4 ms·

Especially considering the current US administration, or at least the president, has repeatedly expressed wishes to censor the press. Seems like they are cutti

Especially considering the current US administration, or at least the president, has repeatedly expressed wishes to censor the press. Seems like they are cutting off their nose to spite their face by calling for increased censorship. Do they honestly think that people who hold fringe views will stop holding them if they can't express them on Facebook?

hannasanarion 8y ago
It's not a question of who is allowed to say what, it is a question of who Facebook gives their big megaphones to. Crap like beforeitsnews used to spread like crazy through Republican Facebook circles
- philwelch 8y ago
  Facebook's algorithms are (were?), at least supposedly, optimized for engagement. Yes, this unintentionally enables clickbait propagandists, because clickbait propagandists can get really, really good at writing content that delivers high engagement. But it enables clickbait propagandists on all sides and is only a problem because Facebook users are flawed human beings who consume too much clickbait for their own good. You might as well blame 7/11 and Kroger for giving "big megaphones" to celebrity gossip magazines and candy bars because they sell better than scientific journals and fresh arugula. The question is whether Facebook either is or should be putting their thumb on the scale based on the ideas being presented. The idea of a naive engagement algorithm that, in a roundabout fashion, shows people what they want to see might be shitty, but only because most people actually want the shit. The idea of a "truthiness algorithm" or a "hate algorithm" that de-ranks content that Facebook finds "false" or "problematic" is fucking dystopian, and yet it's exactly what Facebook's critics are calling for.
  - hannasanarion 8y ago
    When is the last time a celebrity gossip magazine inspired multiple mass shootings? Surely it is not radical to expect Facebook's editorial algorithms, which by the way, are already changing the rank of material based on the effect it will have on readers, to draw some sort of line between "typical well sourced stuff from a well established and respected paper" and "some anonymous dude on the internet spins a tale of how the Democratic Party is actually a sex trafficking ring operating out of a pizza parlor". Every other media company is held responsible for the material they spread, and are expected to curate it with editors. Facebook thought they could let an algorithm be their editor, and it didn't work out so well. They fired their editorial staff for "breaking news" in August 2016, and the very next day, a fake story about "Ann Coulter outed as a socialist traitor!" was at the top of the list.
    - philwelch 8y ago
      > When is the last time a celebrity gossip magazine inspired multiple mass shootings? The news media does a damn fine job of that all by themselves: https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2016/08/media-contagion-effect.pdf https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2016/08/media-contag... Also, I mentioned candy bars for a reason. The leading cause of preventable death isn't mass shootings, it's obesity. And, while Facebook doesn't really have an incentive in inspiring mass shootings (unlike the mainstream media!), 7/11 has an incentive in inspiring you to drink a soda and eat a candy bar, and you're orders of magnitude more likely to eventually die from doing too much of that. > Surely it is not radical to expect Facebook's editorial algorithms, which by the way, are already changing the rank of material based on the effect it will have on readers, to draw some sort of line between "typical well sourced stuff from a well established and respected paper" and "some anonymous dude on the internet spins a tale of how the Democratic Party is actually a sex trafficking ring operating out of a pizza parlor". Anonymous dudes spinning tales on the internet make for engaging content that a lot of people want to read. Conspiracy theories are a time-honored tradition ever since the CIA had Kennedy assassinated because he was going to reveal the truth about the alien spacecraft that crashed at Roswell and was being held at Area 51. Everyone knows that. Setting aside the obvious nutjobs, you're literally calling for Facebook to enforce an oligopoly of "well established and respected papers" by making it harder for independent journalists and bloggers to get their message out. Or, at the very least, you're expressing an unwarranted level of faith in Facebook's ability to distinguish normal bloggers from nutjobs. Especially when you and I both know that the words "nutjob" and "conspiracy theorist" will be defined and used in ways that are equivalent in meaning to the words "dissident" and "whistleblower". > Every other media company is held responsible for the material they spread, and are expected to curate it with editors. When I go to Facebook, the only "material" I see is from other Facebook users whom I follow and from advertisers. It's bad enough that Facebook ranks this stuff with their "special sauce", but if they "curate" my feed by making "editorial decisions", they have stepped out of their lane. If I want to follow someone on Facebook, I want to see what they post. I don't want Facebook hiding it from me because they don't agree with who I follow, or with what the people I follow choose to share.
ams6110 8y ago
All administrations want to censor the press, or more generally speech, that they find inconvenient.

