4 ms·

Facebook Has Begun to Rank News Organizations by Trust, Zuckerberg Says

24 points by artsandsci 8y ago

lazzlazzlazz 8y ago
This is exactly what countless people on Hacker News ("why can't Facebook have some sense of the trustworthiness of a news source") have been demanding for years. I'm sure we will now hear complaints that Facebook shouldn't be choosing which sources are trustworthy.
- mtgx 8y ago
  Was that really the consensus? I got the impression it was the opposite. "Fake news" can be used as an excuse to censor certain stories or publications. The problem was created in the first place by Facebook deciding which stories to rank higher, instead of giving people the stories and posts in chronological order. But it did that very poorly and in a way that could be easily manipulated. Now they're trying to "fix" that by exerting even more control over the stories - in other words, doubling down on the thing that hasn't worked. The article already makes me worried about their plans. I've seen some stories recently say that many Trump supporters, for instance, have a tendency to "trust" fake news sources. So according to Facebook's plans, those fake news sources may actually become "trusted" on the platform now, because many people trust them. Alternatively, just like YouTube, Facebook may "curate" the landscape so much, that only "non-offensive" stories will ever be shown on the platform.
- na85 8y ago
  My complaint is that Facebook itself is untrustworthy.
  - mesozoic 8y ago
    Bingo!
- creaghpatr 8y ago
  Close, we’ll hear complaints that untrustworthy users are skewing the scores of trustworthy organizations. Naturally, this will lead to rating user trustworthiness, and filtering untrustworthy people and their untrustworthy views out of your newsfeed.
- thaumaturgy 8y ago
  That might be because there is more than one person the internet, and people sometimes disagree. And Facebook doesn't need to do the choosing; they could use a mix of independent, non-partisan rankings of news sources (example: http://www.allgeneralizationsarefalse.com/the-chart-version-3-0-what-exactly-are-we-reading/ http://www.allgeneralizationsarefalse.com/the-chart-version-...). To be clear, I don't think they'll do that, but they could.
- forgottenpass 8y ago
  > This is exactly what countless people on Hacker News [...] have been demanding for years. And plenty of us thought it was stupid back then, too.
- scj 8y ago
  I want a feature on Facebook that says "avoid putting anything on my feed that has been seen by 10k+ people." That would likely include all news.
- rightbyte 8y ago
  Well, opaque algorithmic censorship might be the worst one. The algorithm will probably "nerf" small papers with insufficient data and boost big ones. Papers that are controversial in some political camp will get flags and instead people will get food articles and CNN/ABC/Fox etc. I liked Facebook's old "show stuff in order" (pre 2011?) way more.
courtneycouch0 8y ago
So where will Facebook place itself on this list?
- nradov 8y ago
  Facebook doesn't create any news stories themselves.
  - mesozoic 8y ago
    As the financial crisis of 2008 taught us it's kind of important that the ratings agency (ranking agent) is trustworthy as well.
jfasi 8y ago
Just to clarify, are they developing a universal trust ranking for all users or developing a per-user ranking of what sources that user trusts most? The first option is awesome because it'll hide propaganda outlets that are universally mistrusted but masquerade as legitimate news sources, while the second will entrench polarization deeper.
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  And how will that "universal trust ranking" be determined? See the problem?
  - wmeredith 8y ago
    There is no problem at all here. I totally trust Mark "dumb fucks" Zuckerberg at Facebook to watch the watchmen. /s
throwaway84742 8y ago
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
mooneater 8y ago
"gathered data on how consumers perceive news brands " Oh great, its a model based on consumer opinion. And we know loads of people trust Fox news.
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  What Fox News says is as trustworthy as any other mainstream news source. What stories they cover (or ignore) and what details they include (or omit) are where the bias comes from. Every other news source is the same way.
  - untog 8y ago
    (deleted)
    - Armisael16 8y ago
      That isn't really what they said, unless you equate 'all mainstream news' and 'all news'.
      - dragonwriter 8y ago
