3 ms·

Then why so much hullabaloo about fake news in Facebook? They are a private company and surely they can show anything to their users? Also I don't think you'd

Then why so much hullabaloo about fake news in Facebook? They are a private company and surely they can show anything to their users? Also I don't think you'd be as nonchalant if Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders were being banned by Twitter.

fiiv 10y ago
I thought the big issue with "fake news" (which seemingly a buzzword for an old concept, but that's another discussion) was that people shared them in the first place, therefore distributing them without realising they were not genuine. I hadn't read anything about Facebook themselves being complicit in some sort of syndicate to spread misinformation during the election.
vacri 10y ago
Firstly, I would be as nonchalant if Warren or Sanders were being filtered (Adams isn't banned) by Twitter... because... as I say, Twitter is not a public service. If you're going to be angry about Twitter filtering Adams, you should be angry at HN for flagging this article. You should be using this opportunity to educate people about Twitter not being a public service, and how news services that use it for react quotes are doing everyone a disservice (have you noticed now how react quotes these days come from strangers on Twitter, not people near the actual event in question?) As for Facebook - Facebook already filtered your feed, independent of the 'fake news' thing.
- grzm 10y ago
  Small nit: I'm blessedly largely ignorant of Twitter and all of this hullabaloo, though one difference I suspect in moderation is that any flagging of this submission was the result of user action as opposed to any action taken by a mod.
  - vacri 10y ago
    I don't think that there's all that much difference between a mod doing it and the relatively small number of userbase flags doing it. Hell, if userbase flagging was available in Twitter like on HN, no-one with a household name would ever be able to use it, regardless of whether or not they were even political...
    - grzm 10y ago
      I think in the case of your analogy it does. In one, the argument seems to be that a central authority is censoring users. In the other, it's a community enforcing its standards. One can argue that there are potential problems in either case, but I think the nature of the problems are slightly, but importantly different.

fiiv 10y ago

I thought the big issue with "fake news" (which seemingly a buzzword for an old concept, but that's another discussion) was that people shared them in the first place, therefore distributing them without realising they were not genuine. I hadn't read anything about Facebook themselves being complicit in some sort of syndicate to spread misinformation during the election.

vacri 10y ago

Firstly, I would be as nonchalant if Warren or Sanders were being filtered (Adams isn't banned) by Twitter... because... as I say, Twitter is not a public service. If you're going to be angry about Twitter filtering Adams, you should be angry at HN for flagging this article. You should be using this opportunity to educate people about Twitter not being a public service, and how news services that use it for react quotes are doing everyone a disservice (have you noticed now how react quotes these days come from strangers on Twitter, not people near the actual event in question?) As for Facebook - Facebook already filtered your feed, independent of the 'fake news' thing.

grzm 10y ago
Small nit: I'm blessedly largely ignorant of Twitter and all of this hullabaloo, though one difference I suspect in moderation is that any flagging of this submission was the result of user action as opposed to any action taken by a mod.
- vacri 10y ago
  I don't think that there's all that much difference between a mod doing it and the relatively small number of userbase flags doing it. Hell, if userbase flagging was available in Twitter like on HN, no-one with a household name would ever be able to use it, regardless of whether or not they were even political...
  - grzm 10y ago
    I think in the case of your analogy it does. In one, the argument seems to be that a central authority is censoring users. In the other, it's a community enforcing its standards. One can argue that there are potential problems in either case, but I think the nature of the problems are slightly, but importantly different.