7 ms·

Clip shows misinformation still has a home on Facebook

47 points by ghobs91 7y ago

josteink 7y ago
But being opposed to the radical San Francisco left-wing extremist policies are more than enough to get banned. Gotcha.
p0cc 7y ago
"a lie will fly around the whole world while the truth is getting its boots on" - misattributed to Mark Twain, 1921
kodablah 7y ago
Geez, is this an op-ed or news? The article goes on and on about it being too late, energizing lies, human instinct, blah blah. It's clearly written to encourage censorship yet it's at a /news URL written by someone with the title of "reporter". Gross.
- bqqyz 7y ago
  It's the BBC, they are not known for their quality.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
ekianjo 7y ago
> Misrepresented occurrences such as this are used to energise lies that have bubbled around in the far reaches of the internet for a while, waiting for their moment. You don't need to wait for the Internet, most large media groups are propaganda tools for their own political side. No need to do any "deep fake", "selective editing" is all that's needed to take things out of context and publish a different narrative based on what you want to portray. Now the question is, what do we do about propaganda, regardless of the medium?
- golemotron 7y ago
  And what do we do about propaganda that we don't see as propaganda because it reinforces our view of the world. "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" translates to "one person's information is another person's propaganda."
  - ekianjo 7y ago
    It's an insolvable problem, I think, and censorship is certainly not the right way to approach it. I may be wrong, but I believe a combination of 1) severe distrust of any form of media, 2) a healthy dose of criticism, 3) a wide range of sources of information, can somewhat help to reduce the issue. 1) and 2) require proper education, and 3) is about having a healthy journalistic landscape (i.e. lots of viewpoints and many ways to exchange them).
    - egman_ekki 7y ago
      How do you suppose one should function, if one approaches every single sentence of every published news (which I think includes research as well) as being possibly untrue (which, I assume, is what's meant by severe distrust)? If there are no credible sources, how can you know anything about this world with any degree of certainty, then?
      - iamnothere 7y ago
        It is an extraordinarily difficult problem. I have taken to reading a large number of individual sources, identifying the more trustworthy ones over time, and trusting primarily those sources. When one of them shifts to publishing propaganda (it is often a sudden unexplainable shift) then I write them off and remove them from my feed. Often I'll discover new sources through the networks of trusted sources. This is very inefficient and I wish there were a better way to do it. It's not a perfect system, but it works well enough for me. You used to be able to trust media institutions, as long as you knew their biases, but even basic facts are in question now and a great deal of so-called news is completely factless. (Headline: "Why politician X might be doing something illegal, maybe" with of course no facts to back up the supposition) Media is flailing around searching for a sustainable business model, but it isn't working yet. Until they find something, I think we're stuck with bought-and-paid-for propaganda.
Browun 7y ago
> In other words, we allow people to post it as a form of expression, but we’re not going to show it at the top of News Feed. So back to the mantra of, "trust us, we'll show you what you need to know"? I thought that was exactly the attitude that got them in to this mess in the first place?!?
bqqyz 7y ago
I think it's not Facebook's responsibility to censor stuff on that's posted in their network but still: Whoever receives and watches this video on Facebook is engaged in right-wing groups/pages/circles and was unlikely to vote for Pelosi anyway. (I'm not American so I don't know who she is, I guess the continuation of Clinton?)
- asveikau 7y ago
  > (I'm not American so I don't know who she is, I guess the continuation of Clinton?) She has represented San Francisco in the US congress since the late 80s, and has been in national democratic congressional leadership for about 20 years, so, legislative rather than executive. For that same 20ish years Republicans have been trying to use her as a symbol of vilification in various media or campaign material, in my opinion it's all very over the top.
  - umvi 7y ago
    > For that same 20ish years Republicans have been trying to use her as a symbol of vilification in various media or campaign material, in my opinion it's all very over the top. Both sides are guilty of smear campaigns. One little flub or gaffe and a video taking it out of context will start circulating. Just go to /r/politics if you want examples of the left smearing the right
    - asveikau 7y ago
      Can you give an example that's on the scale of Pelosi? Trying to take myself away from my own biases, perhaps you can say Trump but coming from the executive branch you could say he's not that comparable, also people on both sides have called him outrageous. More direct comparisons would be Paul Ryan, Boehner, Newt Gingrich. I didn't see them getting Pelosi-scale smearing.
      - Mary-Jane 7y ago
        You mean something like "If you like your health care plan you can keep it"? ...or how about the "anti-muslim video that spurned spontaneous protests" across the middle east? In any event, by and large, most doctoring / half-truths are initiated by major news sources, and the majority of these defame Republicans and/or Republican ideals. It would be redundant for democratic politicians to get involved.
nemild 7y ago
For more context, see this piece by Renee DiResta highlighting the difference between free speech and free reach (previously, there was little distinction between the two at Facebook): https://www.wired.com/story/free-speech-is-not-the-same-as-free-reach/ https://www.wired.com/story/free-speech-is-not-the-same-as-f...
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