        > unless you equate 'all mainstream news' and 'all mainstream news'. I suspect there is an error here, as most people would equate those things since they are letter-for-letter identical phrases.
        Armisael16 8y ago
        Yep. Fixed, thanks for pointing it out. (Not that any of this is relevant, I guess, since the post I responded to was deleted?)
reflect 8y ago
perhaps rather than suppressing everything, a "trustworthiness of this news source cannot be verified" tag could be applied to the posts that seem legitimate but have no ranking.
heimatau 8y ago
If only there was a way to remove 'trusted 3rd parties' and allow people to decide for themselves, in a wholesome way that aids the macro-ecosystem. cough bitcoin cough
- sp332 8y ago
  Blockchains are shared global ledgers. If you want an individualized solution, blockchains are the opposite of that.
  - heimatau 8y ago
    Social media websites aren't private. I think in numerous court cases (at least in the US) even email is considered public. So, with that said, a DLT (dist. ledger tech; i.e. bitcoin) is a great solution for the problems facing a publicly facing company.
    - sp332 8y ago
      There's a weird loophole where law enforcement can get your emails in certain cases without a warrant. It's not the same as being public. https://www.cnet.com/news/doj-we-dont-need-warrants-for-e-mail-facebook-chats/ https://www.cnet.com/news/doj-we-dont-need-warrants-for-e-ma... Anyway I can't understand what the use case would even be here. You need FB to publish their rankings publicly which doesn't need to be decentralized, or you want each person to have their own rankings which don't need to be distributed?
      - heimatau 8y ago
        I don't think publishing their rankings will help. The use case that I think is: A competitive marketplace to compete for the best use of encrypted data. Where each data point and evaluation has a 'cost' to the system and each algorithm competes and entirely based on pseudonyms. Since how we perceive 'trust' is etherial/intangible/ever-changing. I don't think the solution is an easy one to create but I do think the building blocks to them are (no pun intended).
AstralStorm 8y ago
Shouldn't they rank themselves the lowest then? ;)
creaghpatr 8y ago
Pro-tip: If you unfollow all major and minor news sources on facebook you will encounter no fake news, no real news, and no political commentary that links to a media article. Totally improved my newsfeed UX though it took a few days to get em all.
CryoLogic 8y ago
I wouldn't label any major news outlets as trustworthy. They all have sensationalist, often outright lying headlines. They all clip parts of conversations and stories to make something sound much worse or better than it actually is. It's not honest in any regards. How will Facebook, a brand built on dishonesty choose honest sources correctly?
- MrMember 8y ago
  I found it kind of funny to see the link lead to Buzzfeed. When it comes to trustworthiness in news I'd rank them slightly above Info Wars.
- craftyguy 8y ago
  Further, why should a person who build a brand based on dishonesty be trusted to implement a trustworthy way to rank news sources?
ericst 8y ago
Disclaimer: haven't been on Facebook for years, mainly because I was pissed at all those stupid games and surveys at the time. The problem with simply providing a trust appreciation is that you continue to encourage low-value social behaviour. If you want to solve the problem, I think you should try to promote critical thinking. Why not simply de-advantage the news and concentrate on social aspects? Simply put more emphasis on Original Content created by your "friends", not re-shares (no social added value, as the cost for creation was low) or simple link sharing (same thing, if you don't integrate a small comment or analysis, it has no social added value).
- Lionsion 8y ago
  > If you want to solve the problem, I think you should try to promote critical thinking. I don't think Facebook wants to encourage too much critical thinking, as it's business is to sell an audience to advertisers. If the audience thinks too critically, it's harder to manipulate into doing what's in the interests of FB its advertisers. > Why not simply de-advantage the news and concentrate on social aspects? Simply put more emphasis on Original Content created by your "friends", not re-shares (no social added value, as the cost for creation was low) or simple link sharing (same thing, if you don't integrate a small comment or analysis, it has no social added value). They've already done that.
mesozoic 8y ago
And buzzfeed is at the bottom of the rankings?

