9 ms·

Facebook relaxed misinformation rules for conservative pages

131 points by chanfest22 6y ago

williesleg 6y ago
Easy solution. Just post the country of origin for all posts and comments. All platforms. Problem solved.
mikenew 6y ago
This whole thing is just insane. Facebook, as a platform, has enabled mass amounts of misinformation, hatred, and groupthink, to the point of becoming a serious concern for our democracy. It is fundamentally designed into the platform to give more exposure to provocative, polarizing content. And somehow, people think the solution to this problem is to give Facebook the explicit job of deciding what is true and what is not. The answer to the problem is simple. Facebook should not exist. This is a service that handles a significant percentage of the information flow in the world, and yet it's fundamental goal is to optimize for ad spending. Which means it needs to keep people using it as much as possible and as engaged as possible. Your text messaging service doesn't care if you use it or not, and it doesn't care what information to send or receive from other people. Facebook uses everything at it's disposal to keep you addicted to it, and that comes at the cost of being a balanced, thoughtful way of communicating. The model is broken and it is not going to be fixed.
- zolosa 6y ago
  Yes, in the developing world it is the source of most of the hate campaign. It was okay when we could just see our friends activities now it's just a hate wagon
  - mikenew 6y ago
    It was good early on. So was Instagram. I think the beginning of the downfall was the like button for Facebook and the heart for Instagram. Once you introduce a voting system that determines what gets exposure and what gets buried, it seems like the inevitable outcome is that the garbage floats to the top. Especially as things scale to include huge groups of people.
    - mrjake 6y ago
      I think with Facebook there's another problem of "you may not be in the huge group of people", and you may not be even aware of the particular floating garbage. Not only you only are fed with the garbage from your social group, but also are basically deprived of the other groups' views.
  - luckylion 6y ago
    Is it the source of hate campaigns though? Or is it the medium the hate campaigns are using to spread their message? Because I believe it's the latter, and if you ban it, the hate campaigns don't vanish, they just start using other mediums.
    - mcgt 6y ago
      >Because I believe it's the latter, and if you ban it, the hate campaigns don't vanish, they just start using other mediums. While true that it may not be a source per se, Facebook enables those ideas whereas they would normally (at least, in the past) be relegated to the darkest corners of the web. Take QAnon for example. The source is 8kun, which is accessible only through Tor and consisting of incel and white supremacist communities. Do you think the majority of people posting this material are getting it from the source in this case?
      - luckylion 6y ago
        I believe that they use Facebook because it's easy to use, not because it's the only available option outside the dark web. That is to say if Facebook removed them, they'd switch to some other platform. Might slow them down (won't have FB's built-in audience), but not nearly as much as only being available on the dark web. Hate campaigns worked pre-internet, and they'll still work post-FB. Maybe not as efficient, but I don't think efficiency is the limiting problem there.
    - zarkov99 6y ago
      True, but those other mediums would not work quite as well, so we would likely be better off.
- james412 6y ago
  Replace "Facebook" with "the Internet" and this whole statement still reads correctly
- threatofrain 6y ago
  Facebook at its core is a green list of people or voices you approve of. Any misinformation, hatred, or groupthink... is coming from the world you approve. And with regards to groupthink, there is surely some basic level of personal burden arising from the freedom of association.
  - mikenew 6y ago
    It doesn't matter. You can argue that "people shouldn't fall prey to groupthink" and I'd agree with you. But they do. We're talking about a group of 2.6 billion people, not an individual. On average, people are a product of their environment. And the environment, in this case, is a bad one. It promotes all the wrong things and the incentives are in all the wrong places.
    - kmlx 6y ago
      the "environment" is in fact our society. you assume the cause is facebook, when in fact facebook is the effect of a sick society. but, facebook does help in bringing to light our abysmal failure in building society.
      - Joeri 6y ago
        It is a circle. Society influences facebook, facebook feeds back into society. For example, I’m convinced facebook’s amplification of pro-brexit and pro-trump messages in those campaigns was instrumental in their victory. No facebook, no president trump. I’ve also seen how facebook turned my sister into an anti-vaxxer. In essence you can look at facebook as a platform for information warfare. It tends to amplify lies, and some forces are more able to exploit that.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        kukx 6y ago
        It is your sister. You probably talk to her. Try convincing her. If you fail, is the Facebook to be blamed? I do not think so.
- underwater 6y ago
  If Facebook goes away another service takes it place. That's the nature of capitalism. Unless the concept of social media is explicitly outlawed then how does that solve anything?
- cm2187 6y ago
  What you say of its fundamental goal can be said of any other newspaper or any source of information.
