business&quot; (1985) that <i>entertainment</i> had become the &quot;supra-ideology of all discourse on television&quot;. <i>Good television</i> is entertaining while <i>bad television</i> is not, so we learn to judge all content on television based on its entertainment value.<p>&quot;Americans no longer talk to each other, they entertain each other. They do not exchange ideas; they exchange images.&quot;<p>I think Postman&#x27;s comments are extremely relevant today (30 years after 1985) except that now they would apply to the Facebook news feed. (The quote about &#x27;exchanging images&#x27; is now literally true.) The role of &quot;news as entertainment&quot; does a lot to explain the Trump&#x27;s emergence as a candidate in the first place (he got a lot of coverage early on because of his outlandishness).
jonduboisover 8 years ago
I don&#x27;t think this is only Facebook&#x27;s fault. I watched several extremely biased Youtube videos on both sides.<p>I guess it&#x27;s just how decentralized media works; it only tells people what they want to hear.<p>Not so long ago, the media used to be relatively trustworthy, now everything has become propaganda. It started online mostly but now even major TV channels and newspapers which used to pride themselves on journalistic integrity have become propaganda machines.<p>There is no truth in the media anymore; the only way to approximate the truth is by watching opposing media channels and then &#x27;averaging them out&#x27; in your mind.<p>All the news I was reading online was so obviously biased in Hillary&#x27;s favor that I was compelled to watch Fox news (which I used to think was complete garbage) just to try to get the other side of the argument.
评论 #12925004 未加载
评论 #12925011 未加载
alvaover 8 years ago
Can&#x27;t wait for the Facebook Department of Truth™ to inform me!
youdounderstandover 8 years ago
Just stop using aggregators. Pay for real news sources that hire actual investigative journalists.
评论 #12923653 未加载
评论 #12923368 未加载
评论 #12923797 未加载
评论 #12923411 未加载
评论 #12923563 未加载
std_throwawayover 8 years ago
Misinformation is any information that does not follow the official guidelines laid out by the ministry of truth.
alexmingoiaover 8 years ago
The problem is that the Facebook feed shouldn&#x27;t be about news in the first place, or anything that isn&#x27;t original content from the people I follow. I miss the days when the news feed was photos of my friends, notices about new their new job, what they ate, etc. instead of a stream of tabloid junk and recycled news articles.<p>Unfortunately Facebook gives no tools to limit the posts to only original content and profile updates. Curating your followed list is pointless since reposted crap and original content are mixed together.
评论 #12927220 未加载
rahrahrahover 8 years ago
Admiting to fight misinformation amounts to the same as admiting that they will pursue a left-wing bias.
avivoover 8 years ago
We are developing systems to identify and check the impact of misinformation at scale (triage + human in the loop).<p>If you&#x27;re interested in potentially joining or funding us, let us know <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;docs.google.com&#x2F;forms&#x2F;d&#x2F;e&#x2F;1FAIpQLSclhq7zrUKI3nxJFiYwJ-NvyW4xAeLbSF7cWxst6GKBON9Y7Q&#x2F;viewform" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;docs.google.com&#x2F;forms&#x2F;d&#x2F;e&#x2F;1FAIpQLSclhq7zrUKI3nxJFiYw...</a><p>-----------------------------<p>Also relevant — my comment 43 days ago to the new &quot;Request for Startups&quot;: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=12594955" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=12594955</a><p>&quot;I&#x27;m really happy to see YC putting attention toward the (increasing) market failure around media quality. It&#x27;s a serious problem, with IMHO imperils governance and stability worldwide.<p>I&#x27;m exploring a way to improve this dramatically, and fairly rapidly; essentially creating a stronger market for trust &amp; quality, with resulting ranking rewards from FB, Google et al. If you are interested in learning more and perhaps being involved, let me know (yc@aviv.me). Experience with news organizations, partnerships, platform companies, pr, moderation systems, or machine learning are all especially helpful.&quot;
jonduboisover 8 years ago
The biggest source of bias in the media is not related to feeding people false information, it&#x27;s about misdirection.<p>If you have two articles A and B, where A is more important than B, sometimes the media outlet will deliberately choose to publish B instead of A if it matches their philosophy better (even though it&#x27;s less important). If the news outlet shows each reader 5 articles of type B for every 1 article of type A - Then they are manipulating the reader&#x27;s opinion to become biased towards type B thinking (by focusing their attention on less important stuff). It doesn&#x27;t matter if all articles are 100% accurate, your perception is being affected through the exposure imbalance; through priming.<p>I think that&#x27;s what happened with the Clinton&#x2F;Trump fiasco; &quot;Hillary media&quot; was publishing more articles about Trump&#x27;s &quot;sexual deviance and unstable character&quot; while &quot;Trump media&quot; was publishing more articles about Hillary&#x27;s &quot;deception and murky financial schemes&quot;.