hannasanarion 8y ago

It's not a question of who is allowed to say what, it is a question of who Facebook gives their big megaphones to. Crap like beforeitsnews used to spread like crazy through Republican Facebook circles

philwelch 8y ago
Facebook's algorithms are (were?), at least supposedly, optimized for engagement. Yes, this unintentionally enables clickbait propagandists, because clickbait propagandists can get really, really good at writing content that delivers high engagement. But it enables clickbait propagandists on all sides and is only a problem because Facebook users are flawed human beings who consume too much clickbait for their own good. You might as well blame 7/11 and Kroger for giving "big megaphones" to celebrity gossip magazines and candy bars because they sell better than scientific journals and fresh arugula. The question is whether Facebook either is or should be putting their thumb on the scale based on the ideas being presented. The idea of a naive engagement algorithm that, in a roundabout fashion, shows people what they want to see might be shitty, but only because most people actually want the shit. The idea of a "truthiness algorithm" or a "hate algorithm" that de-ranks content that Facebook finds "false" or "problematic" is fucking dystopian, and yet it's exactly what Facebook's critics are calling for.
- hannasanarion 8y ago
  When is the last time a celebrity gossip magazine inspired multiple mass shootings? Surely it is not radical to expect Facebook's editorial algorithms, which by the way, are already changing the rank of material based on the effect it will have on readers, to draw some sort of line between "typical well sourced stuff from a well established and respected paper" and "some anonymous dude on the internet spins a tale of how the Democratic Party is actually a sex trafficking ring operating out of a pizza parlor". Every other media company is held responsible for the material they spread, and are expected to curate it with editors. Facebook thought they could let an algorithm be their editor, and it didn't work out so well. They fired their editorial staff for "breaking news" in August 2016, and the very next day, a fake story about "Ann Coulter outed as a socialist traitor!" was at the top of the list.
  - philwelch 8y ago
    > When is the last time a celebrity gossip magazine inspired multiple mass shootings? The news media does a damn fine job of that all by themselves: https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2016/08/media-contagion-effect.pdf https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2016/08/media-contag... Also, I mentioned candy bars for a reason. The leading cause of preventable death isn't mass shootings, it's obesity. And, while Facebook doesn't really have an incentive in inspiring mass shootings (unlike the mainstream media!), 7/11 has an incentive in inspiring you to drink a soda and eat a candy bar, and you're orders of magnitude more likely to eventually die from doing too much of that. > Surely it is not radical to expect Facebook's editorial algorithms, which by the way, are already changing the rank of material based on the effect it will have on readers, to draw some sort of line between "typical well sourced stuff from a well established and respected paper" and "some anonymous dude on the internet spins a tale of how the Democratic Party is actually a sex trafficking ring operating out of a pizza parlor". Anonymous dudes spinning tales on the internet make for engaging content that a lot of people want to read. Conspiracy theories are a time-honored tradition ever since the CIA had Kennedy assassinated because he was going to reveal the truth about the alien spacecraft that crashed at Roswell and was being held at Area 51. Everyone knows that. Setting aside the obvious nutjobs, you're literally calling for Facebook to enforce an oligopoly of "well established and respected papers" by making it harder for independent journalists and bloggers to get their message out. Or, at the very least, you're expressing an unwarranted level of faith in Facebook's ability to distinguish normal bloggers from nutjobs. Especially when you and I both know that the words "nutjob" and "conspiracy theorist" will be defined and used in ways that are equivalent in meaning to the words "dissident" and "whistleblower". > Every other media company is held responsible for the material they spread, and are expected to curate it with editors. When I go to Facebook, the only "material" I see is from other Facebook users whom I follow and from advertisers. It's bad enough that Facebook ranks this stuff with their "special sauce", but if they "curate" my feed by making "editorial decisions", they have stepped out of their lane. If I want to follow someone on Facebook, I want to see what they post. I don't want Facebook hiding it from me because they don't agree with who I follow, or with what the people I follow choose to share.

ams6110 8y ago

All administrations want to censor the press, or more generally speech, that they find inconvenient.