5 ms·

I actually don't want Facebook removing 'fake news.' There are, of course, some obvious examples of fake things spreading around. But what about the less obviou

I actually don't want Facebook removing 'fake news.' There are, of course, some obvious examples of fake things spreading around. But what about the less obvious examples? Where do we draw the line? Social media companies should not be the arbiters of truth. I don't want Facebook or Google deciding for us what truth is. If the speech is illegal, like defamation or direct calls to violence, it should be taken down. Other than that, falsehood should be countered with truth rather than removal. If you look at Fox News vs CNN, you'll see completely different versions of 'truth'. Any 'fact' these days can be labeled as fake news or a conspiracy theory. Both sides are doing it. But it would be far worse if there were only one version rather than two.

georgeecollins 7y ago
>> There are, of course, some obvious examples of fake things spreading around. But what about the less obvious examples? Where do we draw the line? Broadcast Television dealt with this issue for decades. You can say they made mistakes, but they did a pretty good job for a long time. Someone will say, but there is too much material on Facebook (or Youtube or etc) to exert that kind of editorial control. Fine. Only check (and take responsibility for) things you promote into my feed. If someone I know wants to send me a crazy video or message, that is free speech. If Twitter, Youtube, Facebook puts information into my feed I didn't ask for, they should take responsibility for it.
throwthisaway2 7y ago
You dont but they do. They want power. They want to be the authority.
RandallBrown 7y ago
I don't think Facebook removes fake news, they just post a little disclaimer next to it saying that the article has been shown to be incorrect by a fact checker.
- brlewis 7y ago
  From the article, "its policy is to alert users that the story has been debunked and to limit its spread via the News Feed algorithm"
  - tropo 7y ago
    Unfortunately "debunked" is typically untrue. The fast and easy way to suppress inconvenient facts is to claim that they have been debunked. It's just more information warfare.
zionic 7y ago
This is the only viable way forward. They need go back to being a dumb platform, just like ISPs are dumb pipes.
- root_axis 7y ago
  Why? What if a technology company wants to build a website that caters to a certain value system? Why should they not be allowed to do that?
  - CaptainZapp 7y ago
    Because they insist of having it both ways. Whenever it's convenient to them they claim to be dump pipes. But this is only valid until it comes to maximize profits. Then suddenly they are (heavy handed) editors.
    - root_axis 7y ago
      > Whenever it's convenient to them they claim to be dump pipes Can you provide an example of Facebook ever claiming they are just "dumb pipes" and how that claim had any material impact on their business? Are you suggesting Facebook is potentially guilty of false advertising?
      - insickness 7y ago
        Is Facebook a publisher? In public it says no, but in court it says yes https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/02/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-platform-publisher-lawsuit https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/02/facebook-...
        root_axis 7y ago
        So what? "Publisher" has no legal meaning in the context of a website, so who cares what they say they are?
CaptainZapp 7y ago
Social media companies should not be the arbiters of truth. I don't want Facebook or Google deciding for us what truth is. OK, fine. But then they need to completely stop editorializing and remove all algorithmic treatment and active censorship of posts, news and ads. As long they're not doing that they are editorializing and are not a dumb pipe. Something they very much like to claim, when it's convenient to them. I see this huge hypocracy with tech companies in general and deem it completely unacceptable. You just can't have it both ways and being logically conistent with your arguments at the same time. And that's exactly what they're trying to do.

georgeecollins 7y ago

>> There are, of course, some obvious examples of fake things spreading around. But what about the less obvious examples? Where do we draw the line? Broadcast Television dealt with this issue for decades. You can say they made mistakes, but they did a pretty good job for a long time. Someone will say, but there is too much material on Facebook (or Youtube or etc) to exert that kind of editorial control. Fine. Only check (and take responsibility for) things you promote into my feed. If someone I know wants to send me a crazy video or message, that is free speech. If Twitter, Youtube, Facebook puts information into my feed I didn't ask for, they should take responsibility for it.

throwthisaway2 7y ago

You dont but they do. They want power. They want to be the authority.

RandallBrown 7y ago

I don't think Facebook removes fake news, they just post a little disclaimer next to it saying that the article has been shown to be incorrect by a fact checker.

brlewis 7y ago
From the article, "its policy is to alert users that the story has been debunked and to limit its spread via the News Feed algorithm"
- tropo 7y ago
  Unfortunately "debunked" is typically untrue. The fast and easy way to suppress inconvenient facts is to claim that they have been debunked. It's just more information warfare.

zionic 7y ago

This is the only viable way forward. They need go back to being a dumb platform, just like ISPs are dumb pipes.

root_axis 7y ago
Why? What if a technology company wants to build a website that caters to a certain value system? Why should they not be allowed to do that?
- CaptainZapp 7y ago
  Because they insist of having it both ways. Whenever it's convenient to them they claim to be dump pipes. But this is only valid until it comes to maximize profits. Then suddenly they are (heavy handed) editors.
  - root_axis 7y ago
    > Whenever it's convenient to them they claim to be dump pipes Can you provide an example of Facebook ever claiming they are just "dumb pipes" and how that claim had any material impact on their business? Are you suggesting Facebook is potentially guilty of false advertising?
    - insickness 7y ago
      Is Facebook a publisher? In public it says no, but in court it says yes https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/02/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-platform-publisher-lawsuit https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/02/facebook-...
      - root_axis 7y ago
        So what? "Publisher" has no legal meaning in the context of a website, so who cares what they say they are?

CaptainZapp 7y ago

Social media companies should not be the arbiters of truth. I don't want Facebook or Google deciding for us what truth is. OK, fine. But then they need to completely stop editorializing and remove all algorithmic treatment and active censorship of posts, news and ads. As long they're not doing that they are editorializing and are not a dumb pipe. Something they very much like to claim, when it's convenient to them. I see this huge hypocracy with tech companies in general and deem it completely unacceptable. You just can't have it both ways and being logically conistent with your arguments at the same time. And that's exactly what they're trying to do.