4 ms·

This has came up in my conversations with friends who work at Facebook and they always seem to use some internal talking points about creating a "Ministry of tr

by Bhilai 7y ago

This has came up in my conversations with friends who work at Facebook and they always seem to use some internal talking points about creating a "Ministry of truth" type of situation. They argue that Facebook cannot (or should not) be the arbitrator of truth. My answer to them is very simple, if you want to be a (social) media company then you have to take some (social) responsibility and not amplify falsehoods in an already charged environment. Corporate profits at the cost of ruining the society by spreading falsehoods should not be an acceptable norm.

knzhou 7y ago
And precisely who do you think should be appointed to head your “ministry of truth”? For example, I believe Facebook employees currently skew 90% Democrat. Should the committee seek out and add more Republicans in order to have a 50/50 split reflective of the nation, or is a 90/10 split okay? If so, how do you justify this to the other side?
- sangnoir 7y ago
  > And precisely who do you think should be appointed to head your “ministry of truth”? The FEC. If an ad can't be printed in a newspaper or shown on TV, it shouldn't be on FB.
  - bryan_w 7y ago
    Then you may be surprised to find out that most ads being discussed are allowed on TV: https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2019/oct/15/elizabeth-warren/phony-facebook-ad-warren-said-most-tv-networks-wil/ https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2019/oct...
  - the_watcher 7y ago
    Advertisements that are false, in many cases, are legally required to be aired on TV or in newspapers, for precisely the reason that there is a public interest in avoiding media outlets becoming arbiters of truth and restricting access to political speech. Those media outlets are free to fact check and run articles or programs challenging the content of the ads.
  - knzhou 7y ago
    We've been through this same conversation with the FEC decades ago. They ended up with precisely the same compromise Facebook is implementing now.
  - chillacy 7y ago
    The ads that FB are showing were aired on TV. In fact those laws would say that FB legally cannot apply fact checking. Maybe take it up with the FEC?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- diffeomorphism 7y ago
  > For example, I believe Facebook employees currently skew 90% Democrat. What is your belief based on?
  - knzhou 7y ago
    Numbers.
manfredo 7y ago
Facebook already bans ads that all for violence or try to intimiadate voters. That's taking some element of social responsibility. Gauging what is and isn't true is not a trivial task. Say a party runs an ad opposing nuclear power calling it dangerous and unsafe. The opposition phones into Facebook and complains about a factually incorrect ad, pointing to the fact that nuclear energy has inflicted much less harm per megawatt hour than most of not every other energy source. Should Facebook pull the ad for being false? Swap out nuclear for pretty much any other controversial opinion, like the effectiveness of busing or effects of taxation on the economy, and we can see that determining truth is a nigh impossible task. Making Facebook an arbiter or truth seems like a remedy that is worse than the illness.
- diogenescynic 7y ago
  We’re acting like this is a problem that effects both parties equally when it’s clearly not. Who are the Russian trollbots helping? Who denies climate change and climate science? Who routinely lies? It’s primarily one political party. So Facebook saying they don’t want to get involved is just to appease republicans and they even do things like add Breitbart to the “quality news” tab... they’re clearly not doing all his to be impartial or neutral—-it’s purely to appease republicans who have to lie and deceive voters or else they’d lose.
  - manfredo 7y ago
    > Who are the Russian trollbots helping? Russian interference was both pro and against both parties - most estimates put them at 50-60% in favor of the right and 40-50% in favor of the left. They're not helping anyone, they're trying to sow discord wherever they can. > Who denies climate change and climate science? I regularly see people claiming that if no action is taken in the next 12 years humanity will go extinct. This runs contrary to mainstream climate science. > Who routinely lies? I think I've demonstrated why this is problematic for Facebook to determine.
    - diogenescynic 7y ago
      Bullcrap false equivalency without any citation for those stats you pulled out of thin air. Russian trolls aren’t helping both sides... and when they help democrats or progressives it’s a stooge like Jill Stein or Tulsi Gabbard, to syphon off votes and help republicans. Russian trolls are primarily helping republicans because republicans are weak on foreign policy to Russia and a lot of Russian oligarchs have been giving money to Republicans. It’s clearly happening more on one side than the other, so again the false equivalence and whataboutism to try and paint both sides as the same doesn’t work. Putin is mad as hell about the Magnitisky act—passed by Obama—-in contrast to Moscow Mitch McConnnell and Trump who have repeatedly weakened sanctions on Russia and gone out of the way to aid Russian foreign interests—-no comparable enablement on the left... Denying climate science and being hyperbolic is also false equivalence. The only climate deniers in developed countries are republicans... it’s clearly an issue specific to them. One side is arguing the problem doesn’t exist and you’re acting like a a few extremists on twitter speak for the left. Again, not an intellectually honest or logically supported argument. You really have only demonstrated your own biased perspective and false equivalence and whataboutism that’s used to pretend like both sides are the same when one is clearly worse than the other. Go look how Trump and McConnell reduced sanctions on Russia and now a Russian oligarch connected to Putin is building a steel plant in Kentucky. The quid who pro is so obvious. Look at how Trump handed Syria to Putin on a platter... It’s so obvious Russia is helping republicans and not democrats, I can’t even comprehend how someone would think they’re helping both sides unless you’re just not getting beyond the conservative media bubble.