Zenstover 8 years ago
How do they define misinformation as many grey area&#x27;s, for example religion.<p>So in such grey area&#x27;s one persons information is another&#x27;s misinformation and that gets messy for anybody, let alone AI.
leurfeteover 8 years ago
So Facebook will be openly committed to censoring certain information for the public good. What could go wrong?
评论 #12928592 未加载
sandworm101over 8 years ago
Facebook isn&#x27;t the problem. It&#x27;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.
评论 #12924637 未加载
评论 #12932168 未加载
bobsgameover 8 years ago
I would like to see less headlines frame every statement made by a company as &quot;admits.&quot; Facebook is not admitting to wrongdoing or confessing to a secret crime they tried to cover up, they are <i>acknowledging</i> there is an issue that they have to improve on.
webwanderingsover 8 years ago
<a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.niemanlab.org&#x2F;2016&#x2F;11&#x2F;the-forces-that-drove-this-elections-media-failure-are-likely-to-get-worse&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.niemanlab.org&#x2F;2016&#x2F;11&#x2F;the-forces-that-drove-this-...</a>
arprocterover 8 years ago
If it&#x27;s such a problem why not just disable the Newsfeed?<p>No one needs to get their news from Facebook
triplesecover 8 years ago
Very relevant to understanding today&#x27;s media and politics is Adam Curtis&#x27; new documentary film Hypernormalisation. It&#x27;s long but very worth it<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.bbc.co.uk&#x2F;programmes&#x2F;p04b183c" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.bbc.co.uk&#x2F;programmes&#x2F;p04b183c</a><p>If anyone has links to the BBC iplayer for the US, if there is one, or another legit source for outside the UK, please do reply with it.<p>I strongly encourage you to watch it, and if you can only find it from a dodgy source, buy someone a classic BBC DVD of something for Festivus so support their making more. (lots of things, Dr Who, Jeeves and Wooster, the Century of the Self...)
评论 #12936091 未加载
Osiris30over 8 years ago
&quot;It’s totally forgotten now, but for the 100 years after the American Revolution, the U.S. government made it free or almost free to send newspapers anywhere by mail. It was available to papers of all political perspectives, with no government censorship. The rationale was straightforward: This was necessary for people to participate in governing themselves.&quot;<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;theintercept.com&#x2F;2016&#x2F;11&#x2F;09&#x2F;donald-trump-will-be-president-this-is-what-we-do-next&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;theintercept.com&#x2F;2016&#x2F;11&#x2F;09&#x2F;donald-trump-will-be-pre...</a>
marzeover 8 years ago
If the goal is not to bias, total transparency is the answer.
Animatsover 8 years ago
Here&#x27;s a tool someone could write. Write a browser add-on which modifies Facebook pages so that the news links are changed to Google, Bing, and Wikipedia searches for the news headline. Connect to Google&#x2F;Bing in a mode with no signin or cookie info, so you don&#x27;t get &quot;search personalization&quot;. This will get you out of Facebook&#x27;s filter bubble quickly. Google and Bing have problems, too, but they are somewhat better at blocking spam, having been at it longer and being in the business of forcing spammers to buy their ads instead.
评论 #12929281 未加载
dsugarmanover 8 years ago
this is what I would propose. Attach a very visible rating on each story shared from all news sources, the rating says how much the news source holds to it&#x27;s journalistic integrity. There should be a very clear criteria that facebook holds it&#x27;s news content providers to. If you click on the rating of a low rated news source, you should be shown exactly what extremely misleading articles they have published in the past, these reviews should also be tagged so you can view it directly if someone is spreading misinformation on the news feed.
