16 ms·

Facebook is 1-2% responsible for the election?

81 points by jakewins 10y ago

chinese_donald 10y ago
What if it's not the news that's false, but memes and public opinion? A friend's opinion is many more times effective than a random, fake, news article. Are we going to start silencing opinion, because it's not factual? Almost nothing comes down to just True and False. It feels like we are stating to go into dangerous territory, where we allow sites like Facebook to determine the truth for us.
- gcatalfamo 10y ago
  A friend's opinion is many more times effective than a random, fake, news article. But chances are, in all honesty, that the friend's opinion came from reading one of those fake news articles.
  - acbabis 10y ago
    I would guess that most image macros containing rhetorical arguments don't come from people who've based their beliefs on bad journalism. They come from people who've already made up their mind and want to reach as many people as possible
    - gcatalfamo 10y ago
      True, and they could've also come from fake news site that leveraged rage-induced clickbaits to earn massively from ads. (which is what happened during this election)
  - chinese_donald 10y ago
    How about the story that Russian hackers were in talks with Trump? Even the evidence came down to an IP address from a Russian VPN. Anyone with the basics of technology knows that this doesn't mean that the person resides in Russia (or is even Russian at all). But, it didn't stop the story from circulating around Facebook...and it was all based on false assumptions and a misunderstanding of technology. The problem is that I see more stories like this coming from mainstream media than not. They get clicks, even if they are based on a false premise. Most mainstream media will get their stories blocked if it's all about the truth in reporting. There is no more truth in reporting, only bias. This is what Trump meant when he said that the system is 'rigged'.
- entee 10y ago
  It's true, this is really hard. That said, there should be some way to counteract things that are explicitly and provably false. Perhaps integrating some sort of fact checking? I don't know, it's dangerous territory, but it's equally dangerous to have explicitly factually false stories running around unchallenged.
- annerajb 10y ago
  I saw yesterday around 10 post claiming trump won the popular vote and everybody that said otherwise was lying. Today I saw a news article saying how the website where that fake news originated from is a conspiracy blog less than 2 months old run by one person. That was the "news" organization that said Trump won the popular vote.
  - jrnichols 10y ago
    And sometimes fact checking your own friends is a futile effort. "Oh, well it could have happened" or something equally dismissive is often the response that I get.
- jakewins 10y ago
  > What if it's not the news that's false, but memes and public opinion? Uhm, but it's not. The article is about the objectively false content, as in: An article says something happened that objectively did not occur, or claims someone said something that they did not say. > Are we going to start silencing opinion, because it's not factual? And it's not about this either - anyone is free to keep sharing objectively false content on the platform. The change is that FB will no longer pay for content that is made up and does not make it clear that this is the case. > Almost nothing comes down to just True and False Indeed. As I said in another thread the other day - this is a hard problem and the answer is not, as I assume you're insinuating, that my ignorance is as good as your knowledge. Ignorance and lies should not be given equal weight and attention as factual statements and informed commentary by the media. This is a solved problem, the courts make life-or-death decisions on patently subjective issues every hour. Any reputable school of journalism will be happy to give you detailed explanations for how to navigate the real world of truthisms, he-saids and halfway facts, they've been thinking about this for hundreds of years.
dominotw 10y ago
where are all the articles calling out king of fake news, nytimes. proof: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/4213 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/4213
- fudgie 10y ago
  How is asking for permission to use off the record statements in an article creating fake news?
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - dominotw 10y ago
    They didn't extend that courtesy to Trump with their hit locker room piece or some of their own hit pieces made up of 'off record' interviews http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/01/07/donald-trump-says-he-favors-big-tariffs-on-chinese-exports/ http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/01/07/donal... "Mr. Rosenthal sent a digital copy of the recording to a newsroom editor whom he declined to name, with the reminder that there had been an agreement to treat portions of it as off the record."
    - fudgie 10y ago
      Sorry? That article doesn't contain your quote and has no information that was given off the record as far as I can see? Claiming that an interview done by NYT vs something leaked to the media requires the same protocol is also quite a stretch. Anyways, the quote you include is from something completely different and not about the 'locker room' talk : http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/03/02/trumps-off-the-record-remarks-new-york-times-went-public/ http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/03/02/trumps-off-...
- Upvoter33 10y ago
  where are all the articles that talk about fox "news"? come on buddy, comparing the nyt and sources of right-wing propaganda is disingenuous at best.
sdegutis 10y ago
There's absolutely no doubt that my wife's Facebook feed was filled with misinformation on both sides of the election for weeks/months, and that many of her friends and family were using those images to prove their points or to publicly proclaim that it had strengthened their sentiments about this or that person or party or situation.
- SilasX 10y ago
  Stupid question: Isn't that benign as long as there's no systematic trend in the direction of the bias? For all (X, N), if N% of pro-X stories and N% of anti-X stories are false then ...?
