5 ms·

Remember : - It all started with Facebook being accused of manipulating the timeline to remove conservative stories during the campaign - At the time, their P

by r2dnb 10y ago

Remember : - It all started with Facebook being accused of manipulating the timeline to remove conservative stories during the campaign - At the time, their PR was along the lines of : we will fire the staff and replace it with an "objective" algorithm - Shortly before the end of the campaign, the Fake News narrative started to be tested under various forms ("conspiracy theories are going mainstream", "damaging rumors" etc...) - Post election the Fake News narrative started to be really pushed by politics - At the same time, FB started to announce actions to fight the so called "Fake News Problem". - And these day, hearing FB and mainstream media, the rethoric is as shameless as "We need to clean the news". Having been caught doing some very troubling things, FB answer is to double down with what would be called censorship if it was being done in China. Shutting down opinions, based on the opinions expressed can remind certain patterns of a not so old history. I find it shocking that people accept this development so quietly. Everybody seems to be ok with that. It seems like citizens are no longer awake and fighting for the bill of rights, seriously folks how can something like this possibly happen in this country ? Are you realizing what is happening here ? In 2016, the average citizen thinks he is a good citizen and is all proud by being "politically correct" for a number of small things (often ridiculous and preventing him from maturing his own opinions) but everybody is comfortable with movements such as "Cleaning the news" being organized in plain sight. That's how you know something is fucked up. This is a shame.