  - meowface 6y ago
    Exactly. For-profit social media and news media are both chock-full of perverse incentives. The only solution I can think of is to somehow promote the use of non-profit providers, but I know of no good/usable ones in either case. For news, there are individual, independent bloggers, and for social media there are closed chat groups or something, but that's about it.
    - sytelus 6y ago
      That's not the solution at all. Many of current media like Breitbart/Fox as well CNN/MSNBC leverage a fundamental bug in human psyche: emotional and shocking content keeps our attention! So these media try to hype/spice/misinform as long as it gets attention. You cannot counteract it by non-profits providing boring news. I don't know if there is any solution at all. I expect both sides to maximize spiced up news delivery for maximal attention and devotee base. At equilibrium, we may have these equally weighted strong groups which may randomly win election by small margin each time. This might not be too bad because over longer term all decisions and laws would be averaged out over two opposing philosophies resulting in overall centrist and balanced system.
      - meowface 6y ago
        It'd certainly be a start if there were at least some good alternatives for people to use. It wouldn't solve the problem, but at least there'd be an opening for norms and viewing habits to change a little.
  - tsbinz 6y ago
    No, a traditional newspaper optimizes for number of subscribers/readers, not for time spent reading the newspaper. It's online ads that change the equation.
- null_deref 6y ago
  I agree with your line of thinking, but on what law can we base the notation that a platform that designed to give more exposure to provocative and polarizing content shouldn't exist?
  - zarkov99 6y ago
    You could use the same tactics that were used to discourage smoking: forbid it for minors, force them to display a "health" warning banner, start a public health campaign shaming people for using it, etc.
  - ithkuil 6y ago
    Shower thought: we've been (some countries more some less, some earlier some later) in a collective physical lockdown which was challenging to deal with but most people coped with it just fine. Surely, technology helped we had our entertainment and we managed to maintain some social bonds with friends and family via video. What if we engineer an "information lockdown"? Three months of no internet, no TV, only word of mouth communication of official billboards at the local level. Would we cope with that just fine? Would it help us learn somethings about us and learn to appreciate things, as the physical lock down has done for some things (like cooking, time with family, etc)
  - ethanbond 6y ago
    They could give them anything more than minuscule slaps on the wrist for their long list of transgressions: 1. Anti competitive behavior 2. Advertising fraud (incredible how frequently their view/click counters are found to have bugs which consistently benefit FB) 3. Privacy violations (shadow profiles esp for minors) There are dozens of bases upon which Facebook can be punished for being a horrendous contribution to society.
- amachefe 6y ago
  This is equivalent to saying the world is full of evil and pain, the world should not exist. I don't understand why you think the world was better before Facebook and you definitely don't have the proof
  - bamboozled 6y ago
    Except, Facebook is nothing like the world. I'm legitimately concerned Americans don't realize how incredibly perfect Facebook is for hijacking the democratic process. It's actually frightening to watch how it's being used. Yes it's affecting all countries and democracies but looking at where America was pre 2016 to now, it's really quite tragic.
    - splintercell 6y ago
      this makes very little sense to me, when I first came to America I could hear conservatives constantly complaining that the media has a very heavy liberal bias. Media constantly denied it obviously. Now with Facebook and social networks conservatives have their own information distribution system which cannot be controlled by the mainstream media, so the obvious criticism is "hijacking of the democratic process".
      - bamboozled 6y ago
        Think about it though, you can build a network with fake accounts or even just through a concerted effort to to do and spread disinformation, conspiracy theories and hate, polarise a nation and influence elections. It’s social networks weaponised and it’s absolutely beautiful by design, convenient, free and here is the real kicker? It’s completely legal and largely unregulated !!! By the way, I’m not on either political side here but are you trying to say I’m sticking up for republicans ?
- techdragon 6y ago
  You almost have it. It’s not fundamentally Facebook that is broken. It’s the “curated feed”... by becoming responsible for what users see they become responsible for the effects of this curation. In the old-old days when the “feed” was just stuff from the people you deliberately added yourself. Yes there was garbage but it wasn’t spread around algorithmically in order to help increase Facebook engagement and therefore their revenues. This was why I was so disappointed when Twitter switched the default page to the global algorithmically curated feed. The change from deliberate control by users saying “I want more of this” over to automatic and algorithmically driven control where the platform begins saying “we think you’ll like this, that, and a bunch of this extra thing because other people also like it” is the crossing of the rubicon. Once on the other side they are now undeniably responsible for the results.
- dustingetz 6y ago