  - street 10y ago
    It's very polarizing. That seems like something US politics could use less of.
  - nerfhammer 10y ago
    According to one analysis 20% of left-wing news on facebook is obviously fake, while 38% of conservative news is obviously fake. https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/partisan-fb-pages-analysis https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/partisan-fb-pages-an...
  - kl4m 10y ago
    There is a systematic trend of polarization on Facebook. For example, if you engage with eaglerising "news", you'll see more of them in the future.
  - zbuttram 10y ago
    Probably, but there does seem to be a trend according to some. Haven't taken the time to confirm myself, but John Oliver's team pulled out numbers where stories being surfaced on the right were false almost twice as much as those on the left, though he points out the numbers on the left are not insignificant which is obviously still worrying.
  - entee 10y ago
narrator 10y ago
Isn't there a role for a non-political disributor of information? Can't Facebook shrug their shoulders and just say they want to be the dumb pipe? Do we really want a huge bureau of censors like China, because that's where we're going.
- gcatalfamo 10y ago
  They could, but Zuckerberg has invested years in saying that sharing information on Facebook is somewhat meaningful towards making the world more connected. So when Facebook does what Facebook does, he can't just shrug and has to justify it. my 2 cents: he's definitely wrong this time around.
  - narrator 10y ago
    When you say "wants to make the world more connected" are you implying that Zuckerberg is an ideologically committed globalist? Maybe he's not and just meant it in a purely technical sense as in one big elaborate but dumb pipe from anybody to anybody.
    - gcatalfamo 10y ago
      Well, I am not in his mind. But everytime he mentioned "making the world more connected" he did look and argumented as he meant it from an ideological point of view. Whether he really has purpose or is it just marketing speak to justify a dumb pipe, one could only speculate about that..
- losteric 10y ago
  Sure, as long as they are clearly just that... a dumb spam pipeline. Facebook likes pretending to be more, they want to be an unbiased automated news site. And they're failing miserably at that. They need to stop pretending, and either fix or embrace the problem.
  - narrator 10y ago
    I think Google News is more of what you're talking about. Everything they reported was from all the highly reputable mainstream. I tried to use them, but I gave up after I could not find a way to remove "top headlines" from my news feed. It's as if my payment for using their service was they could tell me what to think about. As Orwell said: "News is publishing someone doesn't want published. All else is public relations".
Alex3917 10y ago
They just moved fast and broke things, what's the big deal? /s
camperman 10y ago
"This election was extraordinarily close. Within half a point." No it wasn't and you're extraordinarily ill-informed about the US's political system to even make that claim. The US is a constitutional republic, not a direct democracy. The Electoral College is part of a carefully drawn up system by the Founding Fathers to prevent power from concentrating. For those who didn't learn and understand this at age 10 or so, check out Steve Farrell's series here: https://ldsmag.com/article-1-4510/ https://ldsmag.com/article-1-4510/
- pikzen 10y ago
  In every thread about US elections, there is going to be the same "muh founding fathers, carefully crafted system, so perfect". The truth is, the US system is pretty damn awful. The good news is, everything else is also pretty damn awful. Also "This is a prescription for socialism and communism." makes me think that maybe the author of the article is a tiny bit biased. Also completely wrong.
  - parthdesai 10y ago
    It's damn near impossible in US for a person or group of people to start a new party and contest election and have a chance at winning it. Compare that to India where current Chief Minister of Delhi is from a party that started to break monopoly of two big parties in India and actually won. It's a total different thing that he turned out to be just another politician.
- pducks32 10y ago
  All with you there but carefully drawn up is a bit of a stretch.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  A few hundred thousand votes would be enough to swing the electoral college the other way. The election was even closer than 1/2 a point of the popular vote. And while the popular vote does not decide the presidential election, it is not irrelevant if you are trying to measure the sentiment of the people (a strong electoral college win with a narrow popular margin says something different than a strong electoral college win with a huge popular margin).
setum 10y ago
facebook? why not go all the way and blame internet itself. note: I have not read the article.
bjt2n3904 10y ago
This is the third time I've seen something on this today. So what's the plan then? Start a Facebook "Ministry of Truth"?
- rublev 10y ago
  The plan is to 'move on' from the internet and its novelties and use it like just another educational tool when you need to.
  - MorePowerToYou 10y ago
    +1 can't wait to get my friends and family back from their social media and infotainment addictions. The internet has so much potential to help human society.
  - user5994461 10y ago
    And what? We'll get back to newspapers? One newpapers for the democrat & One newpapers for the republicans. People will be able to read only the one they relate better to, just as with the internet :D
    - grzm 10y ago
      One distinction with newspapers is that people pay subscriptions for newspapers. This changes the relationship between the consumers, the publishers, and the advertisers.
    - rublev 10y ago
      I didn't mean 'go back' to anything, rather unplug from the constant information highway because it's a farce.
- nathancahill 10y ago
