4 ms·

I know that getting Mark Zuckerberg to care about the problem is absolutely key to the health of our information ecosystem. Zuckerberg has been quoted as sayin

by ern 10y ago

I know that getting Mark Zuckerberg to care about the problem is absolutely key to the health of our information ecosystem. Zuckerberg has been quoted as saying it's "crazy" to think that fake news on FB could have influenced the election. OP says that a fake news story about the Pope endorsing Trump got 868,000 shares on FB. Something doesn't add up here. http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/10/technology/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-fake-news/ http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/10/technology/facebook-mark-zuc...

forgottenpass 10y ago
Something doesn't add up here. Zuckerburg is a lying sack of shit. Or (here's the part were I hedge so dang doesn't scold me for not giving infinite second chances) Zuckerberg is a boob that forgot his own company published an scholarly study about their ability to manipulate people through small chances in what they're shown. People like to think they can ignore the influence of things like advertising, propaganda and promotional freebies. But time and time again the data shows it works, just more subtly that dropping everything and running to the store for a Pepsi. Social influence of political opinion isn't hugely different. Perhaps Zuckerburg means it's crazy that anyone let anything posted on facebook influence them. But that idea is interchangeable with the idea it's crazy people use facebook at all. Everyone at facebook is working to make a product that influences people, whether they're immediately cognizant of it or not.
makomk 10y ago
I expect fake and misleading anti-Trump stories saw similar numbers; I've certainly been seeing quite a lot them shared widely on Twitter. (The photoshopped fake of Trump's parents in KKK uniforms got a cool quarter of a million retweets, for example, which is astounding for Twitter.) So it probably contributed to the polarized and hostile nature of the election, but there's no particular reason to assume it swung the results one way or the other.
bbctol 10y ago
God, what an insane deflection on his part. If Facebook can't manipulate people's behavior, why should advertisers pay them?
- hga 10y ago
  Heh, you've got a point, but simple brand recognition, or even making me aware of a product could be sufficient (I don't exactly buy into The Hidden Persuaders thesis, read about half of it back in the '70s and ... wasn't persuaded ^_^). How many "X company is shutting down" HN items have you seen where you've never heard of the company in the first place?
ahartman00 10y ago
Counterpoint: ~60,000,000 people voted for each side. 868,000 is less than 1/60, and this assumes everyone who shared it believed it. Some may have realized it was false, and shared for the lulz. Also, it assumes that all of those people actually voted.

by ern 10y ago

forgottenpass 10y ago

Something doesn't add up here. Zuckerburg is a lying sack of shit. Or (here's the part were I hedge so dang doesn't scold me for not giving infinite second chances) Zuckerberg is a boob that forgot his own company published an scholarly study about their ability to manipulate people through small chances in what they're shown. People like to think they can ignore the influence of things like advertising, propaganda and promotional freebies. But time and time again the data shows it works, just more subtly that dropping everything and running to the store for a Pepsi. Social influence of political opinion isn't hugely different. Perhaps Zuckerburg means it's crazy that anyone let anything posted on facebook influence them. But that idea is interchangeable with the idea it's crazy people use facebook at all. Everyone at facebook is working to make a product that influences people, whether they're immediately cognizant of it or not.

makomk 10y ago

I expect fake and misleading anti-Trump stories saw similar numbers; I've certainly been seeing quite a lot them shared widely on Twitter. (The photoshopped fake of Trump's parents in KKK uniforms got a cool quarter of a million retweets, for example, which is astounding for Twitter.) So it probably contributed to the polarized and hostile nature of the election, but there's no particular reason to assume it swung the results one way or the other.

bbctol 10y ago

God, what an insane deflection on his part. If Facebook can't manipulate people's behavior, why should advertisers pay them?

hga 10y ago
Heh, you've got a point, but simple brand recognition, or even making me aware of a product could be sufficient (I don't exactly buy into The Hidden Persuaders thesis, read about half of it back in the '70s and ... wasn't persuaded ^_^). How many "X company is shutting down" HN items have you seen where you've never heard of the company in the first place?

ahartman00 10y ago

Counterpoint: ~60,000,000 people voted for each side. 868,000 is less than 1/60, and this assumes everyone who shared it believed it. Some may have realized it was false, and shared for the lulz. Also, it assumes that all of those people actually voted.