7 ms·
I find it odd that a lot people think discerning between real and fake news is hard, or has some sort of insurmountable "gray area" filled with slippery slopes.
by vinhboy 10y ago
I find it odd that a lot people think discerning between real and fake news is hard, or has some sort of insurmountable "gray area" filled with slippery slopes.
We've done it for pornography, and it has worked really well. I don't get bombarded with pornography on the internet anymore. Why can't we apply the same logic to fake news?
And no one thinks banning certain type of advertising from pornography sites as censorship. It still exists, it's still growing, and you can find it easily. Same applies here I think.
- trendia 10y agoBecause there are perverse incentives to ban news that don't vibe with a company's/CEO's political goals.
- vinhboy 10y agoIsn't there a bigger incentive to keep fake news since it attract eyeballs and make them money?
- dictum 10y agoThere's an even bigger incentive to control the narrative (political, cultural, economic etc.) which could greatly benefit an enterprise in the long term. Running ads for shady publications improves your quarterly results, but in the long term worsens the public perception of your company and drives off high quality advertisers/publishers. Disclaimer: I don't think this new policy from Google/FB is an attempt to control the narrative.
- vinhboy 10y agoYou're asking me to believe that companies think about long term benefits over quarterly results. You may be absolute correct, but I have a time hard believing it.
- dictum 10y agoGoogle and Facebook are a bit more future-oriented than most other BigCos, perhaps because their valuations (especially for FB) take into account future growth.
- candiodari 10y agoIf you refuse to accept the notion that anyone can be neutral, even if they want to, that's not just a case of incentives. It would happen, even if there were explicit policies to prevent it. Clearly this action is being taken because people don't like who and which party got elected, and of course that must have happened because of "lies". So clearly it's now OK. Unfortunately what's going to happen is exactly what you fear : the republicans/Trump control congress, the Senate and the presidency. They can do a lot to bend these sorts of rules their way, and of course this puts them in a corner with a gun aimed at their head. Of course they will react. So how do we get non-free press in America ? Well bay area overwhelmingly democratic private sector companies introduce it, in reaction to losing an election, to thunderous applause.
- untog 10y agoInterestingly, Facebook apparently had worked on a fix to fake news months ago, but it was cancelled as it would disproportionately hit right-leaning sites, and they were afraid of outrage from it. Doesn't sound like the Bay area dictating anything to me. It sounds overdue.
- candiodari 10y agoClearly that was behavior when democrats were dead sure they were going to win the election. Now is very different.
- karmelapple 10y agoPornography is socially unacceptable. Fake news is socially acceptable, if it agrees with your (and many of you friends') viewpoint. I have had a numerous friends and family of all levels of education genuinely share things that is clearly misleading, if not fake, to my eyes at first glance. There could be multiple reasons: some people simply want the story to be true, others simply trust a place that has a website and a mostly-shady look. We need major change and guidance to help people separate lies from the truth... as long as people still want the truth, which is not entirely clear to me right now.
- vinhboy 10y agoThat's a valid point. I guess I am just hoping that viewing and sharing fake news is also socially unacceptable. Kinda like how you should be ashamed of telling people you got your stock picks from a palm reader or something like that.
- prawn 10y agoSadly, you often look like a killjoy if you respond with a Snopes link discrediting someone's shared image. And even if something's retracted, it's too late - the disinformation is out there. Could something like Slashdot's meta-moderation ever be applied? In that case, you judged moderation anonymously. Is spouting non-defamatory lies or exaggerated information free speech?
- ec109685 10y agoFake news is absolutely not socially acceptable if it agrees with your own viewpoint. Google does a pretty good job of detecting scam website these days by looking at site reputation and detecting link farms. Hopefully Facebook will do the same.
- karmelapple 10y agoFake news absolutely is acceptable. For the posts involving fake news on your Facebook, have you seen more people agreeing with the story - or at least liking it - or more people fact-checking it and getting a like on the fact-check link? I have always seen more likes on the story itself than on any fact-checking correction follow-up comment.
- TheAceOfHearts 10y agoI find it difficult to discern real and fake news because many in the mainstream media seem all too happy to twist words and take the least charitable position possible. How much twisting does it take until it becomes fake news?
- basch 10y agohow about household cleaning tips. diy/lifehack blogspam advocating mixing vinegar and baking soda together to clean. how about the uva rolling stone. i dont know how you can claim there isnt a gray area. how about the dnc rigging the election, obviously one of the two sides is wrong.
- makomk 10y agoNo, banning pornography hasn't exactly been clean or simple. Remember the Facebook breastfeeding controversy?