  A lot of subreddits (r/politics for example) have tags like "Misleading title". Maybe something like that? Many of my friends sincerely believe the fake news they have read on these sites, because nothing suggests that it might be fake. It's so sad. When I ask them for sources for "facts" like "Obama is a Muslim", they send me a list of news articles that "proves it". Fact checking sites are "the corrupt media" and "liberal bias". btw, these aren't uninformed people. They watch the news, debate with friends and vote. It's the sincerity that they believe the news with that's so depressing.
afsina 10y ago
Wow. This was almost a non issue like two weeks ago. It is pathetic that the very media who tried so hard to distort perceptions is trying to blame fake news.
- JBReefer 10y ago
  I don't think the issue is fake news. I think the issue is that there is nearly 0 crossover between the two political spheres. I haven't seen any posts about violence against Trump voters on election day (there was a surprising amount) on Facebook, and I haven't seen any posts about the uptick in hate crime on /pol/. The problem is that social media has created 2 different countries that live next to each other.
  - ng12 10y ago
    This isn't a new problem, but more of a missed opportunity. I've spent the last 15 or so years in in incredibly liberal cities and so in real life I don't get exposed to differing opinions very often. The internet just reflects that.
    - ethanbond 10y ago
      Except that anyone who lives in a liberal/conservative area knows that they live in a liberal/conservative area. The vast majority of people have absolutely no clue how intense of a filter their Facebook feed has. This is amplified when 62% of American adults get their news from social media [https://techcrunch.com/2016/05/26/most-people-get-their-news-from-social-media-says-report/ https://techcrunch.com/2016/05/26/most-people-get-their-news...].
      - JBReefer 10y ago
        This is 100% true. I only get ads for Clinton, only see very liberal posts on Facebook, and receive a subset of news that is tailored to the fact that I live in New York. It's kind of crazy, honestly. It's also sad - the brightest mind of an era, lying to me to increase Dwell Time.
dang 10y ago
Despite its baity title, this looks like a relatively substantive article, so we won't penalize it unless the thread goes haywire. As for the title, we've attempted to replace it with representative language from the article (see third paragraph). If someone can find a more accurate and neutral phrase from the article to serve as the title, we can change it again. Edit: and since the claim is obviously contentious, we've appended a question mark to it. That is standard moderation practice btw.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  I think a synthesized title like "Facebook, Fake News and Elections" is better than language from the article that includes numbers that are an opinion. Or just "Facebook and Fake News".
  - dang 10y ago
    We do that in rare cases but I think the discipline of sticking to an article's own language is valuable for HN. If an article doesn't contain a substantive enough phrase to serve as its own title, it usually shouldn't be here to begin with.
mtgx 10y ago
I'm curious, if a bigger publication like say CNN or Washington Post publishes a "false" article, would it be punished/banned, just like a random blog post would? Or would they receive "more weight" because they are "reputable publications"? If so, then this solution would not work either (if we actually care about the truth). Most of the big publications have become propaganda machines for one party or the other, so the "reputable" thing has gone out of the window a long time ago. They should be treated the same way a random blog post would be when it comes to facts. Right now, Google, at least, gives way more ranking power to these "reputable" publications in Google News than it gives random blog posts. So I hope they don't just slightly update the existing algorithm to add the fact-checking thing.
- masonic 10y ago
  They suffer no consequences at all. For example[0]: "The measure that's sure to evoke the most debate — and which has already done so — is his plan to extend the use of background checks to cover more sales at gun shows. In 2013, after a strong push from the president, the Senate blocked an effort to expand background checks at gun shows." In fact, existing Federal laws for gun shows are exactly the same as for retail stores. What the claim attacks is gun shows themselves, as an event and meeting place ("nurseries of sedition and rebellion," as Charles II referred to coffeehouses). It goes on to seek exactly one legal opinion -- from a prominent gun ownership opponent: "Here's where we are now: A guy who owns a gun store is a dealer and runs a background check. A guy who wants to sell his one rifle to his neighbor isn't a dealer and doesn't have to conduct one." In fact a dealer wouldn't have to do a background check on a rifle anyway, and it's not the individual owner who does a chack anyway when it is necessary (e.g. handgun transfers) -- it's a licensed dealer, accessing the DOJ system. Later: "Gun shows are the embodiment of that loophole. He imitated a carnival barker. "'Minors! People with felony records! Step right up!'" Again, a flat lie decorated with a deliberately inflammatory example -- laws are the same inside or outside of gun shows. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/05/is-obamas-executive-action-on-guns-legal-lets-break-it-down https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/05/is...
- DrScump 10y ago
  One example is the almost universal prediction that Clinton would win. This (unfortunately) has the effect of suppressing opponent-voter turnout, as too many voters care about being on the "winning" side. This was well-demonstrated in the 1994 election. As news of the Republican sweep (also not widely predicted) spread, Democrat turnout in Western time zones was reduced, favoring downballot GOP candidates. This was so pronounced in California, the GOP actually took the majority in the Assembly (a situation otherwise unheard-of in modern California). District 28 was decided by only 389 votes.
avivo 10y ago
