5 ms·

Facebook’s fake news problem is dividing the company’s employees

20 points by SonicSoul 10y ago

mc32 10y ago
I'm all in on repressing fake or made up news (when represented as news). But I can't help but think this sudden newfound religion has a lot to do with not being satisfied with election results, primarily and not necessarily a consequence of simply wanting unbiased news. If the election had gone the other way, I'm somewhat confident this introspection would not be happening so urgently with such dismay. People would likely be reveling in the oppositions implosion. My main issue, is this reaction simply dismisses the concern expressed by the votes. People think his winning was an aberration and that his voters were wrong and to some degree illegitimate (not my president, not my country, etc.) They fail to see the other side to their own detriment.
- SonicSoul 10y ago
  if such simple and verifiable facts can be muddled so easily and possibly sway the election, imagine how much of this could be happening in more nuanced areas that are harder to detect but may influence consumer behavior, or policy outcomes. I think this is a serious issue regardless of election outcome and should be addressed
  - mc32 10y ago
    Right wing outlets are typically the ones where you can easily detect bias. It's direct, whereas left wing outlets tend to be nuanced (leading questions, selection bias, omitting valid counterarguments, etc.) They tend to have a more sophisticated psychological approach. For example, at NPR, contrast the neutral reporting of Greene vs McEvers. Greene remains neutral, McEvers wears her opinions quite visibly albeit subtly, and well delivered.
    - internaut 10y ago
      I've been saying this for a while now. In fact I said this five days ago: "It is not actually about what they report. It is all about what they don't report. Left wing and right wing propaganda are not the same. Right wing propaganda tells you what you must believe. Left wing propaganda simply leaves out the truth. Either way you have distortion but the methods are very different. NPR is not better than Fox News. Once you realize this, thou shalt be enlightened."
    - r_smart 10y ago
      Maybe it's my history with all but becoming a journalist, but I find NPR's reporting to be really obviously biased, and quite shoddy as well. I think your overall point is spot on, but only holds true for people with similar political leanings as the outlet. The trick is to get your news from outlets that are decent that will link to their sources (assuming it's online). While Breitbart gets a lot of flak, one of the things I like is that they link to their sources and quote large blocks of text. I frequently disagree with them, but I respect the fact that they make it easy for me to build a case for doing so. I find a lot of other, seemingly more credibly outlets, will make claims or cite data without providing links. This makes me suspicious. Alternatively, get somebody of an opposing ideological persuasion to read / listen to the same articles you do and then listen to them bitch about how poorly done it was. That would probably serve as a free bias detector. Offer the same service in kind.
      - sammydavis 10y ago
        It's hard to take your comment seriously. Breitbart might use "words" and "paragraphs" from other sources, but they live in a different, fact-free world. They are generally advocating something, leading you toward that. NPR is not generally ideological. Saying global warming is accepted by virtually all legitimate scientists is not pushing you in a liberal direction, it's simply factual. I just looked at twitter, and breitbart news has a story that quotes "FS1's Whitlock: Dems ignoring working class, fanning flames of racial divide". It's very questionable that dems fanned the flames of racial divide - merely mentioned it exists seems to enrage some people, but it's pretty clear it exists.
        r_smart 10y ago
        |Breitbart might use "words" and "paragraphs" from other sources I basically read the sources. I prefer primary sources anyway. I rely on the fact that they have a different ideological slant from myself to keep me questioning them. |NPR is not generally ideological I'm sorry, but this just isn't true. You can pick a single example where they may not be ideologically biased, but their reporting on a whole, very much is. |It's very questionable that dems fanned the flames of racial divide I've seen an awful lot of stories and rhetoric about how America chose racism, sexism, bigotry and whatever else in this most recent election. I don't know what you'd call that, but I'd say their description is fairly accurate. *edit: Small changes to hopefully provide clarity.
