4 ms·

Lack of trust is a bullshit argument. It's basically the Conspiracy Fallacy: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/74/Conspiracy_Theo

Lack of trust is a bullshit argument. It's basically the Conspiracy Fallacy: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/74/Conspiracy_Theory https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFalla... Is there any evidence to support this assertion and that Facebook isn't merely showing you information that is palatable to you? (Note that this greatly expands the use of this fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdom_of_repugnance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdom_of_repugnance) I think we all have to answer these questions first: 1) Are you comfortable with receiving information that is true, or even mostly true, but that which is distasteful to you personally? 2) If so, do you wish to impose this expectation on everyone else?

hedora 8y ago
Search for “facebook hires censors” on the search engine of your choice. The story was broadly covered by sources across the political spectrum. And in answer to your two questions: Yes, I expect news sources to have journalisic integrity, even if the truth is not popular.
- pmarreck 8y ago
  I can't find anything from a remotely unbiased source on "facebook hires censors" other than this: https://www.popsci.com/Facebook-hiring-3000-content-monitors https://www.popsci.com/Facebook-hiring-3000-content-monitors Which is basically just content monitoring that AI can't do... child exploitation, hate speech, gore, pornography, etc. I think it's a pretty damn right-wing slippery-slope you're traversing if you assume that's equivalent to "censorship of rogue ideas"
  - azborder 8y ago
    “Hate speech” seems to cover a pretty wide spectrum these days.
    - pmarreck 8y ago
      Fair enough because I agree, nevertheless it’s a stretch to accuse The Social-Network Powers That Be of essentially a left-wing conspiracy
      - sheepmullet 8y ago
        The bias makes sense and I wouldn't call it a conspiracy theory. Where are the censors hired? Californians have a different idea about hate speech than people from Alabama who have a different view of hate speech than someone from Bangalore. So if you hire your censors from California you are going to see right wing rogue ideas considered hate speech.
        pmarreck 8y ago
        I know tastes differ across space, but there must be some minimum standard that would satisfy almost everyone
        sheepmullet 8y ago
        Of course there is a minimum standard - but the problem is to have effective censors you need to give them a degree of leeway/self-judgement and in a politically charged environment this will lead to bias.
AlexandrB 8y ago
> Is there any evidence to support this assertion and that Facebook isn't merely showing you information that is palatable to you? I'm not sure why intent matters. The point is I can't turn it off and see all the information if I wanted to. My access to information is being artificially restricted. > 2) If so, do you wish to impose this expectation on everyone else? This is completely unnecessary. Just need an option in preferences: Use algorithmic feed [Yes] [No]. Edit: Like privacy, this is another case where the ad-driven business model is in conflict with the best interests of the user. Ad-supported algorithmic feeds optimize not for truth, educational value, or even user happiness, but for engagement. This often means eliciting a strong emotional reaction - positive or negative. In effect algorithmic feeds create the informational equivalent of how grocery stores put high-margin junk and processed foods in the high traffic areas. They want you to buy this stuff - your health be damned.
coldtea 8y ago
>Lack of trust is a bullshit argument. It's basically the Conspiracy Fallacy Or you know, what actual real life and political experience points to, and labelling it "conspiracy" is the "jumping to conclusions fallacy".
prolikewhoa 8y ago
>Before the election, we also detected and took action on activity relating to hashtags that have since been reported as manifestations of efforts to interfere with the 2016 election. For example, our automated spam detection systems helped mitigate the impact of automated Tweets promoting the #PodestaEmails hashtag, which originated with Wikileaks’ publication of thousands of emails from the Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s Gmail account. The core of the hashtag was propagated by Wikileaks, whose account sent out a series of 118 original Tweets containing variants on the hashtag #PodestaEmails referencing the daily installments of the emails released on the Wikileaks website. In the two months preceding the election, around 57,000 users posted approximately 426,000 unique Tweets containing variations of the #PodestaEmails hashtag. Approximately one quarter (25%) of those tweets received internal tags from our automation detection systems that hid them from searches. As described in greater detail below, our systems detected and hid just under half (48%) of the Tweets relating to variants of another notable hashtag, #DNCLeak, which concerned the disclosure of leaked emails from the Democratic National Committee. Twitter openly admits to censorship. They censored legitimate journalism for political reasons. Source: https://www.lgraham.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/4766f54d-d433-4055-9f3d-c94f97eeb1c0/testimony-of-sean-edgett-acting-general-counsel-twitter.pdf https://www.lgraham.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/4766f54d-...
- pmarreck 8y ago
  Is censorship of argumentum-ad-nauseam bullshit really censorship, though?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - prolikewhoa 8y ago
    Where is the "argumentum-ad-nauseam bullshit"? I'm didn't post this to argue about politics or what your political beliefs are, just that they do in fact, censor.
    - pmarreck 8y ago
eli_gottlieb 8y ago
1) Yes. 2) Yes. Was that supposed to be hard?
- pmarreck 8y ago
  In this day and age, apparently!