If you want to decrease the spread of misinformation, or if you are at Facebook, Google, etc. and want your org to support this but it isn't doing enough — we are actively working on this (and have been since before the election) and would love to get in touch. We believe an impartial 3rd party can help with a few core problems in this domain. One way to think about this is that some forms of communication amplify confirmation bias (and other cognitive biases). As we develop new forms of communication, we may need to compensate for these biases in new ways. Our motivation is to incentivize better public discourse. You can reach us here (feel free to just put in your preferred encrypted communication channel...) https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSclhq7zrUKI3nxJFiYwJ-NvyW4xAeLbSF7cWxst6GKBON9Y7Q/viewform https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSclhq7zrUKI3nxJFiYw...
- cryptarch 10y ago
  Who is "we"?
- problems 10y ago
  > decrease the spread of misinformation This rings very "Ministry of Truth" to me. Scary stuff that companies even consider policing this when it's completely not their job. Our social networks should not be deciding what's true and what isn't for us.
  - fisherjeff 10y ago
    Just out of curiosity - who do you think should be deciding that? Certainly not the individual, given the immense resource advantage of the organizations putting out false information.
    - problems 10y ago
      Certainly the individual, assisted by the extreme ease of finding fairly accurate information from reputable organizations. It's extremely worrying that anyone would propose anything else - how some refuse to think for themselves or vet information properly in this day and age I'll never understand.
_RPM 10y ago
Could someone like Zuck ever run for president or be elected?
- user5994461 10y ago
  Considering his social skills, that would be a great achievement ^^
cmdrfred 10y ago
Is this backlash related to the "Correct the Record" group or did the Republican campaign also mount a similar offensive that I'm unaware of? http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/04/21/hillary-pac-spends-1-million-to-correct-commenters-on-reddit-and-facebook.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/04/21/hillary-pac...
- SRSposter 10y ago
  IIRC Palmer Lucky, the guy behind Oculus Rift setup his own CTR like company, without any connection to Donald Trump.
  - cmdrfred 10y ago
    Do you have any articles about it? A quick search only found that he attempted to start one and Trump supporters rejected the idea. I'm curious how much he spent compared to CTR's 4.5 million. https://www.engadget.com/amp/2016/09/22/oculus-founder-palmer-luckey-secretly-funds-pro-trump-meme-magi/ https://www.engadget.com/amp/2016/09/22/oculus-founder-palme...
  - fudgie 10y ago
    Are you talking about the nimble navigator thingie he tried running on reddit/The_Donald?
iamthepieman 10y ago
The article is reasonably written but I believe the author makes his main points through false claims. Don't take my word for it; see for yourself. The upshot of all this is to say that a 1–2% difference in election results based on the assault of the <1% of fake news articles on Facebook is an entirely plausible outcome. We can’t know for sure, of course, but there is real, hard science to back up this theory. There isn't real hard science to back up that Facebook had a 1-2% difference in election results. There's real, hard science that long-running general marketing campaigns can sway consumers of popular brands (at least that's what he says in the previous paragraph) Moving to news, then, let’s state the obvious. Saying you’re 99% accurate in the news is a complete failure. Can you imagine the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, CNN or, hell, even Breitbart saying “hey, only 1% or so of our stories are wrong.” Even one incorrect news story is a terrible tragedy Does the author read news? Reporters and news organizations are not injection molders. They don't churn out the same story over and over where the inputs are all clearly defined and subject to their own quality control. Actually, that's more true of the type of fake news the author is criticizing here. A 1% error rate would be amazing in a news organization. And the real kicker of the whole thing Thus far, all of your proposed solutions to these very real problems are predicated upon a still-unproven hypothesis: That communities at scale can police themselves ... This is not true, and has never been true. Well, I guess every democratic nation on earth is well and truly fucked. Get out the big black markers, fire up the government presses, turn back the clock 300 years[0]. [0]http://www.nycourts.gov/history/legal-history-new-york/legal-history-eras-01/history-new-york-legal-eras-crown-zenger.html http://www.nycourts.gov/history/legal-history-new-york/legal... EDIT: Less derogatory initial sentence.
- CodeMage 10y ago
  Sorry, I don't get it: which democratic nation has the community that polices itself in the same sense FB (or HN) community is expected to?
  - iamthepieman 10y ago
    All of the ones that haven't sunk to civil war yet.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
itp 10y ago
Disclaimer: I'm an unabashed fan of Neal Stephenson's writing, to the point where I have read everything he's written more than once. That said... Unsurprisingly, Neal Stephenson was ahead of the curve here yet again. From The Diamond Age, published in 1995: > “One of the insights of the Victorian Revival was that it was not necessarily a good thing for everyone to read a completely different newspaper in the morning; so the higher one rose in the society, the more similar one's Times became to one's peers'.”
dictum 10y ago
This is a needed debate, but as I suspected, it's a bit of an orchestrated talking point: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/clinton-facebook-fake-news-231365 http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/clinton-facebook-fake-...
gcatalfamo 10y ago
"Facebook is now in the awkward position of having to explain why they think they drive purchase decisions but not voting decisions" Casey Newton https://twitter.com/CaseyNewton/status/796909159174127616 https://twitter.com/CaseyNewton/status/796909159174127616
CoryG89 10y ago
Perhaps there is opportunity for someone to provide a service which fact checks news stories and provides an API that returns a simple score for a given article based on objective checkable facts.

