5 ms·

In principle, that's definitely an issue. In practice, we don't have that problem at all (certainly not since Facebook fired their "trending" editorial departme

In principle, that's definitely an issue. In practice, we don't have that problem at all (certainly not since Facebook fired their "trending" editorial department). Maybe we should try to optimize for solving the problem we have (fake news) and worry about the barriers to entry / rule-imposition by gatekeepers when they actually arise?

tux1968 10y ago
That's a very dangerous proposition, and one that makes state (or corporate) control of speech normalized. I personally don't think that should be the first option explored as a solution. Perhaps "real" news sources should spend more effort educating people on how they provide a superior product. Explain that all news sources aren't the same... make sure that sinks in to people. Of course that will mean they'll have to spend a little less time covering the Kardashian's. Anyway, I'd rather let adults be adults and not "protected" from bad words and bad ideas. Let the market place of ideas provide a forum for debate.
- sprafa 10y ago
  Speech is already controlled by corporate interests, you're just not noticing it because the claims are its done "to fit your preferences". Whether that's true or not, or really is it to fit your preferences or to keep you longer using their services (do angry users use FB more often?) you can't tell. The algorithm to control speech is already in place, but the results are completely self serving for FB. What we're arguing for is to consider whether the current solution is a net benefit to society. False information and hate speech should be downgraded, even banned, when it's done to be shared with millions of people and it can lead to actions that are not beneficial to society in general. Let adults be adults is fine enough, but I don't understand why people should be allowed on disseminate verifiably false information. If it's the state control that bothers you, make a democratic system to flag it. It's sill better than allowing FB and Google to give you what their algorithms say keep you using their service.
- Melk 10y ago
  It was the marketplace that made fake news possible. Traditional news always had its checks in place and they did a fairly good job upholding those. Even Google News follows quality guidelines[0]. It's no coincidence that fake news websites targeted Facebook because they knew there is no such vetting there. 0: https://support.google.com/news/publisher/answer/40787 https://support.google.com/news/publisher/answer/40787

tux1968 10y ago

That's a very dangerous proposition, and one that makes state (or corporate) control of speech normalized. I personally don't think that should be the first option explored as a solution. Perhaps "real" news sources should spend more effort educating people on how they provide a superior product. Explain that all news sources aren't the same... make sure that sinks in to people. Of course that will mean they'll have to spend a little less time covering the Kardashian's. Anyway, I'd rather let adults be adults and not "protected" from bad words and bad ideas. Let the market place of ideas provide a forum for debate.

sprafa 10y ago
Speech is already controlled by corporate interests, you're just not noticing it because the claims are its done "to fit your preferences". Whether that's true or not, or really is it to fit your preferences or to keep you longer using their services (do angry users use FB more often?) you can't tell. The algorithm to control speech is already in place, but the results are completely self serving for FB. What we're arguing for is to consider whether the current solution is a net benefit to society. False information and hate speech should be downgraded, even banned, when it's done to be shared with millions of people and it can lead to actions that are not beneficial to society in general. Let adults be adults is fine enough, but I don't understand why people should be allowed on disseminate verifiably false information. If it's the state control that bothers you, make a democratic system to flag it. It's sill better than allowing FB and Google to give you what their algorithms say keep you using their service.
Melk 10y ago
It was the marketplace that made fake news possible. Traditional news always had its checks in place and they did a fairly good job upholding those. Even Google News follows quality guidelines[0]. It's no coincidence that fake news websites targeted Facebook because they knew there is no such vetting there. 0: https://support.google.com/news/publisher/answer/40787 https://support.google.com/news/publisher/answer/40787