4 ms·

What would be a viable alternative? I don't think they can just ignore the issue and, as you mention, can't review every single story. They'll have to rely on s

What would be a viable alternative? I don't think they can just ignore the issue and, as you mention, can't review every single story. They'll have to rely on some form of sampling for the reviewers. Would it be better to just take a truly random sample of all reports? I don't think that would be very effective given the number of publications they have to review. Do you let users review the content for veracity? Seems like that just creates a situation where the group with the most participants pick the news. I'm not sure this is the optimal path, but to say that Facebook has learned nothing is disingenuous.

dsfyu404ed 8y ago
[deleted]
- traek 8y ago
  > Lakes turn into swamps which turn into forests given enough time. While this is literally true, it's not clear to me that it's a relevant metaphor for online communities.
  - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
    On second thought I agree.
  - cambalache 8y ago
    Perhaps, but do nothing is the only sane response. Mind you, I mean on a basic level. On top of that you can evaluate options, for example, "channels", if you are a democrat/liberal/SJW you can subscribe to channels of only approved sources if you dont want to read libertarian/russian/GOP ones. You can argue that this will promote an echo chamber, but lets be honest it is what happens already. So I dont want censorship on top of that.
ravenstine 8y ago
Email. I wish we'd all go back to it.
- gfo 8y ago
  I don't miss those chain emails... I only get them from my grandparents now.
masterleep 8y ago
Dump the algorithmic timeline and allow people to see the posts from those they follow in chronological order.
turtlecloud 8y ago
The alternative is to nationalize Facebook. Facebook is destroying our society and if the government doesn’t realize it yet, then Facebook will become our government.
cabalamat 8y ago
> What would be a viable alternative? Not attempting to the arbiter of truth and falsehood would be one. Or reporting on what users think of a story's truthfulness: "49% rate this story as true, 21% rate it as untrue". Or, if they want to be honest, acknowledging that it is about policing taboo thoughts. "Smith, 4980203 Winston. This article is crimethink! Warning: If you read too many articles like it your Citizen Credit Score will be downgraded. You have been warned!". OK, maybe they won't go for that :-)
- web007 8y ago
  There are a lot of cases where truth and falsehood are absolute. Those cases where something is provably false should be called out as such. Think of something like Pizzagate - the fact that the restaurant in question didn't have a basement belied the assertions that bad things were happening in said basement. Any article or comment that passed on that provable lie should be flagged as a lie. Sure, there are grey areas beyond that. Those are opinions, and should be separable from facts.
  - cabalamat 8y ago
    > There are a lot of cases where truth and falsehood are absolute Sure, but for most contentious political issues, this is not the case.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > There are a lot of cases where truth and falsehood are absolute Truth and falsehood are absolute for pretty much all fact claims. Whether they can easily by determined is another story. > Think of something like Pizzagate - the fact that the restaurant in question didn't have a basement belied the assertions that bad things were happening in said basement. Sure, but suppose (they weren't, by for sake of illustrating the problem) bad things were happening in, say, a attached a controlled by the owners of the restaurant, but somehiw as the story got out and before it was fixed in text, it was distorted so that it referred to a non-existent basement instead. Would actively suppressing the story because of the impossible location described really be in the public interest? Sure, in strict terms any single factual error in the most involved story makes the story false. But, most accounts will accumulate some false elements in a complex story: there has to be consideration of importance and materiality.
vorpalhex 8y ago
25% of your friends rated this article as false. 2% of all facebook users rated this article as false. Politico has fact checked this article as true. Fox News has fact checked this article as false.

dsfyu404ed 8y ago

[deleted]

traek 8y ago
> Lakes turn into swamps which turn into forests given enough time. While this is literally true, it's not clear to me that it's a relevant metaphor for online communities.
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  On second thought I agree.
- cambalache 8y ago
  Perhaps, but do nothing is the only sane response. Mind you, I mean on a basic level. On top of that you can evaluate options, for example, "channels", if you are a democrat/liberal/SJW you can subscribe to channels of only approved sources if you dont want to read libertarian/russian/GOP ones. You can argue that this will promote an echo chamber, but lets be honest it is what happens already. So I dont want censorship on top of that.

ravenstine 8y ago

Email. I wish we'd all go back to it.

gfo 8y ago
I don't miss those chain emails... I only get them from my grandparents now.

masterleep 8y ago

Dump the algorithmic timeline and allow people to see the posts from those they follow in chronological order.

turtlecloud 8y ago

The alternative is to nationalize Facebook. Facebook is destroying our society and if the government doesn’t realize it yet, then Facebook will become our government.

cabalamat 8y ago

> What would be a viable alternative? Not attempting to the arbiter of truth and falsehood would be one. Or reporting on what users think of a story's truthfulness: "49% rate this story as true, 21% rate it as untrue". Or, if they want to be honest, acknowledging that it is about policing taboo thoughts. "Smith, 4980203 Winston. This article is crimethink! Warning: If you read too many articles like it your Citizen Credit Score will be downgraded. You have been warned!". OK, maybe they won't go for that :-)

web007 8y ago
There are a lot of cases where truth and falsehood are absolute. Those cases where something is provably false should be called out as such. Think of something like Pizzagate - the fact that the restaurant in question didn't have a basement belied the assertions that bad things were happening in said basement. Any article or comment that passed on that provable lie should be flagged as a lie. Sure, there are grey areas beyond that. Those are opinions, and should be separable from facts.
- cabalamat 8y ago
  > There are a lot of cases where truth and falsehood are absolute Sure, but for most contentious political issues, this is not the case.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > There are a lot of cases where truth and falsehood are absolute Truth and falsehood are absolute for pretty much all fact claims. Whether they can easily by determined is another story. > Think of something like Pizzagate - the fact that the restaurant in question didn't have a basement belied the assertions that bad things were happening in said basement. Sure, but suppose (they weren't, by for sake of illustrating the problem) bad things were happening in, say, a attached a controlled by the owners of the restaurant, but somehiw as the story got out and before it was fixed in text, it was distorted so that it referred to a non-existent basement instead. Would actively suppressing the story because of the impossible location described really be in the public interest? Sure, in strict terms any single factual error in the most involved story makes the story false. But, most accounts will accumulate some false elements in a complex story: there has to be consideration of importance and materiality.

vorpalhex 8y ago

25% of your friends rated this article as false. 2% of all facebook users rated this article as false. Politico has fact checked this article as true. Fox News has fact checked this article as false.