47 points by ghobs91 7y ago

josteink 7y ago

But being opposed to the radical San Francisco left-wing extremist policies are more than enough to get banned. Gotcha.

p0cc 7y ago

"a lie will fly around the whole world while the truth is getting its boots on" - misattributed to Mark Twain, 1921

kodablah 7y ago

Geez, is this an op-ed or news? The article goes on and on about it being too late, energizing lies, human instinct, blah blah. It's clearly written to encourage censorship yet it's at a /news URL written by someone with the title of "reporter". Gross.

bqqyz 7y ago
It's the BBC, they are not known for their quality.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

ekianjo 7y ago

> Misrepresented occurrences such as this are used to energise lies that have bubbled around in the far reaches of the internet for a while, waiting for their moment. You don't need to wait for the Internet, most large media groups are propaganda tools for their own political side. No need to do any "deep fake", "selective editing" is all that's needed to take things out of context and publish a different narrative based on what you want to portray. Now the question is, what do we do about propaganda, regardless of the medium?

golemotron 7y ago
And what do we do about propaganda that we don't see as propaganda because it reinforces our view of the world. "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" translates to "one person's information is another person's propaganda."
- ekianjo 7y ago
  It's an insolvable problem, I think, and censorship is certainly not the right way to approach it. I may be wrong, but I believe a combination of 1) severe distrust of any form of media, 2) a healthy dose of criticism, 3) a wide range of sources of information, can somewhat help to reduce the issue. 1) and 2) require proper education, and 3) is about having a healthy journalistic landscape (i.e. lots of viewpoints and many ways to exchange them).
  - egman_ekki 7y ago
    How do you suppose one should function, if one approaches every single sentence of every published news (which I think includes research as well) as being possibly untrue (which, I assume, is what's meant by severe distrust)? If there are no credible sources, how can you know anything about this world with any degree of certainty, then?
    - iamnothere 7y ago
      It is an extraordinarily difficult problem. I have taken to reading a large number of individual sources, identifying the more trustworthy ones over time, and trusting primarily those sources. When one of them shifts to publishing propaganda (it is often a sudden unexplainable shift) then I write them off and remove them from my feed. Often I'll discover new sources through the networks of trusted sources. This is very inefficient and I wish there were a better way to do it. It's not a perfect system, but it works well enough for me. You used to be able to trust media institutions, as long as you knew their biases, but even basic facts are in question now and a great deal of so-called news is completely factless. (Headline: "Why politician X might be doing something illegal, maybe" with of course no facts to back up the supposition) Media is flailing around searching for a sustainable business model, but it isn't working yet. Until they find something, I think we're stuck with bought-and-paid-for propaganda.

Browun 7y ago

> In other words, we allow people to post it as a form of expression, but we’re not going to show it at the top of News Feed. So back to the mantra of, "trust us, we'll show you what you need to know"? I thought that was exactly the attitude that got them in to this mess in the first place?!?

bqqyz 7y ago

I think it's not Facebook's responsibility to censor stuff on that's posted in their network but still: Whoever receives and watches this video on Facebook is engaged in right-wing groups/pages/circles and was unlikely to vote for Pelosi anyway. (I'm not American so I don't know who she is, I guess the continuation of Clinton?)

asveikau 7y ago
> (I'm not American so I don't know who she is, I guess the continuation of Clinton?) She has represented San Francisco in the US congress since the late 80s, and has been in national democratic congressional leadership for about 20 years, so, legislative rather than executive. For that same 20ish years Republicans have been trying to use her as a symbol of vilification in various media or campaign material, in my opinion it's all very over the top.
- umvi 7y ago
  > For that same 20ish years Republicans have been trying to use her as a symbol of vilification in various media or campaign material, in my opinion it's all very over the top. Both sides are guilty of smear campaigns. One little flub or gaffe and a video taking it out of context will start circulating. Just go to /r/politics if you want examples of the left smearing the right
  - asveikau 7y ago
    Can you give an example that's on the scale of Pelosi? Trying to take myself away from my own biases, perhaps you can say Trump but coming from the executive branch you could say he's not that comparable, also people on both sides have called him outrageous. More direct comparisons would be Paul Ryan, Boehner, Newt Gingrich. I didn't see them getting Pelosi-scale smearing.
    - Mary-Jane 7y ago
      You mean something like "If you like your health care plan you can keep it"? ...or how about the "anti-muslim video that spurned spontaneous protests" across the middle east? In any event, by and large, most doctoring / half-truths are initiated by major news sources, and the majority of these defame Republicans and/or Republican ideals. It would be redundant for democratic politicians to get involved.

nemild 7y ago

For more context, see this piece by Renee DiResta highlighting the difference between free speech and free reach (previously, there was little distinction between the two at Facebook): https://www.wired.com/story/free-speech-is-not-the-same-as-free-reach/ https://www.wired.com/story/free-speech-is-not-the-same-as-f...

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]