- the_gastropod 10y ago
  If the spread of misinformation was a significant contributor to the election results, I think it's reasonable to feel the results are, to some degree illegitimate.
  - mc32 10y ago
    Right because their candidate didn't win. Same for the winners, they don't see an issue because they won. Honestly, I don't think it affected the election. With all the anti Trump rhetoric on most media, it's hard to see the argument people for Trump got the better deal, from the media. [OMG his hand on the RED button, he's gonna grope the nation, legal immigrants are in peril]
    - the_gastropod 10y ago
      Again, and with emphasis, GIVEN the spread of misinformation was a significant contributor to the election results... In other words, assuming Trump benefited from misinformation [more than Clinton], then the results are justifiably frustrating. I'm not claiming whether or not Trump did or did not benefit more from misinformation. But if he did, I think my point is fair.
      - mc32 10y ago
        What do you mean by significant? 1-2% of articles had misinformation, of that percentage a fraction (unknown, reportedly small) were politically related. How do we go from "there were articles containing misinformation" to those articles contributed to the outcome of the election? We simply dont know. We know both sides enjoyed having articles denouncing the other side, but we don't know if they had any effect. In terms of persuasion, friends family likely had more influence than this small percentage of made up news articles, should we get the pitchforks for misinformed friends too?
  - alva 10y ago
    This is straight out of Bremoaners Brexit playbook.
- jdavis703 10y ago
  You think pro-Trump articles were the only fake news out there? I consider myself a fairly sophisticated news consumer, reading mostly print publications (e.g. Economist, NY Times, Wall Street Journal) with a glance at Fox News and Breitbart to see what the other side thinks. And yet I still fell for a couple of false news stories that had been circulated over FB to put Trump in a bad light. It's hard to filter out propoganda-like material when you're bombarded with a steady stream of it, and FB, and Twitter, and whoever else is out there should start marking certain sources as dubious.
  - mc32 10y ago
    Of course not. There was fake news from both sides, but it's not my main point. Mu main point is people are biased and only care about fairness when they perceive something unfair to have affected them only, and are only too happy to look askance if it helps them. So far I haven't heard much regarding the misinformation Hillary's team sent Bernie's way (or Trumps way). Early on they might have even cheered Trumps ascendance in the primaries thinking his inexperience would prove easy to beat in the general election, compared to a Rubio, for example.
    - perfectfire 10y ago
      Might have cheered Trump? WikiLeaks has an email attachment with Hillary/DNC's strategy on GOP contenders[1] where they state their strategy of "elevating" certain candidates to push "more established candidates to the right". Additionally they want to make it seem that these more "extreme" candidates represent the mainstream of the Republican Party. "There are two ways to approach the strategies mentioned above. The first is to use the field as a whole to inflict damage on itself similar to what happened to Mitt Romney in 2012. The variety of candidates is a positive here, and many of the lesser known can serve as a cudgel to move the more established candidates further to the right. In this scenario, we don’t want to marginalize the more extreme candidates, but make them more “Pied Piper” candidates who actually represent the mainstream of the Republican Party. Pied Piper candidates include, but aren’t limited to: • Ted Cruz • Donald Trump • Ben Carson We need to be elevating the Pied Piper candidates so that they are leaders of the pack and tell the press to them seriously." Oops. [1] https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/1120 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/1120