jeromegv 10y ago
Isn't that a problem when a news that says that the Pope supports Donald Trump gets over 1 millions shares? This isn't opinion, this is pure fabrication.
- sigmar 10y ago
  A guy fired a gun in a pizza place, this is facebook's response. That guy arguing this is an affront to the bill of rights, seems to have never read the bill of rights.
- r2dnb 10y ago
  The article could go on and make the case that the actions of the Pope are not aligned with his rethoric which shows that nothing is as black and white as what you suggest.
  - tyleraldrich 10y ago
    The example you responded to isn't a "What If" scenario - it actually happened. The headline and body of the article claimed Donald Trump was endorsed by the Pope with no evidence. It's fake news no matter how you look at it.
    - r2dnb 10y ago
      >The example you responded to isn't a "What If" scenario - it actually happened. Then you are acually making my case. My point was that it would be hard to call that a fake news, this is an opinion.
      - morgante 10y ago
        You are gas lighting. It is not "opinion" on whether the Pope endorsed Trump. It is unequivocal fact that he did not. Reporting to the contrary is fake news.
morgante 10y ago
First of all, you have the chronology right but the causation wrong. After conservative pressure to stop editorially reviewing news, fake news has increasingly trended. Since the election, people have realized how untenable this is and so Facebook is looking for a solution. This has nothing to do with the bill of rights. Facebook is not the government, government is not requiring fake news to be censored, and the fact checkers are independent organizations. You don't have an inalienable right to spread whatever political lie you want to millions of people. Facebook is this era's nightly news and, just like the nightly news, they have a right to avoid sharing crazy conspiracy theories and outright lies.
- komali2 10y ago
  OOh, juicy controversial comment. I hope some people take the time to read it instead of passing over it because it's slightly greyed out. I for one don't agree that reddit and facebook have a "duty" to remain uncensored. If Breitbart is allowed to be overtly pro-Conservative while claiming to be the only "real" news source, reddit and facebook should be allowed to do whatever they please. All the other news agencies do it, what makes facebook so special?
- r2dnb 10y ago
  >Facebook is this era's nightly news and, just like the nightly news, they have a right to avoid sharing crazy conspiracy theories and outright lies. I have no problem with that. I have a problem with them choosing what I can share with my friends, and more generally what people can share with each other. "Sorry it's fake news so we limited the reach". The problem is that they are not open. My only problem is opacity. HN is transparent, Breitbart is transparent. You know their opinions, you know their agenda. But this is not the case with FB which pretends to be neutral, and this is the issue. >This has nothing to do with the bill of rights. Facebook is not the government, government is not requiring fake news to be censored, and the fact checkers are independent organizations. Do you remember the anti-trust suits against Microsoft ? You can't pretend that a company having the influence FB has is just a corporation like another. When you have this size, you have added responsibility / expectations since your actions directly impact a significant part/aspect of the country. Moreover they coordinate with politics, so this has everything to do with the Bill of Rights at this point. The citizen should at least pay attention to what is happening.
szx 10y ago
As long as they stick to flagging/marking posts while keeping them visible I don't see how that's different from how HN works. Are you opposed to that as well?
- r2dnb 10y ago
  >Are you opposed to that as well? HN never pretends to be neutral, it is a community with a set of rules. For example we even expect them to filter out-of-topic posts, and we know very well the opinions of the moderators / founders and where their line in the sand is. However FB pretends to be neutral. If it's only flagged and there is no impact on the ranking algorithm, of course there would be no issue. It would just be a way to know FB opinion. But, frankly, we know better than that, of course the ranking and the reach will be impacted. This is even the stated intent.
tyleraldrich 10y ago
"It seems like citizens are no longer awake and fighting for the bill of rights" Nothing in the bill of rights applies here. You don't have freedom of speech on Facebook - They make the rules and decide what is allowed and not allowed. It's a company, not the US Government. If enough of their users are upset that fake news like "The Pope endorses Donald Trump" (a real example) is surfacing constantly on their news feeds, it is in Facebook's best interest as a company to try to remedy the situation. They make money when people are actively using their site - and if the "Fake News Epidemic" is causing people to stop using Facebook, they'll try to stop it. Nobody is making anybody use Facebook - it does seem kind of silly to me, but clearly they see value in this (or not doing this was losing them money). What we really need to do is stop treating large corporations like they are a government entity and getting upset when they start restricting "free speech" - they have no obligation to allow people to post anything they want, and can manipulate your timeline as much as they want because you signed their ToS.
- r2dnb 10y ago
  I just posted on an another thread that the problem here is that Facebook positionning / PR is to be say that they are a neutral agent. "Share what you want with your friends / family etc." This is why this case is different. If I use ExxonMobilBook, I kind of know what to expect of Greenpeace related stories. Given their size, extra-precaution needs to be taken. They either need to rollback, or make their agenda more appearent.
  - tyleraldrich 10y ago
    "They either need to rollback, or make their agenda more appearent." That is an opinion. They, in reality, don't need to do anything, nor do they owe you anything. Just because their positioning/PR makes them seem neutral, that doesn't mean they are required to be. They don't need to take precaution, and I will eat my shoe if this decision is what causes Facebook to lose users. Fact of the matter is, 99.9% of users don't care, .09% are cool with facebook doing this, and .01% (you) want them to roll back.
    - 10y ago

by r2dnb 10y ago

jeromegv 10y ago

Isn't that a problem when a news that says that the Pope supports Donald Trump gets over 1 millions shares? This isn't opinion, this is pure fabrication.

sigmar 10y ago
A guy fired a gun in a pizza place, this is facebook's response. That guy arguing this is an affront to the bill of rights, seems to have never read the bill of rights.
r2dnb 10y ago
The article could go on and make the case that the actions of the Pope are not aligned with his rethoric which shows that nothing is as black and white as what you suggest.
- tyleraldrich 10y ago
  The example you responded to isn't a "What If" scenario - it actually happened. The headline and body of the article claimed Donald Trump was endorsed by the Pope with no evidence. It's fake news no matter how you look at it.
  - r2dnb 10y ago
    >The example you responded to isn't a "What If" scenario - it actually happened. Then you are acually making my case. My point was that it would be hard to call that a fake news, this is an opinion.
    - morgante 10y ago
      You are gas lighting. It is not "opinion" on whether the Pope endorsed Trump. It is unequivocal fact that he did not. Reporting to the contrary is fake news.

