2 ms·
By calling it “coordinated inauthentic behavior” FB is themselves being inauthentic. Authentic would be to describe actually what it is and what the problem is
by prewett 8y ago
By calling it “coordinated inauthentic behavior” FB is themselves being inauthentic. Authentic would be to describe actually what it is and what the problem is. Is the problem that it was coordinated? That it was not true to the poster’s personal belief (inauthentic)? Not actually true assertions (not authentic)? Maybe the behavior is the problem? Or some combination? So if the Russian state clearly put out content saying “This is Russia and we think you should vote for X” is that okay (coordinated authentic behavior)? What about all the “CIB” originating from inside the US? Or, how about FB’s own “CIB”, like the link in question?
- repolfx 8y agoI don't understand their claim it was inauthentic either. Their writeup says the pages claimed to be independent, but were actually linked to employees of Sputnik News. OK, but all the screenshots they showed (in the first batch) had the word "sputnik news" in the URL. That doesn't look very surreptitious to me, let alone inauthentic. If Sputnik employees are linking to stories they worked on or their employer published, how is that different to journalists tweeting stories from their news outlets on their personal Twitter accounts? Is there some formal rule now that all employees of news agencies have to loudly identify themselves as such before re-sharing content from their employer? If so, where did Facebook announce that? The odd way Facebook are describing this action also makes me wonder about their claim the accounts were "linked to" employees of Sputnik. What does that mean exactly? Not owned, if they were owned presumably Facebook would have said so. Rather they are "linked to". This could mean many things.