24 points by artsandsci 8y ago

This is exactly what countless people on Hacker News ("why can't Facebook have some sense of the trustworthiness of a news source") have been demanding for years. I'm sure we will now hear complaints that Facebook shouldn't be choosing which sources are trustworthy.

mtgx 8y ago
Was that really the consensus? I got the impression it was the opposite. "Fake news" can be used as an excuse to censor certain stories or publications. The problem was created in the first place by Facebook deciding which stories to rank higher, instead of giving people the stories and posts in chronological order. But it did that very poorly and in a way that could be easily manipulated. Now they're trying to "fix" that by exerting even more control over the stories - in other words, doubling down on the thing that hasn't worked. The article already makes me worried about their plans. I've seen some stories recently say that many Trump supporters, for instance, have a tendency to "trust" fake news sources. So according to Facebook's plans, those fake news sources may actually become "trusted" on the platform now, because many people trust them. Alternatively, just like YouTube, Facebook may "curate" the landscape so much, that only "non-offensive" stories will ever be shown on the platform.
na85 8y ago
My complaint is that Facebook itself is untrustworthy.
- mesozoic 8y ago
  Bingo!
creaghpatr 8y ago
Close, we’ll hear complaints that untrustworthy users are skewing the scores of trustworthy organizations. Naturally, this will lead to rating user trustworthiness, and filtering untrustworthy people and their untrustworthy views out of your newsfeed.
thaumaturgy 8y ago
That might be because there is more than one person the internet, and people sometimes disagree. And Facebook doesn't need to do the choosing; they could use a mix of independent, non-partisan rankings of news sources (example: http://www.allgeneralizationsarefalse.com/the-chart-version-3-0-what-exactly-are-we-reading/ http://www.allgeneralizationsarefalse.com/the-chart-version-...). To be clear, I don't think they'll do that, but they could.
forgottenpass 8y ago
> This is exactly what countless people on Hacker News [...] have been demanding for years. And plenty of us thought it was stupid back then, too.
scj 8y ago
I want a feature on Facebook that says "avoid putting anything on my feed that has been seen by 10k+ people." That would likely include all news.
rightbyte 8y ago
Well, opaque algorithmic censorship might be the worst one. The algorithm will probably "nerf" small papers with insufficient data and boost big ones. Papers that are controversial in some political camp will get flags and instead people will get food articles and CNN/ABC/Fox etc. I liked Facebook's old "show stuff in order" (pre 2011?) way more.

courtneycouch0 8y ago

So where will Facebook place itself on this list?

nradov 8y ago
Facebook doesn't create any news stories themselves.
- mesozoic 8y ago
  As the financial crisis of 2008 taught us it's kind of important that the ratings agency (ranking agent) is trustworthy as well.

jfasi 8y ago

Just to clarify, are they developing a universal trust ranking for all users or developing a per-user ranking of what sources that user trusts most? The first option is awesome because it'll hide propaganda outlets that are universally mistrusted but masquerade as legitimate news sources, while the second will entrench polarization deeper.

dsfyu404ed 8y ago
And how will that "universal trust ranking" be determined? See the problem?
- wmeredith 8y ago
  There is no problem at all here. I totally trust Mark "dumb fucks" Zuckerberg at Facebook to watch the watchmen. /s

throwaway84742 8y ago

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

mooneater 8y ago

"gathered data on how consumers perceive news brands " Oh great, its a model based on consumer opinion. And we know loads of people trust Fox news.

dsfyu404ed 8y ago
What Fox News says is as trustworthy as any other mainstream news source. What stories they cover (or ignore) and what details they include (or omit) are where the bias comes from. Every other news source is the same way.
- untog 8y ago
  (deleted)
  - Armisael16 8y ago
    That isn't really what they said, unless you equate 'all mainstream news' and 'all news'.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > unless you equate 'all mainstream news' and 'all mainstream news'. I suspect there is an error here, as most people would equate those things since they are letter-for-letter identical phrases.
      - Armisael16 8y ago
        Yep. Fixed, thanks for pointing it out. (Not that any of this is relevant, I guess, since the post I responded to was deleted?)