morgante 10y ago

First of all, you have the chronology right but the causation wrong. After conservative pressure to stop editorially reviewing news, fake news has increasingly trended. Since the election, people have realized how untenable this is and so Facebook is looking for a solution. This has nothing to do with the bill of rights. Facebook is not the government, government is not requiring fake news to be censored, and the fact checkers are independent organizations. You don't have an inalienable right to spread whatever political lie you want to millions of people. Facebook is this era's nightly news and, just like the nightly news, they have a right to avoid sharing crazy conspiracy theories and outright lies.

komali2 10y ago
OOh, juicy controversial comment. I hope some people take the time to read it instead of passing over it because it's slightly greyed out. I for one don't agree that reddit and facebook have a "duty" to remain uncensored. If Breitbart is allowed to be overtly pro-Conservative while claiming to be the only "real" news source, reddit and facebook should be allowed to do whatever they please. All the other news agencies do it, what makes facebook so special?
r2dnb 10y ago
>Facebook is this era's nightly news and, just like the nightly news, they have a right to avoid sharing crazy conspiracy theories and outright lies. I have no problem with that. I have a problem with them choosing what I can share with my friends, and more generally what people can share with each other. "Sorry it's fake news so we limited the reach". The problem is that they are not open. My only problem is opacity. HN is transparent, Breitbart is transparent. You know their opinions, you know their agenda. But this is not the case with FB which pretends to be neutral, and this is the issue. >This has nothing to do with the bill of rights. Facebook is not the government, government is not requiring fake news to be censored, and the fact checkers are independent organizations. Do you remember the anti-trust suits against Microsoft ? You can't pretend that a company having the influence FB has is just a corporation like another. When you have this size, you have added responsibility / expectations since your actions directly impact a significant part/aspect of the country. Moreover they coordinate with politics, so this has everything to do with the Bill of Rights at this point. The citizen should at least pay attention to what is happening.

szx 10y ago

As long as they stick to flagging/marking posts while keeping them visible I don't see how that's different from how HN works. Are you opposed to that as well?

r2dnb 10y ago
>Are you opposed to that as well? HN never pretends to be neutral, it is a community with a set of rules. For example we even expect them to filter out-of-topic posts, and we know very well the opinions of the moderators / founders and where their line in the sand is. However FB pretends to be neutral. If it's only flagged and there is no impact on the ranking algorithm, of course there would be no issue. It would just be a way to know FB opinion. But, frankly, we know better than that, of course the ranking and the reach will be impacted. This is even the stated intent.

tyleraldrich 10y ago

"It seems like citizens are no longer awake and fighting for the bill of rights" Nothing in the bill of rights applies here. You don't have freedom of speech on Facebook - They make the rules and decide what is allowed and not allowed. It's a company, not the US Government. If enough of their users are upset that fake news like "The Pope endorses Donald Trump" (a real example) is surfacing constantly on their news feeds, it is in Facebook's best interest as a company to try to remedy the situation. They make money when people are actively using their site - and if the "Fake News Epidemic" is causing people to stop using Facebook, they'll try to stop it. Nobody is making anybody use Facebook - it does seem kind of silly to me, but clearly they see value in this (or not doing this was losing them money). What we really need to do is stop treating large corporations like they are a government entity and getting upset when they start restricting "free speech" - they have no obligation to allow people to post anything they want, and can manipulate your timeline as much as they want because you signed their ToS.

r2dnb 10y ago
I just posted on an another thread that the problem here is that Facebook positionning / PR is to be say that they are a neutral agent. "Share what you want with your friends / family etc." This is why this case is different. If I use ExxonMobilBook, I kind of know what to expect of Greenpeace related stories. Given their size, extra-precaution needs to be taken. They either need to rollback, or make their agenda more appearent.
- tyleraldrich 10y ago
  "They either need to rollback, or make their agenda more appearent." That is an opinion. They, in reality, don't need to do anything, nor do they owe you anything. Just because their positioning/PR makes them seem neutral, that doesn't mean they are required to be. They don't need to take precaution, and I will eat my shoe if this decision is what causes Facebook to lose users. Fact of the matter is, 99.9% of users don't care, .09% are cool with facebook doing this, and .01% (you) want them to roll back.
  - 10y ago