评论 #12927328 未加载
gdubsover 8 years ago
Look folks, I get that this is a libertarian crowd but hear me out:<p>If someone says the earth is flat, it&#x27;s not dystopian for editors to minimize those claims, or even point out how incorrect they are. Instead, in today&#x27;s media world, the response would be, &quot;two sides disagree on contour of the planet&quot;, and would present two talking heads to chatter about their opinions.<p>Facts are facts, and we&#x27;re losing the battle online to disinformation.<p>Beware of slippery slope arguments about how editorializing leads to propaganda.
makecheckover 8 years ago
There are two big problems shown by this. First, that any one service like Facebook could become so large and unopposed that we <i>need</i> to care how it handles something like this. And second, that people seem fine with the idea of living only inside Facebook, unfriending or muting anyone who disagrees with them, until nothing else matters.<p>This is an utterly unhealthy way for people to be. If you want to combat misinformation, you must also encourage (teach?) people to stop being spoon-fed and start being more curious and more critical.
评论 #12927232 未加载
psycover 8 years ago
&quot;Stop the spread of misinformation&quot; is a subset of &quot;stop the spread of information&quot;, which is yet one more way of saying that some people can&#x27;t stand the freedom of speech.
评论 #12924120 未加载
mbostlemanover 8 years ago
It would be nice if this were approached more as a user experience enhancement as opposed to a content editorial function. I would love to see the former as my feed is so overwhelmed with garbage. The latter, however, would almost inevitably turn sinister - the leftist, PC, Silicon Valley influence would have no ability to check itself - even if it&#x27;s not on purpose, the isolated bubble think could not be overcome. I can&#x27;t imagine that it would hard to automate away teenagers purposely creating fake content.
white-flameover 8 years ago
I really enjoy the dynamic of large forums, where varying ideas can pitch in, and I appreciate that much more in comparison to family members who are steeped in facebook.<p>Global forums can end up with a fairly civil discourse, because everybody knows and acknowledges that there are differences in opinion. If you want your thoughts to be respected, you need to make them level headed, even if it is an emotional argument. The broader the forum, the better it tends to be. Of course, it also depends on good moderation, but even the self-moderation of HN and &#x2F;. tend to end up being level headed and fairly moderate.<p>But there are no alternative opinions or moderators in facebook. People subscribe to small echo chamber radicals, which laser focus on some hyper exaggerated version of their outlook and there&#x27;s no counterpoints in sight. Disagreements with what other people post ends up in unfriending, because it&#x27;s too personally dissonant.<p>This whole blurting out of one&#x27;s impassioned political, religious, and social ideologies is simply not appropriate public discussion!<p>You don&#x27;t go out to social gatherings and start yelling stuff like this. Yet, on facebook, people share such content on their walls for all their acquaintances to see, which ends up being incendiary. These are subjects reserved for those you have enough rapport with to warrant deep controversial dives, not your personally public web presence. The very nature of the mechanics of social media tends to stoke and reward this behavior.
GBondover 8 years ago
Zuck seems to be crafting and curating his persona &amp; reputation for a future life of public office. Changing up facebook&#x27;s bad content reputation will be important for this path.
zxcvvcxzover 8 years ago
Something I haven&#x27;t seen mentioned yet is the voting system. I think the voting system ruins online discourse.<p>Let me explain. Within my own social media and online forum bubbles, there are a certain set of norms and beliefs that are easy to express.<p>But should I express the &#x27;wrong&#x27; beliefs in the &#x27;wrong&#x27; forum, I simply get downvoted to oblivion. And then people don&#x27;t see what I have to say. Look what happens here on Hacker News, my comments will literally start faaaaading awaaaaaay!