  facebook is the state, try and stop it. we’ve been conquered. why should government be constrained by geography in the digital era?
- codyswann 6y ago
  Facebook, like a knife, is a tool. And like most tools, humans will find the most destructive way to use a tool.
- wdr1 6y ago
  > Facebook, as a platform, has enabled mass amounts of misinformation, hatred, and groupthink, to the point of becoming a serious concern for our democracy I don't disagree, but I've wondered why that doesn't lead to people using it less? One thing I've noticed is people care a lot less about misinformation favorable to their point of view. I've only see people angry about it against their perspective. Another observation is that people get upset about the most egregious & outrageous lies. I've actually wondered how dangerous those are. Someone willing to believe Obama wasn't born in the United States probably was going to vote against him no matter what. They've made up their mind & are just looking to now justify their decision. I think the more dangerous points are things that are right on the line of truth/fiction.
peteretep 6y ago
I can't see history being especially kind to Mark Zuckerberg.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago
  The thing is, history is written by the winners. Depending on which side wins ultimately wins the cultural and political battle, I could see future school children learning in history class how Mark Zuckerberg was a hero for standing virtually alone for the principles of free speech when all the other big media and big tech companies sought to censor conservative voices. If the other side wins, then Mark Zuckerberg will be vilified as an ally of the horrible, racist alt-right. History, and how history views stuff is not a passive thing, but an active thing based on winners and losers.
  - tsimionescu 6y ago
    This is an old trope, and only half true. You only have to look at the Bible to see that some figures who absolutely won in their lifetimes and for many years afterwards can nevertheless ultimately be remembered as demons - King Herod and Pontius Pilate being good examples here.
    - Svip 6y ago
      I thought the trope 'history is written by winners' is not just that the winners of the time when it happened, but more importantly the 'winners' (i.e. rulers) of the time when the story is being told. Our perception of history change, because the powers that be (i.e. the winners) change.
    - fiblye 6y ago
      And Rome became a Christian empire and the story that remained was what we know today.
- osrec 6y ago
  I agree with you in the long term, but in the short term, it will be quite the opposite, given the level of control his platform currently enjoys.
0xy 6y ago
>Facebook's fact-checking rules dictate that pages can have their reach and advertising limited on the platform if they repeatedly spread information deemed inaccurate by its fact-checking partners. "fact-checking partners" such as BuzzFeed (no, really!), partisan Politifact, hyper-partisan Vox and the Washington Post.
- peteretep 6y ago
  Do you have some examples of where you don't agree with the fact-checking services of any of the sources you've shared?
  - 0xy 6y ago
    Sure, a notable recent example is Politifact labeling Biden's comments that busing would turn schools into a "racial jungle" as "half true", even though the statement was actually stated by him and is on record. [1] There's an entire website dedicated to their bias. [2] Another obvious point of bias was Politifact labeling a statement by Trump that "CNN did a poll where Obama and I are tied" as "pants on fire" because it was "one poll" (he never stated otherwise). [3] [1] https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/tim-graham/2020/07/10/politifact-nervously-tries-add-context-bidens-old-racial-jungle https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/tim-graham/2020/07/10/p... [2] https://www.politifactbias.com/ https://www.politifactbias.com/ [3] https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2011/apr/27/donald-trump/trump-says-recent-cnn-poll-shows-him-competitive-c/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2011/apr/27/donald-tru...
    - viraptor 6y ago
      The way I understand it, they object to the "CNN did a poll" part. There's one poll that exists with a close result, but it's not a CNN poll. It means we don't even know if he got lucky with a lie, or did he know about that poll and made a mistake about the source. (Fwiw, I agree it's not a pants on fire situation. (Mostly) false, sure.)
    - mhh__ 6y ago
      > [3] From 2011, is that the best you have?
mnm1 6y ago
I'm not surprised that Facebook is biased towards conservatives. That's the only way that kind of information could spread. If it was penalized, almost all that information would be removed. It's just conspiracy theories and lies. Doesn't bode well for the election that they are doing this right before, clearly to influence and spread the misinformation. Yes, they just want their ad dollars at the expense of the entire society. Hopefully they'll be broken up at some point before they drive a wedge through our society. I doubt other social media has a better track record.
cblconfederate 6y ago
i really love to watch tech companies being forced to dance the censorship dance. Yeah, that s how it works, when you join the dance, you dance
golemiprague 6y ago
Should remove any intervention in content unless it is against the law. It is not their job and they are not capable to decide what is misinformation and what is not. In most cases it is more a matter of opinion than facts and even facts are not that clear always. Just let people put what they want and decide what they believe and what not.