by Bhilai 7y ago

knzhou 7y ago

And precisely who do you think should be appointed to head your “ministry of truth”? For example, I believe Facebook employees currently skew 90% Democrat. Should the committee seek out and add more Republicans in order to have a 50/50 split reflective of the nation, or is a 90/10 split okay? If so, how do you justify this to the other side?

sangnoir 7y ago
> And precisely who do you think should be appointed to head your “ministry of truth”? The FEC. If an ad can't be printed in a newspaper or shown on TV, it shouldn't be on FB.
- bryan_w 7y ago
  Then you may be surprised to find out that most ads being discussed are allowed on TV: https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2019/oct/15/elizabeth-warren/phony-facebook-ad-warren-said-most-tv-networks-wil/ https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2019/oct...
- the_watcher 7y ago
  Advertisements that are false, in many cases, are legally required to be aired on TV or in newspapers, for precisely the reason that there is a public interest in avoiding media outlets becoming arbiters of truth and restricting access to political speech. Those media outlets are free to fact check and run articles or programs challenging the content of the ads.
- knzhou 7y ago
  We've been through this same conversation with the FEC decades ago. They ended up with precisely the same compromise Facebook is implementing now.
- chillacy 7y ago
  The ads that FB are showing were aired on TV. In fact those laws would say that FB legally cannot apply fact checking. Maybe take it up with the FEC?
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
diffeomorphism 7y ago
> For example, I believe Facebook employees currently skew 90% Democrat. What is your belief based on?
- knzhou 7y ago
  Numbers.

manfredo 7y ago

Facebook already bans ads that all for violence or try to intimiadate voters. That's taking some element of social responsibility. Gauging what is and isn't true is not a trivial task. Say a party runs an ad opposing nuclear power calling it dangerous and unsafe. The opposition phones into Facebook and complains about a factually incorrect ad, pointing to the fact that nuclear energy has inflicted much less harm per megawatt hour than most of not every other energy source. Should Facebook pull the ad for being false? Swap out nuclear for pretty much any other controversial opinion, like the effectiveness of busing or effects of taxation on the economy, and we can see that determining truth is a nigh impossible task. Making Facebook an arbiter or truth seems like a remedy that is worse than the illness.

diogenescynic 7y ago
We’re acting like this is a problem that effects both parties equally when it’s clearly not. Who are the Russian trollbots helping? Who denies climate change and climate science? Who routinely lies? It’s primarily one political party. So Facebook saying they don’t want to get involved is just to appease republicans and they even do things like add Breitbart to the “quality news” tab... they’re clearly not doing all his to be impartial or neutral—-it’s purely to appease republicans who have to lie and deceive voters or else they’d lose.
- manfredo 7y ago
  > Who are the Russian trollbots helping? Russian interference was both pro and against both parties - most estimates put them at 50-60% in favor of the right and 40-50% in favor of the left. They're not helping anyone, they're trying to sow discord wherever they can. > Who denies climate change and climate science? I regularly see people claiming that if no action is taken in the next 12 years humanity will go extinct. This runs contrary to mainstream climate science. > Who routinely lies? I think I've demonstrated why this is problematic for Facebook to determine.
  - diogenescynic 7y ago
    Bullcrap false equivalency without any citation for those stats you pulled out of thin air. Russian trolls aren’t helping both sides... and when they help democrats or progressives it’s a stooge like Jill Stein or Tulsi Gabbard, to syphon off votes and help republicans. Russian trolls are primarily helping republicans because republicans are weak on foreign policy to Russia and a lot of Russian oligarchs have been giving money to Republicans. It’s clearly happening more on one side than the other, so again the false equivalence and whataboutism to try and paint both sides as the same doesn’t work. Putin is mad as hell about the Magnitisky act—passed by Obama—-in contrast to Moscow Mitch McConnnell and Trump who have repeatedly weakened sanctions on Russia and gone out of the way to aid Russian foreign interests—-no comparable enablement on the left... Denying climate science and being hyperbolic is also false equivalence. The only climate deniers in developed countries are republicans... it’s clearly an issue specific to them. One side is arguing the problem doesn’t exist and you’re acting like a a few extremists on twitter speak for the left. Again, not an intellectually honest or logically supported argument. You really have only demonstrated your own biased perspective and false equivalence and whataboutism that’s used to pretend like both sides are the same when one is clearly worse than the other. Go look how Trump and McConnell reduced sanctions on Russia and now a Russian oligarch connected to Putin is building a steel plant in Kentucky. The quid who pro is so obvious. Look at how Trump handed Syria to Putin on a platter... It’s so obvious Russia is helping republicans and not democrats, I can’t even comprehend how someone would think they’re helping both sides unless you’re just not getting beyond the conservative media bubble.