hedora 8y ago

Search for “facebook hires censors” on the search engine of your choice. The story was broadly covered by sources across the political spectrum. And in answer to your two questions: Yes, I expect news sources to have journalisic integrity, even if the truth is not popular.

pmarreck 8y ago
I can't find anything from a remotely unbiased source on "facebook hires censors" other than this: https://www.popsci.com/Facebook-hiring-3000-content-monitors https://www.popsci.com/Facebook-hiring-3000-content-monitors Which is basically just content monitoring that AI can't do... child exploitation, hate speech, gore, pornography, etc. I think it's a pretty damn right-wing slippery-slope you're traversing if you assume that's equivalent to "censorship of rogue ideas"
- azborder 8y ago
  “Hate speech” seems to cover a pretty wide spectrum these days.
  - pmarreck 8y ago
    Fair enough because I agree, nevertheless it’s a stretch to accuse The Social-Network Powers That Be of essentially a left-wing conspiracy
    - sheepmullet 8y ago
      The bias makes sense and I wouldn't call it a conspiracy theory. Where are the censors hired? Californians have a different idea about hate speech than people from Alabama who have a different view of hate speech than someone from Bangalore. So if you hire your censors from California you are going to see right wing rogue ideas considered hate speech.
      - pmarreck 8y ago
        I know tastes differ across space, but there must be some minimum standard that would satisfy almost everyone
        sheepmullet 8y ago
        Of course there is a minimum standard - but the problem is to have effective censors you need to give them a degree of leeway/self-judgement and in a politically charged environment this will lead to bias.

AlexandrB 8y ago

> Is there any evidence to support this assertion and that Facebook isn't merely showing you information that is palatable to you? I'm not sure why intent matters. The point is I can't turn it off and see all the information if I wanted to. My access to information is being artificially restricted. > 2) If so, do you wish to impose this expectation on everyone else? This is completely unnecessary. Just need an option in preferences: Use algorithmic feed [Yes] [No]. Edit: Like privacy, this is another case where the ad-driven business model is in conflict with the best interests of the user. Ad-supported algorithmic feeds optimize not for truth, educational value, or even user happiness, but for engagement. This often means eliciting a strong emotional reaction - positive or negative. In effect algorithmic feeds create the informational equivalent of how grocery stores put high-margin junk and processed foods in the high traffic areas. They want you to buy this stuff - your health be damned.

coldtea 8y ago

>Lack of trust is a bullshit argument. It's basically the Conspiracy Fallacy Or you know, what actual real life and political experience points to, and labelling it "conspiracy" is the "jumping to conclusions fallacy".

prolikewhoa 8y ago

>Before the election, we also detected and took action on activity relating to hashtags that have since been reported as manifestations of efforts to interfere with the 2016 election. For example, our automated spam detection systems helped mitigate the impact of automated Tweets promoting the #PodestaEmails hashtag, which originated with Wikileaks’ publication of thousands of emails from the Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s Gmail account. The core of the hashtag was propagated by Wikileaks, whose account sent out a series of 118 original Tweets containing variants on the hashtag #PodestaEmails referencing the daily installments of the emails released on the Wikileaks website. In the two months preceding the election, around 57,000 users posted approximately 426,000 unique Tweets containing variations of the #PodestaEmails hashtag. Approximately one quarter (25%) of those tweets received internal tags from our automation detection systems that hid them from searches. As described in greater detail below, our systems detected and hid just under half (48%) of the Tweets relating to variants of another notable hashtag, #DNCLeak, which concerned the disclosure of leaked emails from the Democratic National Committee. Twitter openly admits to censorship. They censored legitimate journalism for political reasons. Source: https://www.lgraham.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/4766f54d-d433-4055-9f3d-c94f97eeb1c0/testimony-of-sean-edgett-acting-general-counsel-twitter.pdf https://www.lgraham.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/4766f54d-...

pmarreck 8y ago
Is censorship of argumentum-ad-nauseam bullshit really censorship, though?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- prolikewhoa 8y ago
  Where is the "argumentum-ad-nauseam bullshit"? I'm didn't post this to argue about politics or what your political beliefs are, just that they do in fact, censor.
  - pmarreck 8y ago

eli_gottlieb 8y ago

1) Yes. 2) Yes. Was that supposed to be hard?

pmarreck 8y ago
In this day and age, apparently!