8 ms·

"On the issue of fake news, Facebook has held off on a total ban, instead limiting the spread of articles marked as false by vetted fact-checkers. However, that

"On the issue of fake news, Facebook has held off on a total ban, instead limiting the spread of articles marked as false by vetted fact-checkers. However, that approach can leave fact-checkers overwhelmed and able to tackle only the most viral hoaxes." Does anyone else find this concerning? Even the smallest bias held by fact-checkers can dramatically skew things towards one side e.g. only "fact-check" articles that favour one side.

yourbandsucks 8y ago
What if one "side" traffics in far more falsehoods than the other "side"? An unbiased approach will fact-check them far more often.
x220 8y ago
You find it concerning because it's easy to abuse. The fact-checkers get to decide what is "true", and other Facebook users are unlikely to listen to you if you try and convince them that the fact-checkers are wrong.
- dymk 8y ago
  Honestly, the much harder problem is convincing people that fact checkers are right, if they already disagree with the fact checker. And they are much more numerous than those who already happened to agree with the fact checker.
  - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
    In my experience the biggest problem with fact checkers is that facts are complicated. Somebody says "the speed of light is 300,000 km/s" and you go to a fact checker and you get: > "TRUE: The speed of light is approximately 300,000 km/s." Then you go to another one and you get: > "FALSE: the speed of light is actually 299,792,458 m/s in a vacuum and has a medium-dependent value through air, water or another medium ... " Then you get into an argument with someone where the distinction matters and they cite the first one, or get into one where it doesn't and they cite the second one.
- kryogen1c 8y ago
  Easy to abuse has nothing to do with it. Positioning anyone to be an information filter is wrong. Full stop. This is totalitarianism 101. It doesn't matter if they're right or wrong. Freedom isn't predicated on moral superiority - it is the polar opposite. Freedom is exactly for those who are "wrong". I cannot imagine a more dangerous position for Facebook to take.
  - xg15 8y ago
    Ok, then how do you prevent things like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18225364 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18225364 ?
    - mtgx 8y ago
      How did you prevent government genocides in the past when they used newspapers or TV?
    - gdhbcc 8y ago
      There are costs to everything you do or don't do. If your argument is that censorship prevents genocide, i would point tou to nazi germany, or soviet russia.
    - kryogen1c 8y ago
      If you want to try and assign Facebook responsibility, which is debatable, then I would blame them for the false accounts and real accounts that were taken over. It's simply wrong and should not be tolerated in any circumstance. Separately from morality, I would argue it negatively impact Facebook's survivability. If your _social_ platform cannot be trusted to honestly deliver it's only product, they will surely die.
  - tombert 8y ago
    I don't quite understand your argument; Facebook is a private corporation, and can regulate speech in any way they choose. It's not "totalitarianism 101"; if anything, it's a libertarian wet-dream of a corporation exercising their rights as they see fit.
cbhl 8y ago
Trying to overcompensate for bias is how we got into this mess in the first place. Rather than picking a set of biases and viewpoints and presenting that, news orgs and silicon valley have decided that $thing_i_agree_with and $the_opposite_view deserve equal reach/airtime.
- cbhl 8y ago
  I totally expect that Facebook will just pick biased "fact-checkers" on both sides of the aisle and call it done. Google has over 150 organizations that are allowed to "fact check" through their API: https://www.blog.google/products/search/fact-check-now-available-google-search-and-news-around-world/ https://www.blog.google/products/search/fact-check-now-avail...
  - dymk 8y ago
    Feel free to look at the list of fact-checkers that Facebook uses for any particular country, if you're so inclined: https://www.facebook.com/help/publisher/182222309230722 https://www.facebook.com/help/publisher/182222309230722
    - 08-15 8y ago
      I just looked at the entries for Germany. There is one: "Correctiv", funded by the Open Society Foundation, which is George Soros' marxist agitprop organisation. But I've heard they are the good guys, so we can probably assume they'll just check the facts and not put on spin on it, right?
      - and1or2 8y ago
        The ministry of truth funded by a global oligarch who is famous for breaking the Bank of England. Wake up people!
      - matt4077 8y ago
        It's a journalism startup much like ProPublica, i. e. taking on long-term projects with in-depth reporting. And take your anti-semitism elsewhere.
taysic 8y ago
Yes I think the cons of this outweigh the pros. Ultimately, people will stop getting their information on FB if it becomes too obvious it is being skewed unfairly.
- inimino 8y ago
  Only people who don't share that bias would leave.
  - lurkertroll 8y ago
    Leaving an echo chamber
- ridgeguy 8y ago
  If this were true, Fox news would long ago have disappeared.
andygates 8y ago
Considering "sides" is itself an a priori bias. Articles can stand or fall on their verifiability. That the current soup of deliberate misinformation happens to be played more by the loony right than the loony left is an artefact of those misinformers.

