6 ms·

>And they probably know that. I imagine their hands are kind of tied- if they don't do anything, then people complain. If they do something, it is possibly not

by divbit 10y ago

>And they probably know that. I imagine their hands are kind of tied- if they don't do anything, then people complain. If they do something, it is possibly not perfect, unless they can come up with some amazing spam reducing innovation which probably close to an AGI fake news bouncer. The only thing to really do is throw some tools up, and adjust them as adversaries (fake news makers) get more tricky, until finally, after a long time, you get the big innovation. In any case, deciding to take a stand is clearly better than doing nothing at all.

pharrington 10y ago
In line with your first sentence: the stand to take is to do nothing.
narrator 10y ago
If the person who was supposed to win the election had won the election there wouldn't have been this huge fake news crisis. The system was working just fine until it wasn't doing what it was supposed to do. The tsunami like immune reaction of all the players in the political system to the incorrect person being elected president is certainly awesome to behold.
- wernercd 10y ago
  Which person who was "supposed" to win the election didn't win the election? The person who was supposed to win did win. There was only one person with the most Electoral College votes...
  - MichaelBurge 10y ago
    If you suppose that X is true, that doesn't mean that X is true or even that you're claiming X is true, just that you've supposed it's true.
  - divbit 10y ago
    I think one can have this attitude with a lot of things. The job which you were supposed to get is the one you got, etc. It must then be that 'supposed to' doesn't really have any meaning, or the opposite, that things are going according to whatever grand plan there exists for us. Who knows.
  - narrator 10y ago
    There are a set of inputs that go into the voters mind that produce a certain output: the voting decision. The technology inputs to produce the correct candidate choice has been somehow thwarted by a bug in the system. The bug has been identified as fake news. To restore the proper functioning of the system the bug has to be fixed by implementing AI systems, overseen by properly vetted quality control personnel, in order to detect and remove fake news. The quality control personnel should be properly vetted to make sure that they are not under the influence of fake news which may cause errors in voting behavior to leak through. You see, people having an incorrect voting decision is evidence that there is a bug in the system that feeds them information. That, or there is a fundamental flaw in their cognitive systems which is why they have been called "deplorables". /end of the movie evil guy speech
    - wernercd 10y ago
      Incorrect opinion? Who gets to decide the incorrect opinion? The side that thinks Trump is a racist/xenophobe/terrorist? Or the side that thinks Hillary Benghazi/Emails/Charity? Or the side that thinks Bernie Venezuela/Socialist/etc? Or the side that think Stein ... Or the side that think Johnson... or... or... What makes a Trump Supporters opinion wrong and a Clinton supporters opinion right? Or Bern? Stein? Johnson? We should absolutely work on getting rid of "Fake" news... but what is fake news? What is true news that is obviously biased (CNN/Fox/etc)? What is satire (Onion)? Who is producing "Non" fake news? CNN? Fox? CBS? NBC? Politico? I can look at news stories on all of the above and see "True" information spun to make one side look good and the other bad... I love how people think their opinion is OBVIOUSLY right... their opponents opinion is OBVIOUSLY wrong and anyone who doesn't agree with them is a Terrorist/Xenophobe/Islamaphobe/Racist/etc'ad'naseum.
      - aurelianito 10y ago
        As seen by a foreigner, me, it is quite clear that the status quo and the powers that be had chosen Hillary Clinton as the next US president. But Trump won, so the system has to be corrected so similar things do not happen again in the future. It has nothing to do with who is right or wrong.
  - jfoutz 10y ago
    The person who won made repeated claims the system was rigged. I can't say if the correct person won. I can say it's clear to the winner there is a public system for show, and a secret system for actually selecting the president.
    - wernercd 10y ago