81 points by jakewins 10y ago

What if it's not the news that's false, but memes and public opinion? A friend's opinion is many more times effective than a random, fake, news article. Are we going to start silencing opinion, because it's not factual? Almost nothing comes down to just True and False. It feels like we are stating to go into dangerous territory, where we allow sites like Facebook to determine the truth for us.

gcatalfamo 10y ago
A friend's opinion is many more times effective than a random, fake, news article. But chances are, in all honesty, that the friend's opinion came from reading one of those fake news articles.
- acbabis 10y ago
  I would guess that most image macros containing rhetorical arguments don't come from people who've based their beliefs on bad journalism. They come from people who've already made up their mind and want to reach as many people as possible
  - gcatalfamo 10y ago
    True, and they could've also come from fake news site that leveraged rage-induced clickbaits to earn massively from ads. (which is what happened during this election)
- chinese_donald 10y ago
  How about the story that Russian hackers were in talks with Trump? Even the evidence came down to an IP address from a Russian VPN. Anyone with the basics of technology knows that this doesn't mean that the person resides in Russia (or is even Russian at all). But, it didn't stop the story from circulating around Facebook...and it was all based on false assumptions and a misunderstanding of technology. The problem is that I see more stories like this coming from mainstream media than not. They get clicks, even if they are based on a false premise. Most mainstream media will get their stories blocked if it's all about the truth in reporting. There is no more truth in reporting, only bias. This is what Trump meant when he said that the system is 'rigged'.
entee 10y ago
It's true, this is really hard. That said, there should be some way to counteract things that are explicitly and provably false. Perhaps integrating some sort of fact checking? I don't know, it's dangerous territory, but it's equally dangerous to have explicitly factually false stories running around unchallenged.
annerajb 10y ago
I saw yesterday around 10 post claiming trump won the popular vote and everybody that said otherwise was lying. Today I saw a news article saying how the website where that fake news originated from is a conspiracy blog less than 2 months old run by one person. That was the "news" organization that said Trump won the popular vote.
- jrnichols 10y ago
  And sometimes fact checking your own friends is a futile effort. "Oh, well it could have happened" or something equally dismissive is often the response that I get.
jakewins 10y ago
> What if it's not the news that's false, but memes and public opinion? Uhm, but it's not. The article is about the objectively false content, as in: An article says something happened that objectively did not occur, or claims someone said something that they did not say. > Are we going to start silencing opinion, because it's not factual? And it's not about this either - anyone is free to keep sharing objectively false content on the platform. The change is that FB will no longer pay for content that is made up and does not make it clear that this is the case. > Almost nothing comes down to just True and False Indeed. As I said in another thread the other day - this is a hard problem and the answer is not, as I assume you're insinuating, that my ignorance is as good as your knowledge. Ignorance and lies should not be given equal weight and attention as factual statements and informed commentary by the media. This is a solved problem, the courts make life-or-death decisions on patently subjective issues every hour. Any reputable school of journalism will be happy to give you detailed explanations for how to navigate the real world of truthisms, he-saids and halfway facts, they've been thinking about this for hundreds of years.

dominotw 10y ago

where are all the articles calling out king of fake news, nytimes. proof: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/4213 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/4213

fudgie 10y ago
How is asking for permission to use off the record statements in an article creating fake news?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- dominotw 10y ago
  They didn't extend that courtesy to Trump with their hit locker room piece or some of their own hit pieces made up of 'off record' interviews http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/01/07/donald-trump-says-he-favors-big-tariffs-on-chinese-exports/ http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/01/07/donal... "Mr. Rosenthal sent a digital copy of the recording to a newsroom editor whom he declined to name, with the reminder that there had been an agreement to treat portions of it as off the record."
  - fudgie 10y ago
    Sorry? That article doesn't contain your quote and has no information that was given off the record as far as I can see? Claiming that an interview done by NYT vs something leaked to the media requires the same protocol is also quite a stretch. Anyways, the quote you include is from something completely different and not about the 'locker room' talk : http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/03/02/trumps-off-the-record-remarks-new-york-times-went-public/ http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/03/02/trumps-off-...
Upvoter33 10y ago
where are all the articles that talk about fox "news"? come on buddy, comparing the nyt and sources of right-wing propaganda is disingenuous at best.

sdegutis 10y ago

There's absolutely no doubt that my wife's Facebook feed was filled with misinformation on both sides of the election for weeks/months, and that many of her friends and family were using those images to prove their points or to publicly proclaim that it had strengthened their sentiments about this or that person or party or situation.