评论 #12930498 未加载
DINKDINKover 8 years ago
Ministry of Truth
thr0waway1239over 8 years ago
The linked article from NiemanLab [1] is a really odd read. It ends like this:<p>&quot;It’s been said that we get the media we deserve: that the journalism we see is a reflection of business structures and audience decisions, not the result of an elite’s decisions to shape public opinion. There’s a lot of truth to that. But the information we produce and consume is generated by human beings, not systems, and those human beings have just gotten the shock of their professional lives.&quot;<p>So he starts by saying that the journalism we see is <i>not</i> the result of an elite&#x27;s decisions to shape public opinion as if it is a good thing (which you would probably agree with).<p>Then the next line says that the result of the opposite - the unwashed masses? - is (some bad thing will occur).<p>At this point, you are probably expecting something neutral to follow. I mean, after all, the author talks about the journalism profession, which is supposed to provide both sides of the picture.<p>What actually follows is this:<p>&quot;If we’re going to build a better environment for news, we need to think about these issues in a much bigger context than one election night. And it’ll take everyone — journalists, readers, tech companies, and more — to make it happen.&quot;<p>Great, so the author has just defined himself, Facebook, the general media and the people who agree with his views as the &quot;elite&quot; who wants to &quot;fix&quot; the problem by shaping public opinion in a way which is more palatable to him.<p>Maybe this attitude is what caused this &quot;systemic shock&quot;?<p>[1] <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.niemanlab.org&#x2F;2016&#x2F;11&#x2F;the-forces-that-drove-this-elections-media-failure-are-likely-to-get-worse&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.niemanlab.org&#x2F;2016&#x2F;11&#x2F;the-forces-that-drove-this-...</a>
cm3over 8 years ago
I&#x27;m still waiting for the day that there&#x27;s a responsible entity that only ever publishes things when they&#x27;re 100% certain and is willing to bet their freedom (going to prison) on it. But given how information and influencing of opinions is a market and means control of the population, I&#x27;m afraid this won&#x27;t happen with official support, and only be seen as the crazy lunatics news agency that publishes stuff a week or month later after having vetted things.<p>I&#x27;d like to say leave speed reporting to the Twittersphere and mandate a clear label on unvetted news reports on any network, but I doubt politics can have such influence on the media. I would love it if the news reports had a watermark that says fresh-and-unvetted just like &quot;preliminary results&quot; or &quot;consult your doctor before taking&quot;.<p>First we have to encourage and support critical thinking, but too much of it may lead to some influencers misusing it to support causes which deny past and current crimes of humanity on itself and the planet.
评论 #12924219 未加载
mtgxover 8 years ago
So who&#x27;s going to be Head of Truth at Facebook?
评论 #12930508 未加载
omegaworksover 8 years ago
I think it would be better to provide something like the opposite of &quot;friends you&#x27;d get along with&quot;<p>If we could switch the facebook algorithm to different modes - &quot;people you agree with&quot; &quot;people who&#x27;d challenge you&quot;<p>That would be better than straight up blocking false things. Let the conversations happen.
flipcoderover 8 years ago
Censorship
cakefaceover 8 years ago
This is sort of starting to remind me of the Reticulum in Neal Stephenson&#x27;s book <i>Anathem</i>. He talks about how they are constantly checking the reputation of data and only valuing high reputation sources. It&#x27;s certainly hand wavy but interesting. Life imitating art imitating life.
Zikesover 8 years ago
Good luck with that. Reddit&#x27;s failed at it. Twitter&#x27;s failed at it. It&#x27;s almost always bundled with some sort of hate speech or political rhetoric that triggers swaths of people when they feel like they&#x27;re being silenced.<p>There probably is no right way to do it.
评论 #12923506 未加载
评论 #12932326 未加载
eggyover 8 years ago
My elders always taught me believe half of what you read, and believe is not such a good word here.<p>People need to use their wetware and common sense. Tabloids were printing alien invasions with photos, or that certain celebrities were aliens, during the 70s and 80s, and <i>most</i> rational people did not believe them. The papers were allowed to continue printing.<p>How about multiple sources, and not just being tuned into FB for your entire world view? I&#x27;m glad I taught my children how to live without their smart phones, and now they use them wisely. They can even coordinate meeting up when out in the city if their phone&#x27;s battery or phone fails.<p>Common sense is a waning resource.
will_pseudonymover 8 years ago
We obviously need a commission that determines what things are facts and which things are fiction. It will be comprised of experts who know more than the populace, so it will be much better. It will be called the Ministry of Truth.
评论 #12927353 未加载
spinlockover 8 years ago
Call me old fashioned but I blame people for being stupid rather than technology.
nogbitover 8 years ago
LOL, whats it going to do run as a NPO and take donations from its users and no ads? Cmon Zuck, I dare ya because you know that is the only way to &quot;fix&quot; this...fix your bottom line.