20 points by SonicSoul 10y ago

mc32 10y ago

I'm all in on repressing fake or made up news (when represented as news). But I can't help but think this sudden newfound religion has a lot to do with not being satisfied with election results, primarily and not necessarily a consequence of simply wanting unbiased news. If the election had gone the other way, I'm somewhat confident this introspection would not be happening so urgently with such dismay. People would likely be reveling in the oppositions implosion. My main issue, is this reaction simply dismisses the concern expressed by the votes. People think his winning was an aberration and that his voters were wrong and to some degree illegitimate (not my president, not my country, etc.) They fail to see the other side to their own detriment.

SonicSoul 10y ago
if such simple and verifiable facts can be muddled so easily and possibly sway the election, imagine how much of this could be happening in more nuanced areas that are harder to detect but may influence consumer behavior, or policy outcomes. I think this is a serious issue regardless of election outcome and should be addressed
- mc32 10y ago
  Right wing outlets are typically the ones where you can easily detect bias. It's direct, whereas left wing outlets tend to be nuanced (leading questions, selection bias, omitting valid counterarguments, etc.) They tend to have a more sophisticated psychological approach. For example, at NPR, contrast the neutral reporting of Greene vs McEvers. Greene remains neutral, McEvers wears her opinions quite visibly albeit subtly, and well delivered.
  - internaut 10y ago
    I've been saying this for a while now. In fact I said this five days ago: "It is not actually about what they report. It is all about what they don't report. Left wing and right wing propaganda are not the same. Right wing propaganda tells you what you must believe. Left wing propaganda simply leaves out the truth. Either way you have distortion but the methods are very different. NPR is not better than Fox News. Once you realize this, thou shalt be enlightened."
  - r_smart 10y ago
    Maybe it's my history with all but becoming a journalist, but I find NPR's reporting to be really obviously biased, and quite shoddy as well. I think your overall point is spot on, but only holds true for people with similar political leanings as the outlet. The trick is to get your news from outlets that are decent that will link to their sources (assuming it's online). While Breitbart gets a lot of flak, one of the things I like is that they link to their sources and quote large blocks of text. I frequently disagree with them, but I respect the fact that they make it easy for me to build a case for doing so. I find a lot of other, seemingly more credibly outlets, will make claims or cite data without providing links. This makes me suspicious. Alternatively, get somebody of an opposing ideological persuasion to read / listen to the same articles you do and then listen to them bitch about how poorly done it was. That would probably serve as a free bias detector. Offer the same service in kind.
    - sammydavis 10y ago
      It's hard to take your comment seriously. Breitbart might use "words" and "paragraphs" from other sources, but they live in a different, fact-free world. They are generally advocating something, leading you toward that. NPR is not generally ideological. Saying global warming is accepted by virtually all legitimate scientists is not pushing you in a liberal direction, it's simply factual. I just looked at twitter, and breitbart news has a story that quotes "FS1's Whitlock: Dems ignoring working class, fanning flames of racial divide". It's very questionable that dems fanned the flames of racial divide - merely mentioned it exists seems to enrage some people, but it's pretty clear it exists.
      - r_smart 10y ago
        |Breitbart might use "words" and "paragraphs" from other sources I basically read the sources. I prefer primary sources anyway. I rely on the fact that they have a different ideological slant from myself to keep me questioning them. |NPR is not generally ideological I'm sorry, but this just isn't true. You can pick a single example where they may not be ideologically biased, but their reporting on a whole, very much is. |It's very questionable that dems fanned the flames of racial divide I've seen an awful lot of stories and rhetoric about how America chose racism, sexism, bigotry and whatever else in this most recent election. I don't know what you'd call that, but I'd say their description is fairly accurate. *edit: Small changes to hopefully provide clarity.
the_gastropod 10y ago
If the spread of misinformation was a significant contributor to the election results, I think it's reasonable to feel the results are, to some degree illegitimate.
- mc32 10y ago
  Right because their candidate didn't win. Same for the winners, they don't see an issue because they won. Honestly, I don't think it affected the election. With all the anti Trump rhetoric on most media, it's hard to see the argument people for Trump got the better deal, from the media. [OMG his hand on the RED button, he's gonna grope the nation, legal immigrants are in peril]
  - the_gastropod 10y ago
    Again, and with emphasis, GIVEN the spread of misinformation was a significant contributor to the election results... In other words, assuming Trump benefited from misinformation [more than Clinton], then the results are justifiably frustrating. I'm not claiming whether or not Trump did or did not benefit more from misinformation. But if he did, I think my point is fair.
    - mc32 10y ago
      What do you mean by significant? 1-2% of articles had misinformation, of that percentage a fraction (unknown, reportedly small) were politically related. How do we go from "there were articles containing misinformation" to those articles contributed to the outcome of the election? We simply dont know. We know both sides enjoyed having articles denouncing the other side, but we don't know if they had any effect. In terms of persuasion, friends family likely had more influence than this small percentage of made up news articles, should we get the pitchforks for misinformed friends too?
- alva 10y ago
  This is straight out of Bremoaners Brexit playbook.
jdavis703 10y ago
You think pro-Trump articles were the only fake news out there? I consider myself a fairly sophisticated news consumer, reading mostly print publications (e.g. Economist, NY Times, Wall Street Journal) with a glance at Fox News and Breitbart to see what the other side thinks. And yet I still fell for a couple of false news stories that had been circulated over FB to put Trump in a bad light. It's hard to filter out propoganda-like material when you're bombarded with a steady stream of it, and FB, and Twitter, and whoever else is out there should start marking certain sources as dubious.
- mc32 10y ago
  Of course not. There was fake news from both sides, but it's not my main point. Mu main point is people are biased and only care about fairness when they perceive something unfair to have affected them only, and are only too happy to look askance if it helps them. So far I haven't heard much regarding the misinformation Hillary's team sent Bernie's way (or Trumps way). Early on they might have even cheered Trumps ascendance in the primaries thinking his inexperience would prove easy to beat in the general election, compared to a Rubio, for example.
  - perfectfire 10y ago
    Might have cheered Trump? WikiLeaks has an email attachment with Hillary/DNC's strategy on GOP contenders[1] where they state their strategy of "elevating" certain candidates to push "more established candidates to the right". Additionally they want to make it seem that these more "extreme" candidates represent the mainstream of the Republican Party. "There are two ways to approach the strategies mentioned above. The first is to use the field as a whole to inflict damage on itself similar to what happened to Mitt Romney in 2012. The variety of candidates is a positive here, and many of the lesser known can serve as a cudgel to move the more established candidates further to the right. In this scenario, we don’t want to marginalize the more extreme candidates, but make them more “Pied Piper” candidates who actually represent the mainstream of the Republican Party. Pied Piper candidates include, but aren’t limited to: • Ted Cruz • Donald Trump • Ben Carson We need to be elevating the Pied Piper candidates so that they are leaders of the pack and tell the press to them seriously." Oops. [1] https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/1120 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/1120