SilasX 10y ago
Stupid question: Isn't that benign as long as there's no systematic trend in the direction of the bias? For all (X, N), if N% of pro-X stories and N% of anti-X stories are false then ...?
- street 10y ago
  It's very polarizing. That seems like something US politics could use less of.
- nerfhammer 10y ago
  According to one analysis 20% of left-wing news on facebook is obviously fake, while 38% of conservative news is obviously fake. https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/partisan-fb-pages-analysis https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/partisan-fb-pages-an...
- kl4m 10y ago
  There is a systematic trend of polarization on Facebook. For example, if you engage with eaglerising "news", you'll see more of them in the future.
- zbuttram 10y ago
  Probably, but there does seem to be a trend according to some. Haven't taken the time to confirm myself, but John Oliver's team pulled out numbers where stories being surfaced on the right were false almost twice as much as those on the left, though he points out the numbers on the left are not insignificant which is obviously still worrying.
- entee 10y ago

narrator 10y ago

Isn't there a role for a non-political disributor of information? Can't Facebook shrug their shoulders and just say they want to be the dumb pipe? Do we really want a huge bureau of censors like China, because that's where we're going.

gcatalfamo 10y ago
They could, but Zuckerberg has invested years in saying that sharing information on Facebook is somewhat meaningful towards making the world more connected. So when Facebook does what Facebook does, he can't just shrug and has to justify it. my 2 cents: he's definitely wrong this time around.
- narrator 10y ago
  When you say "wants to make the world more connected" are you implying that Zuckerberg is an ideologically committed globalist? Maybe he's not and just meant it in a purely technical sense as in one big elaborate but dumb pipe from anybody to anybody.
  - gcatalfamo 10y ago
    Well, I am not in his mind. But everytime he mentioned "making the world more connected" he did look and argumented as he meant it from an ideological point of view. Whether he really has purpose or is it just marketing speak to justify a dumb pipe, one could only speculate about that..
losteric 10y ago
Sure, as long as they are clearly just that... a dumb spam pipeline. Facebook likes pretending to be more, they want to be an unbiased automated news site. And they're failing miserably at that. They need to stop pretending, and either fix or embrace the problem.
- narrator 10y ago
  I think Google News is more of what you're talking about. Everything they reported was from all the highly reputable mainstream. I tried to use them, but I gave up after I could not find a way to remove "top headlines" from my news feed. It's as if my payment for using their service was they could tell me what to think about. As Orwell said: "News is publishing someone doesn't want published. All else is public relations".

Alex3917 10y ago

They just moved fast and broke things, what's the big deal? /s

camperman 10y ago

"This election was extraordinarily close. Within half a point." No it wasn't and you're extraordinarily ill-informed about the US's political system to even make that claim. The US is a constitutional republic, not a direct democracy. The Electoral College is part of a carefully drawn up system by the Founding Fathers to prevent power from concentrating. For those who didn't learn and understand this at age 10 or so, check out Steve Farrell's series here: https://ldsmag.com/article-1-4510/ https://ldsmag.com/article-1-4510/

pikzen 10y ago
In every thread about US elections, there is going to be the same "muh founding fathers, carefully crafted system, so perfect". The truth is, the US system is pretty damn awful. The good news is, everything else is also pretty damn awful. Also "This is a prescription for socialism and communism." makes me think that maybe the author of the article is a tiny bit biased. Also completely wrong.
- parthdesai 10y ago
  It's damn near impossible in US for a person or group of people to start a new party and contest election and have a chance at winning it. Compare that to India where current Chief Minister of Delhi is from a party that started to break monopoly of two big parties in India and actually won. It's a total different thing that he turned out to be just another politician.
pducks32 10y ago
All with you there but carefully drawn up is a bit of a stretch.
maxerickson 10y ago
A few hundred thousand votes would be enough to swing the electoral college the other way. The election was even closer than 1/2 a point of the popular vote. And while the popular vote does not decide the presidential election, it is not irrelevant if you are trying to measure the sentiment of the people (a strong electoral college win with a narrow popular margin says something different than a strong electoral college win with a huge popular margin).

setum 10y ago

facebook? why not go all the way and blame internet itself. note: I have not read the article.

bjt2n3904 10y ago

This is the third time I've seen something on this today. So what's the plan then? Start a Facebook "Ministry of Truth"?

rublev 10y ago
The plan is to 'move on' from the internet and its novelties and use it like just another educational tool when you need to.
- MorePowerToYou 10y ago
  +1 can't wait to get my friends and family back from their social media and infotainment addictions. The internet has so much potential to help human society.
- user5994461 10y ago
  And what? We'll get back to newspapers? One newpapers for the democrat & One newpapers for the republicans. People will be able to read only the one they relate better to, just as with the internet :D
  - grzm 10y ago
    One distinction with newspapers is that people pay subscriptions for newspapers. This changes the relationship between the consumers, the publishers, and the advertisers.
  - rublev 10y ago
    I didn't mean 'go back' to anything, rather unplug from the constant information highway because it's a farce.
nathancahill 10y ago
A lot of subreddits (r/politics for example) have tags like "Misleading title". Maybe something like that? Many of my friends sincerely believe the fake news they have read on these sites, because nothing suggests that it might be fake. It's so sad. When I ask them for sources for "facts" like "Obama is a Muslim", they send me a list of news articles that "proves it". Fact checking sites are "the corrupt media" and "liberal bias". btw, these aren't uninformed people. They watch the news, debate with friends and vote. It's the sincerity that they believe the news with that's so depressing.

afsina 10y ago

Wow. This was almost a non issue like two weeks ago. It is pathetic that the very media who tried so hard to distort perceptions is trying to blame fake news.