      And the other side said the system was fair. We can trust the results. Anyone who challenges the results is a threat to Democracy. BEFORE the election everyone was confident and trusting of the election. It wasn't until AFTER the Election that we all of a sudden started to care about Russia "hacking" the election. I mean... which is it? it's fair and trustworthy if you win but it's not trustworthy and fair if you lose? Honestly though... if there is a secret system for "actually" selecting the President... do you think those secret puppet masters would choose Trump?
      - jfoutz 10y ago
        I don't believe there is a secret system. Our president does. https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/749709462974435329?lang=en https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/74970946297443532... https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/787995025527410688?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/78799502552741068... https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/787699930718695425?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/78769993071869542... https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/787618207444131840?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/78761820744413184... There are a bunch more.
      - maxerickson 10y ago
        It were in the news all fall: https://www.nytimes.com/news-event/russian-election-hacking https://www.nytimes.com/news-event/russian-election-hacking October 11: Obama Considers ‘Proportional’ Response to Russian Hacking in U.S. Election https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/12/us/politics/obama-russia-hack-election.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/12/us/politics/obama-russia-... There's also little to no mainstream doubt about the outcome of the vote (of course the President has raised concerns that the vote was not accurate, but most responses to that, for example from Secretaries of State, have tried to emphasize that there is no evidence of major issues with the election). The controversy is all about how Russia may have acted to influence voters.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- empressplay 10y ago
  "supposed to win the election" LOL, spoken like a true fascist.
  - rdtsc 10y ago
    I think they meant it sarcastically. You can't deny it that the majority of mass media has overwhelmingly picked one candidate. Even down to passing her debate questions in advance and so on. I don't think anyone would be surprised to know that Hillary as far as the media was concerned was supposed to be the winner, not just because they simply wished it to be true, but because they went out of their way to make it so. In the end they failed. The result of that was a backlash called "Fake News". It is a censorship system designed to bring the influence of media back on-line. One interesting thing is that traditional media's failure to manufacture consent is perceived to be broken so that left a vacuum for social media to jump in. We saw how quickly Facebook and Google rushed in. I think deep down they want to signal to those in power that "we'll do a better job manufacturing consent for you than those old crusty news channels".
    - gbin 10y ago
      That's where facts are important. Those "fake news" are completely disconnected from reality. I mean North Korean government news agency type of disconnected from reality. You really think they need to be treated as a better source of information than professional journalists with verifiable sources etc ? I think biased information, whatever the bias is, as long as it is based on facts is way better than the random bat-shit crazy news we saw popping up all over the place.
  - dang 10y ago
    We've banned this account for this personal attack, for using HN primarily for political battle, and for posting mostly unsubstantive comments. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and promise to use this site as intended in the future.
- rdtsc 10y ago
  (Already mentioned it in another post below) I think companies like Google and Facebook perceived this vacuum created by the failure of the traditional news media to manufacture consent and control people's opinions. They want to send a strong message to those in power that they are better positioned at manufacturing consent in the future than those crusty old dinosaurs like CNN, NBC, etc. There are obviously a lot of money to be made from campaigns and having powerful and wealthy candidates, or just companies marketing their products and ideas, rely on your platform. Think of it as their way to advertise the ability to "properly" (wink, wink) filter and bias news to suit their customers' demands.