MaysonLover 8 years ago
&quot;Rhetorical Fever&quot; is entirely too contagious. Recovery from it can provide immunity, but is fairly rare. (See <i>Shikasta</i> by Nobel-Prize winner Doris Lessing for more).
millettjonover 8 years ago
I deleted my Facebook account and suggest others do the same.
评论 #12932312 未加载
readhnover 8 years ago
Facebook needs a censorship department! Get a list of prohibited topis from white house and block those posts on facebook.<p>Better yet, ask Trump what topics to block :)
squozzerover 8 years ago
A humble question --<p>Had Hillary won, would this post even be on HN?
评论 #12925047 未加载
评论 #12924594 未加载
评论 #12932365 未加载
评论 #12924732 未加载
ddingusover 8 years ago
Facebook isn&#x27;t the right venue for this.<p>Of course it&#x27;s filled with garbage!<p>While it&#x27;s noble to seek better, the reality is people are using poor tools because the good ones are failing them.<p>Ask where did journalism go and that&#x27;s the start on real solutions.<p>If we had that as we used to, the garbage on FB would be much less of a worry. The laughable would fit laughed at as it should.
hedonistbotover 8 years ago
I 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 &quot;bias&quot; and &quot;misinformation&quot;.
grandalfover 8 years ago
This headline could be retitled: &quot;Silicon Valley calls upon Facebook to use more aggressive censorship&quot;
surferbayareaover 8 years ago
Also to all the people here who are ok with selling their privacy to facebook, google - how do you now feel that a Trump-led government will have 100% access to all your data! It is time that we fix the internet from the menace of the advertising business model - that has not only destroyed the internet but society itself...
ernover 8 years ago
Zuckerberg seems to be denying that its a problem: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;money.cnn.com&#x2F;2016&#x2F;11&#x2F;10&#x2F;technology&#x2F;facebook-mark-zuckerberg-fake-news&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;money.cnn.com&#x2F;2016&#x2F;11&#x2F;10&#x2F;technology&#x2F;facebook-mark-zuc...</a>
randomgyatworkover 8 years ago
What is the difference between &#x27;fake&#x27; news and true news thats inconsistent with prevailing narratives?<p>By letting &#x27;the people&#x27; choose what trends, at least you are being honest.<p>Most real news is fake anyways.
hunvreusover 8 years ago
The same way parents are responsible for the education of their kids, not schools, individuals are responsible for feeding their brain and developing opinions.<p>Facebook isn&#x27;t promising more than cat gifs, Buzzfeed click bait and rants. It is not more an echo chamber than your group of friends.
ameliusover 8 years ago
Can&#x27;t proper moderation be crowdsourced somehow?<p>E.g.: a group of fact-checkers, with reputation based on previous performance and a page-rank like system, and perhaps a meta-level above that (people checking the fact-checkers), so that gaming the system becomes difficult.
daveheqover 8 years ago
Define misinformation, because certain groups will call certain facts misinformation.
michaelbuckbeeover 8 years ago
An interesting contextual point is that Amazon (or perhaps more precisely Jeff Bezos) has an outstanding and tremendously well respected journalism feature whereby the publish original, factual, well-researched articles every day at the Washington Post.
goshxover 8 years ago
They could start by including &quot;misinformation&quot; as a reason when you report a post.
knownover 8 years ago
Unlike traditional media, social media spreads free opinion <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Decline_of_the_West" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Decline_of_the_West</a>
knownover 8 years ago
FB is supposed to promote <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Wisdom_of_the_crowd" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Wisdom_of_the_crowd</a>
评论 #12930390 未加载
ixtliover 8 years ago
I don&#x27;t mean to be all doom-and-gloom but it seems too little, too late. Someone else in this thread put it well:<p>&gt; people immersed in echo chambers will accuse them of bias no matter what.
jonduboisover 8 years ago
I think that news and advertising is too powerful to be in private hands. All major news and advertising sources should be nationalized or turned into non-profits.
tomohawkover 8 years ago
They have it backwards. Its not about blocking misinformation. That just puts you in the role of the Inquisition. It&#x27;s about seeking the truth.
评论 #12932352 未加载
cpncrunchover 8 years ago
What if they added a flag button labelled &quot;This post contains misinformation&quot;? Then, if sufficient people click it, it is reviewed by a human editor.