JBReefer 10y ago
I don't think the issue is fake news. I think the issue is that there is nearly 0 crossover between the two political spheres. I haven't seen any posts about violence against Trump voters on election day (there was a surprising amount) on Facebook, and I haven't seen any posts about the uptick in hate crime on /pol/. The problem is that social media has created 2 different countries that live next to each other.
- ng12 10y ago
  This isn't a new problem, but more of a missed opportunity. I've spent the last 15 or so years in in incredibly liberal cities and so in real life I don't get exposed to differing opinions very often. The internet just reflects that.
  - ethanbond 10y ago
    Except that anyone who lives in a liberal/conservative area knows that they live in a liberal/conservative area. The vast majority of people have absolutely no clue how intense of a filter their Facebook feed has. This is amplified when 62% of American adults get their news from social media [https://techcrunch.com/2016/05/26/most-people-get-their-news-from-social-media-says-report/ https://techcrunch.com/2016/05/26/most-people-get-their-news...].
    - JBReefer 10y ago
      This is 100% true. I only get ads for Clinton, only see very liberal posts on Facebook, and receive a subset of news that is tailored to the fact that I live in New York. It's kind of crazy, honestly. It's also sad - the brightest mind of an era, lying to me to increase Dwell Time.

dang 10y ago

Despite its baity title, this looks like a relatively substantive article, so we won't penalize it unless the thread goes haywire. As for the title, we've attempted to replace it with representative language from the article (see third paragraph). If someone can find a more accurate and neutral phrase from the article to serve as the title, we can change it again. Edit: and since the claim is obviously contentious, we've appended a question mark to it. That is standard moderation practice btw.

maxerickson 10y ago
I think a synthesized title like "Facebook, Fake News and Elections" is better than language from the article that includes numbers that are an opinion. Or just "Facebook and Fake News".
- dang 10y ago
  We do that in rare cases but I think the discipline of sticking to an article's own language is valuable for HN. If an article doesn't contain a substantive enough phrase to serve as its own title, it usually shouldn't be here to begin with.

mtgx 10y ago

I'm curious, if a bigger publication like say CNN or Washington Post publishes a "false" article, would it be punished/banned, just like a random blog post would? Or would they receive "more weight" because they are "reputable publications"? If so, then this solution would not work either (if we actually care about the truth). Most of the big publications have become propaganda machines for one party or the other, so the "reputable" thing has gone out of the window a long time ago. They should be treated the same way a random blog post would be when it comes to facts. Right now, Google, at least, gives way more ranking power to these "reputable" publications in Google News than it gives random blog posts. So I hope they don't just slightly update the existing algorithm to add the fact-checking thing.

masonic 10y ago
They suffer no consequences at all. For example[0]: "The measure that's sure to evoke the most debate — and which has already done so — is his plan to extend the use of background checks to cover more sales at gun shows. In 2013, after a strong push from the president, the Senate blocked an effort to expand background checks at gun shows." In fact, existing Federal laws for gun shows are exactly the same as for retail stores. What the claim attacks is gun shows themselves, as an event and meeting place ("nurseries of sedition and rebellion," as Charles II referred to coffeehouses). It goes on to seek exactly one legal opinion -- from a prominent gun ownership opponent: "Here's where we are now: A guy who owns a gun store is a dealer and runs a background check. A guy who wants to sell his one rifle to his neighbor isn't a dealer and doesn't have to conduct one." In fact a dealer wouldn't have to do a background check on a rifle anyway, and it's not the individual owner who does a chack anyway when it is necessary (e.g. handgun transfers) -- it's a licensed dealer, accessing the DOJ system. Later: "Gun shows are the embodiment of that loophole. He imitated a carnival barker. "'Minors! People with felony records! Step right up!'" Again, a flat lie decorated with a deliberately inflammatory example -- laws are the same inside or outside of gun shows. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/05/is-obamas-executive-action-on-guns-legal-lets-break-it-down https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/05/is...
DrScump 10y ago
One example is the almost universal prediction that Clinton would win. This (unfortunately) has the effect of suppressing opponent-voter turnout, as too many voters care about being on the "winning" side. This was well-demonstrated in the 1994 election. As news of the Republican sweep (also not widely predicted) spread, Democrat turnout in Western time zones was reduced, favoring downballot GOP candidates. This was so pronounced in California, the GOP actually took the majority in the Assembly (a situation otherwise unheard-of in modern California). District 28 was decided by only 389 votes.