by divbit 10y ago

pharrington 10y ago

In line with your first sentence: the stand to take is to do nothing.

narrator 10y ago

If the person who was supposed to win the election had won the election there wouldn't have been this huge fake news crisis. The system was working just fine until it wasn't doing what it was supposed to do. The tsunami like immune reaction of all the players in the political system to the incorrect person being elected president is certainly awesome to behold.

wernercd 10y ago
Which person who was "supposed" to win the election didn't win the election? The person who was supposed to win did win. There was only one person with the most Electoral College votes...
- MichaelBurge 10y ago
  If you suppose that X is true, that doesn't mean that X is true or even that you're claiming X is true, just that you've supposed it's true.
- divbit 10y ago
  I think one can have this attitude with a lot of things. The job which you were supposed to get is the one you got, etc. It must then be that 'supposed to' doesn't really have any meaning, or the opposite, that things are going according to whatever grand plan there exists for us. Who knows.
- narrator 10y ago
  There are a set of inputs that go into the voters mind that produce a certain output: the voting decision. The technology inputs to produce the correct candidate choice has been somehow thwarted by a bug in the system. The bug has been identified as fake news. To restore the proper functioning of the system the bug has to be fixed by implementing AI systems, overseen by properly vetted quality control personnel, in order to detect and remove fake news. The quality control personnel should be properly vetted to make sure that they are not under the influence of fake news which may cause errors in voting behavior to leak through. You see, people having an incorrect voting decision is evidence that there is a bug in the system that feeds them information. That, or there is a fundamental flaw in their cognitive systems which is why they have been called "deplorables". /end of the movie evil guy speech
  - wernercd 10y ago
    Incorrect opinion? Who gets to decide the incorrect opinion? The side that thinks Trump is a racist/xenophobe/terrorist? Or the side that thinks Hillary Benghazi/Emails/Charity? Or the side that thinks Bernie Venezuela/Socialist/etc? Or the side that think Stein ... Or the side that think Johnson... or... or... What makes a Trump Supporters opinion wrong and a Clinton supporters opinion right? Or Bern? Stein? Johnson? We should absolutely work on getting rid of "Fake" news... but what is fake news? What is true news that is obviously biased (CNN/Fox/etc)? What is satire (Onion)? Who is producing "Non" fake news? CNN? Fox? CBS? NBC? Politico? I can look at news stories on all of the above and see "True" information spun to make one side look good and the other bad... I love how people think their opinion is OBVIOUSLY right... their opponents opinion is OBVIOUSLY wrong and anyone who doesn't agree with them is a Terrorist/Xenophobe/Islamaphobe/Racist/etc'ad'naseum.
    - aurelianito 10y ago
      As seen by a foreigner, me, it is quite clear that the status quo and the powers that be had chosen Hillary Clinton as the next US president. But Trump won, so the system has to be corrected so similar things do not happen again in the future. It has nothing to do with who is right or wrong.
- jfoutz 10y ago
  The person who won made repeated claims the system was rigged. I can't say if the correct person won. I can say it's clear to the winner there is a public system for show, and a secret system for actually selecting the president.
  - wernercd 10y ago
    And the other side said the system was fair. We can trust the results. Anyone who challenges the results is a threat to Democracy. BEFORE the election everyone was confident and trusting of the election. It wasn't until AFTER the Election that we all of a sudden started to care about Russia "hacking" the election. I mean... which is it? it's fair and trustworthy if you win but it's not trustworthy and fair if you lose? Honestly though... if there is a secret system for "actually" selecting the President... do you think those secret puppet masters would choose Trump?
    - jfoutz 10y ago
      I don't believe there is a secret system. Our president does. https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/749709462974435329?lang=en https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/74970946297443532... https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/787995025527410688?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/78799502552741068... https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/787699930718695425?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/78769993071869542... https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/787618207444131840?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/78761820744413184... There are a bunch more.
    - maxerickson 10y ago
      It were in the news all fall: https://www.nytimes.com/news-event/russian-election-hacking https://www.nytimes.com/news-event/russian-election-hacking October 11: Obama Considers ‘Proportional’ Response to Russian Hacking in U.S. Election https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/12/us/politics/obama-russia-hack-election.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/12/us/politics/obama-russia-... There's also little to no mainstream doubt about the outcome of the vote (of course the President has raised concerns that the vote was not accurate, but most responses to that, for example from Secretaries of State, have tried to emphasize that there is no evidence of major issues with the election). The controversy is all about how Russia may have acted to influence voters.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
empressplay 10y ago
"supposed to win the election" LOL, spoken like a true fascist.
- rdtsc 10y ago
  I think they meant it sarcastically. You can't deny it that the majority of mass media has overwhelmingly picked one candidate. Even down to passing her debate questions in advance and so on. I don't think anyone would be surprised to know that Hillary as far as the media was concerned was supposed to be the winner, not just because they simply wished it to be true, but because they went out of their way to make it so. In the end they failed. The result of that was a backlash called "Fake News". It is a censorship system designed to bring the influence of media back on-line. One interesting thing is that traditional media's failure to manufacture consent is perceived to be broken so that left a vacuum for social media to jump in. We saw how quickly Facebook and Google rushed in. I think deep down they want to signal to those in power that "we'll do a better job manufacturing consent for you than those old crusty news channels".
  - gbin 10y ago
    That's where facts are important. Those "fake news" are completely disconnected from reality. I mean North Korean government news agency type of disconnected from reality. You really think they need to be treated as a better source of information than professional journalists with verifiable sources etc ? I think biased information, whatever the bias is, as long as it is based on facts is way better than the random bat-shit crazy news we saw popping up all over the place.
- dang 10y ago
  We've banned this account for this personal attack, for using HN primarily for political battle, and for posting mostly unsubstantive comments. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and promise to use this site as intended in the future.
rdtsc 10y ago
(Already mentioned it in another post below) I think companies like Google and Facebook perceived this vacuum created by the failure of the traditional news media to manufacture consent and control people's opinions. They want to send a strong message to those in power that they are better positioned at manufacturing consent in the future than those crusty old dinosaurs like CNN, NBC, etc. There are obviously a lot of money to be made from campaigns and having powerful and wealthy candidates, or just companies marketing their products and ideas, rely on your platform. Think of it as their way to advertise the ability to "properly" (wink, wink) filter and bias news to suit their customers' demands.