4 ms·

There's no doubt that facebook done a lot of harm by leaking private information, but it's disingenous to call facebook 'disinformation machine' when people act

There's no doubt that facebook done a lot of harm by leaking private information, but it's disingenous to call facebook 'disinformation machine' when people actively chase and consume disinformation to satisfy their own bias. If they won't be able to find disinformation on facebook, they'll move to other echo chambers like reddit and continue to consume the same crap. To expect a substantial portion of population to suddenly gain the ability to think critically against their own bias is not realistic. Facebook is just a scapegoat in this regard.

rcruzeiro 7y ago
There will always be people who will go to the echo chamber platforms to consume their misinformation. This has happened ever since the beginning of the web. What has changed is that we now have huge platforms that can reach a ridiculously large number of people (Facebook, WhatsApp, etc) and these aren't regulated at all. The reach of this platforms is something that only a decade ago was possible only to big media (which tends to be somewhat regulated). We have seen people dying in India because of rumours spread on WhatsApp, a genocide was incited on Myanmar through Facebook, Facebook runs disinformation campaigns for politicians all over the world and earns big cash for it. I think disinformation machine or disinformation amplifier are correct terms to refer to Facebook.
- Aperocky 7y ago
  And how would you regulate user content without going into censorship akin to China? When arguably one of the biggest media in the United State is onboard on some of the dubious stuff spreading online.
  - throwaway2048 7y ago
    It wouldn't be difficult to construct a legal standard of "reasonably certain falsehood, presented as truth" (lets say, if a reasonable person took 5 minutes to research this, what would they conclude?) and then set a $500 fine per view in ads and news, and let the courts take care of it. Slander and libel already aren't protected speech, I fail to see why knowingly making false statements (especially maliciously, and especially in an automated, large scale systematic way) should be any different. You aren't protecting anyone's liberty here, the only thing you are doing is enabling abusive, destructive parties. Not everything is a slippery slope to 1984.
    - zaroth 7y ago
      The courts have taken care of it, back in 1964 with Times v. Sullivan. Limitations on freedom of political speech have to pass strict constitutional scrutiny, and a general standard of “truthfulness” would never fly. Even libel and slander laws are particular lax when it comes to public figures. When it comes to political speech in a campaign it only gets tighter. The standard is Actual Malice, and it’s harder to prove then you might think. If there’s one form of speech which is absolutely protected by the first amendment, it is controversial, venomous political rhetoric.
perl4ever 7y ago
Someone who is getting biased information can't logically be responsible for stepping outside of that context. It's a perfect example of pulling yourself up by your bootstraps.
- Aperocky 7y ago
  It's easy to not get biased information, comparing sources and actually _reading_ the source is not a very hard thing to do. But most people don't, and in this environment the titles are driven to be as click-baity as possible. We can't blame facebook for what content producer and content consumers are doing, or are you suggesting thorough censorship? It's easy to point finger and blame others for their failures without coming up with a solution.
  - chris11 7y ago
    Facebook does have a moral responsibility for what they spread though. FB encourages clickbait and puts people in their own walled garden based on what they want to see.
  - perl4ever 7y ago
    "It's easy to not get biased information" "Not getting biased information" sums up the entire history of human development, but particularly these fields come to mind: - Science and academic research - Business management - Military intelligence - Government administration - Artificial intelligence - Jurisprudence - Philosophy - Journalism - Statistics - Psychology I think the entirety of these fields is nontrivial. "are you suggesting thorough censorship?" Facebook is doing the censoring!! If they just showed you what your friends were posting in chronological order, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

rcruzeiro 7y ago

There will always be people who will go to the echo chamber platforms to consume their misinformation. This has happened ever since the beginning of the web. What has changed is that we now have huge platforms that can reach a ridiculously large number of people (Facebook, WhatsApp, etc) and these aren't regulated at all. The reach of this platforms is something that only a decade ago was possible only to big media (which tends to be somewhat regulated). We have seen people dying in India because of rumours spread on WhatsApp, a genocide was incited on Myanmar through Facebook, Facebook runs disinformation campaigns for politicians all over the world and earns big cash for it. I think disinformation machine or disinformation amplifier are correct terms to refer to Facebook.

Aperocky 7y ago
And how would you regulate user content without going into censorship akin to China? When arguably one of the biggest media in the United State is onboard on some of the dubious stuff spreading online.
- throwaway2048 7y ago
  It wouldn't be difficult to construct a legal standard of "reasonably certain falsehood, presented as truth" (lets say, if a reasonable person took 5 minutes to research this, what would they conclude?) and then set a $500 fine per view in ads and news, and let the courts take care of it. Slander and libel already aren't protected speech, I fail to see why knowingly making false statements (especially maliciously, and especially in an automated, large scale systematic way) should be any different. You aren't protecting anyone's liberty here, the only thing you are doing is enabling abusive, destructive parties. Not everything is a slippery slope to 1984.
  - zaroth 7y ago
    The courts have taken care of it, back in 1964 with Times v. Sullivan. Limitations on freedom of political speech have to pass strict constitutional scrutiny, and a general standard of “truthfulness” would never fly. Even libel and slander laws are particular lax when it comes to public figures. When it comes to political speech in a campaign it only gets tighter. The standard is Actual Malice, and it’s harder to prove then you might think. If there’s one form of speech which is absolutely protected by the first amendment, it is controversial, venomous political rhetoric.

perl4ever 7y ago

Someone who is getting biased information can't logically be responsible for stepping outside of that context. It's a perfect example of pulling yourself up by your bootstraps.

Aperocky 7y ago
It's easy to not get biased information, comparing sources and actually _reading_ the source is not a very hard thing to do. But most people don't, and in this environment the titles are driven to be as click-baity as possible. We can't blame facebook for what content producer and content consumers are doing, or are you suggesting thorough censorship? It's easy to point finger and blame others for their failures without coming up with a solution.
- chris11 7y ago
  Facebook does have a moral responsibility for what they spread though. FB encourages clickbait and puts people in their own walled garden based on what they want to see.
- perl4ever 7y ago
  "It's easy to not get biased information" "Not getting biased information" sums up the entire history of human development, but particularly these fields come to mind: - Science and academic research - Business management - Military intelligence - Government administration - Artificial intelligence - Jurisprudence - Philosophy - Journalism - Statistics - Psychology I think the entirety of these fields is nontrivial. "are you suggesting thorough censorship?" Facebook is doing the censoring!! If they just showed you what your friends were posting in chronological order, we wouldn't be having this discussion.