avivo 10y ago

If you want to decrease the spread of misinformation, or if you are at Facebook, Google, etc. and want your org to support this but it isn't doing enough — we are actively working on this (and have been since before the election) and would love to get in touch. We believe an impartial 3rd party can help with a few core problems in this domain. One way to think about this is that some forms of communication amplify confirmation bias (and other cognitive biases). As we develop new forms of communication, we may need to compensate for these biases in new ways. Our motivation is to incentivize better public discourse. You can reach us here (feel free to just put in your preferred encrypted communication channel...) https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSclhq7zrUKI3nxJFiYwJ-NvyW4xAeLbSF7cWxst6GKBON9Y7Q/viewform https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSclhq7zrUKI3nxJFiYw...

cryptarch 10y ago
Who is "we"?
problems 10y ago
> decrease the spread of misinformation This rings very "Ministry of Truth" to me. Scary stuff that companies even consider policing this when it's completely not their job. Our social networks should not be deciding what's true and what isn't for us.
- fisherjeff 10y ago
  Just out of curiosity - who do you think should be deciding that? Certainly not the individual, given the immense resource advantage of the organizations putting out false information.
  - problems 10y ago
    Certainly the individual, assisted by the extreme ease of finding fairly accurate information from reputable organizations. It's extremely worrying that anyone would propose anything else - how some refuse to think for themselves or vet information properly in this day and age I'll never understand.

_RPM 10y ago

Could someone like Zuck ever run for president or be elected?

user5994461 10y ago
Considering his social skills, that would be a great achievement ^^

cmdrfred 10y ago

Is this backlash related to the "Correct the Record" group or did the Republican campaign also mount a similar offensive that I'm unaware of? http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/04/21/hillary-pac-spends-1-million-to-correct-commenters-on-reddit-and-facebook.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/04/21/hillary-pac...

SRSposter 10y ago
IIRC Palmer Lucky, the guy behind Oculus Rift setup his own CTR like company, without any connection to Donald Trump.
- cmdrfred 10y ago
  Do you have any articles about it? A quick search only found that he attempted to start one and Trump supporters rejected the idea. I'm curious how much he spent compared to CTR's 4.5 million. https://www.engadget.com/amp/2016/09/22/oculus-founder-palmer-luckey-secretly-funds-pro-trump-meme-magi/ https://www.engadget.com/amp/2016/09/22/oculus-founder-palme...
- fudgie 10y ago
  Are you talking about the nimble navigator thingie he tried running on reddit/The_Donald?

iamthepieman 10y ago

The article is reasonably written but I believe the author makes his main points through false claims. Don't take my word for it; see for yourself. The upshot of all this is to say that a 1–2% difference in election results based on the assault of the <1% of fake news articles on Facebook is an entirely plausible outcome. We can’t know for sure, of course, but there is real, hard science to back up this theory. There isn't real hard science to back up that Facebook had a 1-2% difference in election results. There's real, hard science that long-running general marketing campaigns can sway consumers of popular brands (at least that's what he says in the previous paragraph) Moving to news, then, let’s state the obvious. Saying you’re 99% accurate in the news is a complete failure. Can you imagine the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, CNN or, hell, even Breitbart saying “hey, only 1% or so of our stories are wrong.” Even one incorrect news story is a terrible tragedy Does the author read news? Reporters and news organizations are not injection molders. They don't churn out the same story over and over where the inputs are all clearly defined and subject to their own quality control. Actually, that's more true of the type of fake news the author is criticizing here. A 1% error rate would be amazing in a news organization. And the real kicker of the whole thing Thus far, all of your proposed solutions to these very real problems are predicated upon a still-unproven hypothesis: That communities at scale can police themselves ... This is not true, and has never been true. Well, I guess every democratic nation on earth is well and truly fucked. Get out the big black markers, fire up the government presses, turn back the clock 300 years[0]. [0]http://www.nycourts.gov/history/legal-history-new-york/legal-history-eras-01/history-new-york-legal-eras-crown-zenger.html http://www.nycourts.gov/history/legal-history-new-york/legal... EDIT: Less derogatory initial sentence.

CodeMage 10y ago
Sorry, I don't get it: which democratic nation has the community that polices itself in the same sense FB (or HN) community is expected to?
- iamthepieman 10y ago
  All of the ones that haven't sunk to civil war yet.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

itp 10y ago

Disclaimer: I'm an unabashed fan of Neal Stephenson's writing, to the point where I have read everything he's written more than once. That said... Unsurprisingly, Neal Stephenson was ahead of the curve here yet again. From The Diamond Age, published in 1995: > “One of the insights of the Victorian Revival was that it was not necessarily a good thing for everyone to read a completely different newspaper in the morning; so the higher one rose in the society, the more similar one's Times became to one's peers'.”

dictum 10y ago

This is a needed debate, but as I suspected, it's a bit of an orchestrated talking point: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/clinton-facebook-fake-news-231365 http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/clinton-facebook-fake-...

gcatalfamo 10y ago

"Facebook is now in the awkward position of having to explain why they think they drive purchase decisions but not voting decisions" Casey Newton https://twitter.com/CaseyNewton/status/796909159174127616 https://twitter.com/CaseyNewton/status/796909159174127616

CoryG89 10y ago

Perhaps there is opportunity for someone to provide a service which fact checks news stories and provides an API that returns a simple score for a given article based on objective checkable facts.