reflect 8y ago

perhaps rather than suppressing everything, a "trustworthiness of this news source cannot be verified" tag could be applied to the posts that seem legitimate but have no ranking.

heimatau 8y ago

If only there was a way to remove 'trusted 3rd parties' and allow people to decide for themselves, in a wholesome way that aids the macro-ecosystem. cough bitcoin cough

sp332 8y ago
Blockchains are shared global ledgers. If you want an individualized solution, blockchains are the opposite of that.
- heimatau 8y ago
  Social media websites aren't private. I think in numerous court cases (at least in the US) even email is considered public. So, with that said, a DLT (dist. ledger tech; i.e. bitcoin) is a great solution for the problems facing a publicly facing company.
  - sp332 8y ago
    There's a weird loophole where law enforcement can get your emails in certain cases without a warrant. It's not the same as being public. https://www.cnet.com/news/doj-we-dont-need-warrants-for-e-mail-facebook-chats/ https://www.cnet.com/news/doj-we-dont-need-warrants-for-e-ma... Anyway I can't understand what the use case would even be here. You need FB to publish their rankings publicly which doesn't need to be decentralized, or you want each person to have their own rankings which don't need to be distributed?
    - heimatau 8y ago
      I don't think publishing their rankings will help. The use case that I think is: A competitive marketplace to compete for the best use of encrypted data. Where each data point and evaluation has a 'cost' to the system and each algorithm competes and entirely based on pseudonyms. Since how we perceive 'trust' is etherial/intangible/ever-changing. I don't think the solution is an easy one to create but I do think the building blocks to them are (no pun intended).

AstralStorm 8y ago

Shouldn't they rank themselves the lowest then? ;)

creaghpatr 8y ago

Pro-tip: If you unfollow all major and minor news sources on facebook you will encounter no fake news, no real news, and no political commentary that links to a media article. Totally improved my newsfeed UX though it took a few days to get em all.

CryoLogic 8y ago

I wouldn't label any major news outlets as trustworthy. They all have sensationalist, often outright lying headlines. They all clip parts of conversations and stories to make something sound much worse or better than it actually is. It's not honest in any regards. How will Facebook, a brand built on dishonesty choose honest sources correctly?

MrMember 8y ago
I found it kind of funny to see the link lead to Buzzfeed. When it comes to trustworthiness in news I'd rank them slightly above Info Wars.
craftyguy 8y ago
Further, why should a person who build a brand based on dishonesty be trusted to implement a trustworthy way to rank news sources?

ericst 8y ago

Disclaimer: haven't been on Facebook for years, mainly because I was pissed at all those stupid games and surveys at the time. The problem with simply providing a trust appreciation is that you continue to encourage low-value social behaviour. If you want to solve the problem, I think you should try to promote critical thinking. Why not simply de-advantage the news and concentrate on social aspects? Simply put more emphasis on Original Content created by your "friends", not re-shares (no social added value, as the cost for creation was low) or simple link sharing (same thing, if you don't integrate a small comment or analysis, it has no social added value).

Lionsion 8y ago
> If you want to solve the problem, I think you should try to promote critical thinking. I don't think Facebook wants to encourage too much critical thinking, as it's business is to sell an audience to advertisers. If the audience thinks too critically, it's harder to manipulate into doing what's in the interests of FB its advertisers. > Why not simply de-advantage the news and concentrate on social aspects? Simply put more emphasis on Original Content created by your "friends", not re-shares (no social added value, as the cost for creation was low) or simple link sharing (same thing, if you don't integrate a small comment or analysis, it has no social added value). They've already done that.

mesozoic 8y ago

And buzzfeed is at the bottom of the rankings?