评论 #12924061 未加载
emodendroketover 8 years ago
I mean it seems a little dystopian if Facebook is going to become the arbiter of what information is accurate and start culling stuff.
munificentover 8 years ago
Facebook relatively recently reaction buttons. Would a &quot;This is untrue&quot; reaction button help?
评论 #12932342 未加载
swiftisthebestover 8 years ago
All they need to do is have a skeptical reaction along with their other emotive reactions.
agumonkeyover 8 years ago
What if Facebook found a way to turn it&#x27;s billion into tiny wikipedia fact checker.
SixSigmaover 8 years ago
Itt: people who think the world is dominated by unequivocal ideas and information.
dvhover 8 years ago
I was thinking something similar about gmail. Once a year or so someone send me powerpoint with &quot;the Mars would be as big as moon&quot; and other obvious nonsense. Gmail should notify them before sending that it is indeed bullshit, if they really want to send it.
评论 #12929662 未加载
_audakelover 8 years ago
why not just add a &quot;spam flag&quot; on all posts and let the users clean it up? Or something like a downvote.
6d6b73over 8 years ago
So they admit they want to censorship FB.
评论 #12923293 未加载
评论 #12923261 未加载
评论 #12923504 未加载
评论 #12923289 未加载
评论 #12923253 未加载
andrewclunnover 8 years ago
Let people develop critical thinking skills and determine their trusted sources. Keep censorship out of this!
评论 #12930469 未加载
mrleover 8 years ago
what is misinformation? what is false today can be true tomorrow.
awesomerobotover 8 years ago
[Citation needed]?
fiatjafover 8 years ago
It must stop its operations. That is too much.
kmtrowbrover 8 years ago
I have had a lot of similar thoughts recently. If you think of this historically -- soon after mass-communication technologies were first invented, they were eventually abused, the radio propaganda of WWII being one of the best examples.<p>Laws were introduced, and corporations grew up around these technologies, the producers of the content became professionalized, and by doing it full time, some of them even developed ethics and standards of behavior.<p>Now, that old media has been destroyed by new technology. The new technology is fundamentally superior in terms of the volume of information that can be transmitted, and it is both push and pull. However, the old media&#x27;s &quot;checks and balances&quot; were also destroyed, and that is having incredibly negative consequences.<p>I think there are some concrete, simple, technical steps that Facebook &amp; browser vendors can do:<p>* Before allowing you to share an article from a source that is of questionable trustworthiness, it should show you a warning message: &quot;This site is known to contain untrue content.&quot; They might also consider adding an alert next to links from these sites when they are being displayed in the news feed. I think technically, this problem is not that different from the way that email systems deal with spam.<p>* Similarly, the way that browser vendors show you an alert before allowing you to navigate to sites that contain viruses, etc, the browser can show you an alert message before taking you to a site that is known to have untrue content. And just like you see a red error message when visiting a site that doesn&#x27;t have a proper SSL setup, this could appear for sites that are untrustworthy.<p>Don&#x27;t underestimate the psychological power of strategically placed small red warning messages over time.<p>Obviously making the decisions of what goes on the list will be a highly political affair, but what is nice to realize is that, unlike the government, all these technologies are developed by private companies and given to their users for free. If you keep the bar for what is considered &quot;lying&quot; pretty high, most educated professional people (who are the employees of these companies) would be able to agree on which things to warn about.<p>Additionally, the &quot;social media&quot; space has greatly matured and consolidated. There is no longer really a direct competitor to Facebook. Facebook &amp; browser vendors now have the opportunity and, the responsibility to innovate in this area. I think they can do a lot without really impacting their bottom line.<p>Don&#x27;t allow yourself to get sucked into the problem of how computers might be able to determine &quot;truth&quot; -- that, is absolutely unsolvable. We will not be able to censor the CNN, the NYTimes or even Fox News (in general). However, there are many dark corners of the internet that are actually pretty influential, that could be toned down with this approach.
评论 #12930363 未加载
tmatover 8 years ago
ministry of truth&#x27;d
lujimover 8 years ago
*some misinformation
nickjamespdxover 8 years ago
Oh really? You think?
anonymous42380over 8 years ago
Deleted.
评论 #12923356 未加载
评论 #12923314 未加载
nurettinover 8 years ago
How hard is it to write a bot that googles the facts and checks if they contradict the story?
评论 #12930458 未加载