8 ms·

I get that facebook my have complicated motives here, but I don't know that "easy to spot" is a good yardstick. First, there are the countless instances where

I get that facebook my have complicated motives here, but I don't know that "easy to spot" is a good yardstick. First, there are the countless instances where something is trivial for a single person to suss out that doesn't scale. Second, and perhaps most importantly, I don't think simple hunches about fake accounts are really actionable here. Having an account that "originated in the Middle East" that now presents as an "attractive woman" is not really a clear-cut case for having your account terminated. I get that we really really want to be able to draw a hard line between people who behave in "weird" ways and organized influence attempts, but I don't think we can get there. It's starting to sound like "bots" and "fake news" have disagreeable opinions baked into the definition.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
sfifs 9y ago
there's no real incentive to work on this unless ad revenue takes a hit. When YouTube ads appearing in front of extremist videos caused brand money to get pulled out, solutions started magically appearing.
tyingq 9y ago
>, but I don't know that "easy to spot" is a good yardstick. Anecdotal, but my dog has had a Facebook account for a decade now. He makes appropriate comments and likes too. His profile picture and stats are accurate. Given that FB can detect faces and assign names to them, I assume they know this account is bullshit. There's got to be some aspects of avoidance of their part. Growth is more important than making sure accounts are real, unless people report it.
supercanuck 9y ago
I think they simply don't have an elegant, technical solution for what amounts to old fashioned "policing" or "investigative" work that they simply refuse to or don't want to do because it probably isn't a priority (until it is). The solution seams akin to the neighbor stealing cable. Send someone out to go look.
stingraycharles 9y ago
I agree with this sentiment. While you want to develop a scalable filter that is able to police these kind of things, the flip side may be even worse — discrimination, racism, etc. Just look at the backlash that YouTube is getting for their recent changes in their algorithm, if Facebook gets even slightly too many false negatives the backlash is likely to be a lot worse. I would hate to stand in Zuckerberg’s shoes here. It seems like they will lose this fight, no matter what. The solution might be more political than technical; that is, to teach people to be skeptical and use proper judgement when reading news articles. But that’s most likely too much to ask.
- Chaebixi 9y ago
  > I would hate to stand in Zuckerberg’s shoes here. It seems like they will lose this fight, no matter what. The solution might be more political than technical; that is, to teach people to be skeptical and use proper judgement when reading news articles. He could just hire more and better people to do the moderation (or handle appeals). I kinda feel companies like Facebook take the attitude that things aren't worth doing unless they can be automated by an algorithm.
- komali2 9y ago
  Could always do what 4chan did and just ban all Russian IP addresses. https://twitter.com/4chan/status/741452104112439296 https://twitter.com/4chan/status/741452104112439296 (joking...)
marcinzm 9y ago
The issue is also one of false-positives. Even if you could spot fake accounts 100% of the time if you also flagged 1% of legitimate accounts as fake by that approach then it's non-viable. Remember that at Facebooks scale a 1% false-positive rate means 20 MILLION accounts. That's too much to even try sending for manual review.
- SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
  20 million reviews per year * 1/(2000 hours per personyear * 10 reviews per personhour) = 1000 people Facebook could afford a thousand fulltime account reviewers, they just don't want to.
  - Natsu 9y ago
    You're implicitly assuming that manual reviews would have a 1% or better error rate. I sincerely doubt that's realistic based on what I've seen of assembly line style processes.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
- pbhjpbhj 9y ago
  Trust networks seem to work here: for example I've reported accounts like "Blacksmith Arms" (not a real example) for being not a real person. Blacksmith Arms is a common pub name, it's a business account masquerading as a user which is (or was) against Facebook rules. Facebook responded on a couple of such reports but the accounts weren't altered. If my account had sufficient standing then the action could have been automated. My accounts actions could then be meta-moderated by other accounts that are more trusted. You make decisions using reports from trusted accounts, and verify them with multiple more-trusted accounts. Verified actions improve an accounts trust level. Surely Facebook already use such a system? I imagine Google Maps are using such a trust network too? Use the scale of the system to manage itself.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
joatmon-snoo 9y ago
https://xkcd.com/1425/ https://xkcd.com/1425/
jmcqk6 9y ago
>First, there are the countless instances where something is trivial for a single person to suss out that doesn't scale. This is an interesting argument to me. It's basically conceding a shittier solution, because we "can't scale" the effective one. As we talk more and more about automation, I think this is similar to what we've seen in meat space with things like tools. I've heard so many people complain about chinese hammers or socket wrenches (though I also know there are quality chinese tools out there) or many other examples. Things mass produced cheaply are lesser quality, but we're willing to make the trade off as a society because we get things for cheaper. And now we see this in the information economy. Even though we know a human doing this work would be much more effective, we're not going to do it because the cost is too high.
- mikestew 9y ago
  Things mass produced cheaply are lesser quality, but we're willing to make the trade off as a society because we get things for cheaper. Problem is, from what I'm seeing, is that the market bifurcates into "shitty, but cheap" and "OMG, the price, but quality". I want the middle way: "reasonably priced, 'good enough' quality, and won't break the bank". Tools are a prime example. You had Snap-On/Matco/etc., Sears Craftsman, and "stamped steel sockets from China". Snap-On for the pros (and worth every dime if you're a pro), Craftsman for the guy with the '57 Chevy he works on regularly, and then the cheap shit for the person that needs to turn a 13mm nut once a year. Now we "get things for cheaper", but those things (in the case of tools) are not something I'm going to let anywhere near a fastener I care to ever reuse. Craftsman is gone, so my option is to chase a Snap-On truck around town [0]. I don't need Snap-On quality, it's like buying a $100K CNC machine to turn a table leg when a lathe will do. I just need a decent socket that won't round the fastener. Seems like the middle fell out of appliances, too. Only in this case, it looks to me like the high-end is shit, too. Every single person I've known that's had a Viking stove or SubZero fridge has had it worked on at least once. I think our Kenmore stove/fridge and LG washer/dryer are disappointingly not built for longevity, but at least nothing has broken after five years. But that washer isn't going to be washing clothes twenty years from now like old Kenmores. About the only thing I can think of where the quality goes up and the prices down are cars. Man, it is amazing how long a car can go while doing practically nothing for maintenance. And they are much more complex systems, and live in much harsher conditions, than a washer. To tie this back to the topic at hand, "we can't be bothered to take the time to make it nice" is a fine excuse if only they'd use that as the actual excuse. "Doesn't scale" just means "too much trouble to make it nice, so you'll have to settle with half-assed". If "that's just the way it is", then I don't want "it". [0] When I bought Snap-On, it was from a truck that drove from auto shop to auto shop, selling tools out of the truck. They had no retail presence; IOW, you couldn't go down to the Snap-On store, it all came off the truck. Not a practical option for the home mechanic, though I've heard they sell online now.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

