4 ms·

Yup, I'm still trying to figure out if this whole thing is overblown or people actually consider things they see on Facebook to be reliable. I've never seen a n

by mcintyre1994 10y ago

Yup, I'm still trying to figure out if this whole thing is overblown or people actually consider things they see on Facebook to be reliable. I've never seen a news article on Facebook that wasn't by a news source I already knew about, and considered that to be reliable. Facebook just doesn't optimise for that, obviously. It just seems so obvious that the content on Facebook around news is and always has been trash that I'm amazed if enough people actually took it seriously enough for it to matter in the election.

potatosoup 10y ago
If anything, the content of the e-mail leaks (that the intelligence report from the other day confirmed to be authentic, although this was also known from verifying DKIM signatures) had a bigger impact.
yellow_viper 10y ago
I'm also concerned about who gets to decide what fake news is and filter it out. The 'real news' networks barely covered any of the DNC leaks
- hackuser 10y ago
  > The 'real news' networks barely covered any of the DNC leaks That is not true at all. Fox covered it heavily, as far as I know; the New York Times and Washington Post both seemed to publish a new articles on the topic daily; CNN seemed to cover it heavily. Who didn't cover that story?
  - rokosbasilisk 10y ago
    Cnn covered the dnc leaks in a extraordinary biased way. Telling people it was illegal for them to view it themselves. Also the huffington post, cnn, msnbc, wapo, and nytimes did not cover it objectively. I hear tons of complaints from Bernie Supporters still to this day on campus.
    - hackuser 10y ago
      > Cnn covered the dnc leaks in a extraordinary biased way. Telling people it was illegal for them to view it themselves. I find this hard to believe. Can you back up any of these claims?
      - grzm 10y ago
        Chris Cuomo on CNN: “Also interesting is, remember, it’s illegal to possess these stolen documents. It’s different for the media. So everything you learn about this, you’re learning from us.” This has been interpreted by some as you can't view or read them, as you likely need to download them, at least in your browser, to be able to view them. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/10/17/remember-its-illegal-to-possess-wikileaks-clinton-emails-but-its-different-for-the-media-says-cnns-chris-cuomo/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
        hackuser 10y ago
        EDIT: To consolidate the discussion, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13353131 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13353131
      - rokosbasilisk 10y ago
        sure. https://www.popehat.com/2016/10/17/no-it-is-not-illegal-to-read-wikileaks/ https://www.popehat.com/2016/10/17/no-it-is-not-illegal-to-r... glenn greenwalds twitter has more examples.
        hackuser 10y ago
        If Popehat and the Volokh Conspiracy are the typical sources, I suspect it's a slip of the tongue or mind blown way out of proportion, not some sort of official CNN policy or report. EDIT: Searching around, all I see are similar sources: Infowars, Breitbart, etc. Maybe he said it (and who knows what the context was), but I don't think see any evidence it was more than a gaff. Certainly I never heard it from them or anyone else.
addicted 10y ago
Anecdotally I've seen people heavily influenced by what they see on FB. Not so much amongst my professional colleagues who tend to be heavily into Tech, but it's definitely the case among friends and family who aren't into Tech and literally believe every bit of spam that shows up on their News Feed (especially if it aligns with their pre existing biases, although to be fair this may simply be because FB hardly ever surfaces stuff that doesn't align with your preexisting biases.

potatosoup 10y ago

If anything, the content of the e-mail leaks (that the intelligence report from the other day confirmed to be authentic, although this was also known from verifying DKIM signatures) had a bigger impact.

yellow_viper 10y ago

I'm also concerned about who gets to decide what fake news is and filter it out. The 'real news' networks barely covered any of the DNC leaks

hackuser 10y ago
> The 'real news' networks barely covered any of the DNC leaks That is not true at all. Fox covered it heavily, as far as I know; the New York Times and Washington Post both seemed to publish a new articles on the topic daily; CNN seemed to cover it heavily. Who didn't cover that story?
- rokosbasilisk 10y ago
  Cnn covered the dnc leaks in a extraordinary biased way. Telling people it was illegal for them to view it themselves. Also the huffington post, cnn, msnbc, wapo, and nytimes did not cover it objectively. I hear tons of complaints from Bernie Supporters still to this day on campus.
  - hackuser 10y ago
    > Cnn covered the dnc leaks in a extraordinary biased way. Telling people it was illegal for them to view it themselves. I find this hard to believe. Can you back up any of these claims?
    - grzm 10y ago
      Chris Cuomo on CNN: “Also interesting is, remember, it’s illegal to possess these stolen documents. It’s different for the media. So everything you learn about this, you’re learning from us.” This has been interpreted by some as you can't view or read them, as you likely need to download them, at least in your browser, to be able to view them. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/10/17/remember-its-illegal-to-possess-wikileaks-clinton-emails-but-its-different-for-the-media-says-cnns-chris-cuomo/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
      - hackuser 10y ago
        EDIT: To consolidate the discussion, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13353131 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13353131
    - rokosbasilisk 10y ago
      sure. https://www.popehat.com/2016/10/17/no-it-is-not-illegal-to-read-wikileaks/ https://www.popehat.com/2016/10/17/no-it-is-not-illegal-to-r... glenn greenwalds twitter has more examples.
      - hackuser 10y ago
        If Popehat and the Volokh Conspiracy are the typical sources, I suspect it's a slip of the tongue or mind blown way out of proportion, not some sort of official CNN policy or report. EDIT: Searching around, all I see are similar sources: Infowars, Breitbart, etc. Maybe he said it (and who knows what the context was), but I don't think see any evidence it was more than a gaff. Certainly I never heard it from them or anyone else.

addicted 10y ago

Anecdotally I've seen people heavily influenced by what they see on FB. Not so much amongst my professional colleagues who tend to be heavily into Tech, but it's definitely the case among friends and family who aren't into Tech and literally believe every bit of spam that shows up on their News Feed (especially if it aligns with their pre existing biases, although to be fair this may simply be because FB hardly ever surfaces stuff that doesn't align with your preexisting biases.