yourbandsucks 8y ago

What if one "side" traffics in far more falsehoods than the other "side"? An unbiased approach will fact-check them far more often.

x220 8y ago

You find it concerning because it's easy to abuse. The fact-checkers get to decide what is "true", and other Facebook users are unlikely to listen to you if you try and convince them that the fact-checkers are wrong.

dymk 8y ago
Honestly, the much harder problem is convincing people that fact checkers are right, if they already disagree with the fact checker. And they are much more numerous than those who already happened to agree with the fact checker.
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago
  In my experience the biggest problem with fact checkers is that facts are complicated. Somebody says "the speed of light is 300,000 km/s" and you go to a fact checker and you get: > "TRUE: The speed of light is approximately 300,000 km/s." Then you go to another one and you get: > "FALSE: the speed of light is actually 299,792,458 m/s in a vacuum and has a medium-dependent value through air, water or another medium ... " Then you get into an argument with someone where the distinction matters and they cite the first one, or get into one where it doesn't and they cite the second one.
kryogen1c 8y ago
Easy to abuse has nothing to do with it. Positioning anyone to be an information filter is wrong. Full stop. This is totalitarianism 101. It doesn't matter if they're right or wrong. Freedom isn't predicated on moral superiority - it is the polar opposite. Freedom is exactly for those who are "wrong". I cannot imagine a more dangerous position for Facebook to take.
- xg15 8y ago
  Ok, then how do you prevent things like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18225364 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18225364 ?
  - mtgx 8y ago
    How did you prevent government genocides in the past when they used newspapers or TV?
  - gdhbcc 8y ago
    There are costs to everything you do or don't do. If your argument is that censorship prevents genocide, i would point tou to nazi germany, or soviet russia.
  - kryogen1c 8y ago
    If you want to try and assign Facebook responsibility, which is debatable, then I would blame them for the false accounts and real accounts that were taken over. It's simply wrong and should not be tolerated in any circumstance. Separately from morality, I would argue it negatively impact Facebook's survivability. If your _social_ platform cannot be trusted to honestly deliver it's only product, they will surely die.
- tombert 8y ago
  I don't quite understand your argument; Facebook is a private corporation, and can regulate speech in any way they choose. It's not "totalitarianism 101"; if anything, it's a libertarian wet-dream of a corporation exercising their rights as they see fit.

cbhl 8y ago

Trying to overcompensate for bias is how we got into this mess in the first place. Rather than picking a set of biases and viewpoints and presenting that, news orgs and silicon valley have decided that $thing_i_agree_with and $the_opposite_view deserve equal reach/airtime.

cbhl 8y ago
I totally expect that Facebook will just pick biased "fact-checkers" on both sides of the aisle and call it done. Google has over 150 organizations that are allowed to "fact check" through their API: https://www.blog.google/products/search/fact-check-now-available-google-search-and-news-around-world/ https://www.blog.google/products/search/fact-check-now-avail...
- dymk 8y ago
  Feel free to look at the list of fact-checkers that Facebook uses for any particular country, if you're so inclined: https://www.facebook.com/help/publisher/182222309230722 https://www.facebook.com/help/publisher/182222309230722
  - 08-15 8y ago
    I just looked at the entries for Germany. There is one: "Correctiv", funded by the Open Society Foundation, which is George Soros' marxist agitprop organisation. But I've heard they are the good guys, so we can probably assume they'll just check the facts and not put on spin on it, right?
    - and1or2 8y ago
      The ministry of truth funded by a global oligarch who is famous for breaking the Bank of England. Wake up people!
    - matt4077 8y ago
      It's a journalism startup much like ProPublica, i. e. taking on long-term projects with in-depth reporting. And take your anti-semitism elsewhere.

taysic 8y ago

Yes I think the cons of this outweigh the pros. Ultimately, people will stop getting their information on FB if it becomes too obvious it is being skewed unfairly.

inimino 8y ago
Only people who don't share that bias would leave.
- lurkertroll 8y ago
  Leaving an echo chamber
ridgeguy 8y ago
If this were true, Fox news would long ago have disappeared.

andygates 8y ago

Considering "sides" is itself an a priori bias. Articles can stand or fall on their verifiability. That the current soup of deliberate misinformation happens to be played more by the loony right than the loony left is an artefact of those misinformers.