sfifs 9y ago

there's no real incentive to work on this unless ad revenue takes a hit. When YouTube ads appearing in front of extremist videos caused brand money to get pulled out, solutions started magically appearing.

tyingq 9y ago

>, but I don't know that "easy to spot" is a good yardstick. Anecdotal, but my dog has had a Facebook account for a decade now. He makes appropriate comments and likes too. His profile picture and stats are accurate. Given that FB can detect faces and assign names to them, I assume they know this account is bullshit. There's got to be some aspects of avoidance of their part. Growth is more important than making sure accounts are real, unless people report it.

supercanuck 9y ago

I think they simply don't have an elegant, technical solution for what amounts to old fashioned "policing" or "investigative" work that they simply refuse to or don't want to do because it probably isn't a priority (until it is). The solution seams akin to the neighbor stealing cable. Send someone out to go look.

stingraycharles 9y ago

I agree with this sentiment. While you want to develop a scalable filter that is able to police these kind of things, the flip side may be even worse — discrimination, racism, etc. Just look at the backlash that YouTube is getting for their recent changes in their algorithm, if Facebook gets even slightly too many false negatives the backlash is likely to be a lot worse. I would hate to stand in Zuckerberg’s shoes here. It seems like they will lose this fight, no matter what. The solution might be more political than technical; that is, to teach people to be skeptical and use proper judgement when reading news articles. But that’s most likely too much to ask.

