5 ms·

It's astounding that educated tech journalists think this is malicious. Clearly, this is an algorithm. Just like as a thought experiment, wouldn't it make more

by debt 8y ago

It's astounding that educated tech journalists think this is malicious. Clearly, this is an algorithm. Just like as a thought experiment, wouldn't it make more sense to allow the post to go through and then prevent everyone on Facebook from seeing it? Obviously, FB doesn't do that, but wouldn't that be a more sensible approach if they did do that type of thing?

394549 8y ago
> It's astounding that educated tech journalists think this is malicious. Clearly, this is an algorithm. Who's claiming this is malicious? In the first couple of replies to the tweet, there's talk about how this is probably due to a poorly designed anti-spam algorithm that's badly in need of a whitelist. That said, Facebook is responsible for the actions of their algorithm. If their algorithm starts blocking critical articles, it's still egg in their face.
- yuliyp 8y ago
  > Who's claiming this is malicious? brianmcc, afandian, mrob, shortexpresso, cwkoss, golemiprague in this discussion at least
  - 394549 8y ago
    >>> > It's astounding that educated tech journalists think this is malicious. Clearly, this is an algorithm. >> Who's claiming this is malicious? In the first couple of replies to the tweet, there's talk about how this is probably due to a poorly designed anti-spam algorithm that's badly in need of a whitelist. > brianmcc, afandian, mrob, shortexpresso, cwkoss, golemiprague in this discussion at least That's nonsense; those are just HN commenters. It's clear from the context of my comment that the "who" I was referring to was "educated tech journalists" and the people in the twitter thread. The great-grandparent comment was basically criticizing a straw-man, and I was only pointing that out.
tmalsburg2 8y ago
A spam-detection algorithm that doesn't whitelist pages like The Guardian? I have to say I find it hard to believe that they would be so incompetent.
- threeseed 8y ago
  Facebook can't be seen to be prioritising one news source over another. So I can't imagine they have lists of any news sources and rely entirely on user signals to determine the quality of a source.
  - _cereal 8y ago
    I second that. An example: a few weeks ago I shared on my FB profile the Mozilla Foundation petition link for the EU copyright reform[1] and it was removed with this motivation: "We removed this post because it looks like spam and doesn't follow our Community Standards." [1] https://blog.mozilla.org/netpolicy/2018/09/07/eu-copyright-reform-the-facts/ https://blog.mozilla.org/netpolicy/2018/09/07/eu-copyright-r...
- debt 8y ago
  A whitelist? Huh? What is this the 90's? I'm pretty sure the algorithms use something more intelligent than a whitelist. A whitelist would be a major loophole in a spam algorithm.
  - tmalsburg2 8y ago
    The evidence at hand casts doubt on the idea that the algorithm is very intelligent.

by debt 8y ago

394549 8y ago

> It's astounding that educated tech journalists think this is malicious. Clearly, this is an algorithm. Who's claiming this is malicious? In the first couple of replies to the tweet, there's talk about how this is probably due to a poorly designed anti-spam algorithm that's badly in need of a whitelist. That said, Facebook is responsible for the actions of their algorithm. If their algorithm starts blocking critical articles, it's still egg in their face.

yuliyp 8y ago
> Who's claiming this is malicious? brianmcc, afandian, mrob, shortexpresso, cwkoss, golemiprague in this discussion at least
- 394549 8y ago
  >>> > It's astounding that educated tech journalists think this is malicious. Clearly, this is an algorithm. >> Who's claiming this is malicious? In the first couple of replies to the tweet, there's talk about how this is probably due to a poorly designed anti-spam algorithm that's badly in need of a whitelist. > brianmcc, afandian, mrob, shortexpresso, cwkoss, golemiprague in this discussion at least That's nonsense; those are just HN commenters. It's clear from the context of my comment that the "who" I was referring to was "educated tech journalists" and the people in the twitter thread. The great-grandparent comment was basically criticizing a straw-man, and I was only pointing that out.

tmalsburg2 8y ago

A spam-detection algorithm that doesn't whitelist pages like The Guardian? I have to say I find it hard to believe that they would be so incompetent.

threeseed 8y ago
Facebook can't be seen to be prioritising one news source over another. So I can't imagine they have lists of any news sources and rely entirely on user signals to determine the quality of a source.
- _cereal 8y ago
  I second that. An example: a few weeks ago I shared on my FB profile the Mozilla Foundation petition link for the EU copyright reform[1] and it was removed with this motivation: "We removed this post because it looks like spam and doesn't follow our Community Standards." [1] https://blog.mozilla.org/netpolicy/2018/09/07/eu-copyright-reform-the-facts/ https://blog.mozilla.org/netpolicy/2018/09/07/eu-copyright-r...
debt 8y ago
A whitelist? Huh? What is this the 90's? I'm pretty sure the algorithms use something more intelligent than a whitelist. A whitelist would be a major loophole in a spam algorithm.
- tmalsburg2 8y ago
  The evidence at hand casts doubt on the idea that the algorithm is very intelligent.