Chaebixi 9y ago
> I would hate to stand in Zuckerberg’s shoes here. It seems like they will lose this fight, no matter what. The solution might be more political than technical; that is, to teach people to be skeptical and use proper judgement when reading news articles. He could just hire more and better people to do the moderation (or handle appeals). I kinda feel companies like Facebook take the attitude that things aren't worth doing unless they can be automated by an algorithm.
komali2 9y ago
Could always do what 4chan did and just ban all Russian IP addresses. https://twitter.com/4chan/status/741452104112439296 https://twitter.com/4chan/status/741452104112439296 (joking...)

marcinzm 9y ago

The issue is also one of false-positives. Even if you could spot fake accounts 100% of the time if you also flagged 1% of legitimate accounts as fake by that approach then it's non-viable. Remember that at Facebooks scale a 1% false-positive rate means 20 MILLION accounts. That's too much to even try sending for manual review.

SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
20 million reviews per year * 1/(2000 hours per personyear * 10 reviews per personhour) = 1000 people Facebook could afford a thousand fulltime account reviewers, they just don't want to.
- Natsu 9y ago
  You're implicitly assuming that manual reviews would have a 1% or better error rate. I sincerely doubt that's realistic based on what I've seen of assembly line style processes.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
pbhjpbhj 9y ago
Trust networks seem to work here: for example I've reported accounts like "Blacksmith Arms" (not a real example) for being not a real person. Blacksmith Arms is a common pub name, it's a business account masquerading as a user which is (or was) against Facebook rules. Facebook responded on a couple of such reports but the accounts weren't altered. If my account had sufficient standing then the action could have been automated. My accounts actions could then be meta-moderated by other accounts that are more trusted. You make decisions using reports from trusted accounts, and verify them with multiple more-trusted accounts. Verified actions improve an accounts trust level. Surely Facebook already use such a system? I imagine Google Maps are using such a trust network too? Use the scale of the system to manage itself.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

joatmon-snoo 9y ago

https://xkcd.com/1425/ https://xkcd.com/1425/

jmcqk6 9y ago

>First, there are the countless instances where something is trivial for a single person to suss out that doesn't scale. This is an interesting argument to me. It's basically conceding a shittier solution, because we "can't scale" the effective one. As we talk more and more about automation, I think this is similar to what we've seen in meat space with things like tools. I've heard so many people complain about chinese hammers or socket wrenches (though I also know there are quality chinese tools out there) or many other examples. Things mass produced cheaply are lesser quality, but we're willing to make the trade off as a society because we get things for cheaper. And now we see this in the information economy. Even though we know a human doing this work would be much more effective, we're not going to do it because the cost is too high.

mikestew 9y ago
Things mass produced cheaply are lesser quality, but we're willing to make the trade off as a society because we get things for cheaper. Problem is, from what I'm seeing, is that the market bifurcates into "shitty, but cheap" and "OMG, the price, but quality". I want the middle way: "reasonably priced, 'good enough' quality, and won't break the bank". Tools are a prime example. You had Snap-On/Matco/etc., Sears Craftsman, and "stamped steel sockets from China". Snap-On for the pros (and worth every dime if you're a pro), Craftsman for the guy with the '57 Chevy he works on regularly, and then the cheap shit for the person that needs to turn a 13mm nut once a year. Now we "get things for cheaper", but those things (in the case of tools) are not something I'm going to let anywhere near a fastener I care to ever reuse. Craftsman is gone, so my option is to chase a Snap-On truck around town [0]. I don't need Snap-On quality, it's like buying a $100K CNC machine to turn a table leg when a lathe will do. I just need a decent socket that won't round the fastener. Seems like the middle fell out of appliances, too. Only in this case, it looks to me like the high-end is shit, too. Every single person I've known that's had a Viking stove or SubZero fridge has had it worked on at least once. I think our Kenmore stove/fridge and LG washer/dryer are disappointingly not built for longevity, but at least nothing has broken after five years. But that washer isn't going to be washing clothes twenty years from now like old Kenmores. About the only thing I can think of where the quality goes up and the prices down are cars. Man, it is amazing how long a car can go while doing practically nothing for maintenance. And they are much more complex systems, and live in much harsher conditions, than a washer. To tie this back to the topic at hand, "we can't be bothered to take the time to make it nice" is a fine excuse if only they'd use that as the actual excuse. "Doesn't scale" just means "too much trouble to make it nice, so you'll have to settle with half-assed". If "that's just the way it is", then I don't want "it". [0] When I bought Snap-On, it was from a truck that drove from auto shop to auto shop, selling tools out of the truck. They had no retail presence; IOW, you couldn't go down to the Snap-On store, it all came off the truck. Not a practical option for the home mechanic, though I've heard they sell online now.