dandare 6y ago
I hate when words drift in meaning and I am not happy to see the "conservatism" label being used with clearly alt-right media. I would go as far as argue that the GOP does not not represent conservative values any more and the party is Conservative in name only. (Likewise I hate it when socialism is labeled as liberalism in the US, or when cronyism and corruption are labeled as capitalism.)
- pas 6y ago
  These labels were never really defined anyway. Yes, I hate it too, just like "left", "right", "democracy" (is North Korea a democracy? they have elections! turnout is 100%, anyone can run for office! they even have 3 parties and independents too! yaay!) But at the same time it's the "no true scotsman" if we say that the moment some Conservative (or conservative?) says something dumb they stop being true Conservatives.
  - dandare 6y ago
    Those are very good points.
- amanaplanacanal 6y ago
  You probably need to say “traditional conservative” or something like that to get at what you are talking about. What you see is what conservatism is now. Unfortunately.
- rgoulter 6y ago
  "I hate when words drift in meaning" John McWhorter discusses this as an inevitability with language. (Indeed, he wrote a book with title / subtitle "Words on the Move: Why English Won't - and Can't - Sit Still (Like, Literally)"). He discusses various examples of this happening, both in political and non-political contexts. His suggestion is to just accept it, and to help communication remain clear by using new words once old words become too ambiguous to be useful. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmcqcyyR1Y0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmcqcyyR1Y0
  - 6y ago
im3w1l 6y ago
I think from a lot of peoples point of view, the fact checkers have a left-wing bias. Seen from that perspective, Facebook is just correcting for the bias. People on the right often don't even want the fact-check system to exist in the first place. It was pushed by left-wing people who hoped they could use it to kick out the right.
- makomk 6y ago
  Perhaps even including from the point of view of people who notice that what the fact checkers declare to be true depends on which partisan side it supports. For example, it's amazing how fast the official unemployment figure switched from being the One True Measure of unemployment and any claim that differed from it a lie when Trump was running against a Democrat incumbent, to suddenly not being so once Trump was the incumbent. There also seems to be a noticable bias in the overall rating given on a lot of sites, with conservative claims shifted a step or two towards "false" compared to liberal or left-wing claims with an equivalent level of actual accuracy as described in the text. The thing is, on some level I think a lot of the cheerleaders of fact checking as a weapon against right-wing information must know this and want it. There's been quite a bit of outrage over organisations fact-checking left-wing claims as false, especially when it's a fact checker affiliated with a decidedly non-left wing and non-Democrat supporting site that does it, including claims that it's destroying democracy, dubious arguments about false equivalence, and using the possibility of Facebook penalties to imply it's suppressing left-wing speech. (There was also a really revealing incident where, after a state Democrat party got caught really blatently violating Facebook's rules against voter suppression ads in a tight election, nearly all publications just didn't cover it despite thorougly covering the announcement of those rules. I don't think they got penalized beyond having the offending ads pulled, so the victim narrative would probably have been hard to pull off.)
  - IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago
    Which fact checkers are labeling current unemployment figures a lie?
- CathedralBorrow 6y ago
nfoz 6y ago
I suspect that Facebook is powerful enough to choose election winners whose policies will favour them. Much moreso, and with much less visibility, than regular media companies.
code_closure 6y ago
On one post people are saying: FB should not exist! On another post people are saying: country X is bad as it bans FB! It’s just so funny to see this.

131 points by chanfest22 6y ago

Easy solution. Just post the country of origin for all posts and comments. All platforms. Problem solved.

This whole thing is just insane. Facebook, as a platform, has enabled mass amounts of misinformation, hatred, and groupthink, to the point of becoming a serious concern for our democracy. It is fundamentally designed into the platform to give more exposure to provocative, polarizing content. And somehow, people think the solution to this problem is to give Facebook the explicit job of deciding what is true and what is not. The answer to the problem is simple. Facebook should not exist. This is a service that handles a significant percentage of the information flow in the world, and yet it's fundamental goal is to optimize for ad spending. Which means it needs to keep people using it as much as possible and as engaged as possible. Your text messaging service doesn't care if you use it or not, and it doesn't care what information to send or receive from other people. Facebook uses everything at it's disposal to keep you addicted to it, and that comes at the cost of being a balanced, thoughtful way of communicating. The model is broken and it is not going to be fixed.

zolosa 6y ago
Yes, in the developing world it is the source of most of the hate campaign. It was okay when we could just see our friends activities now it's just a hate wagon
- mikenew 6y ago
  It was good early on. So was Instagram. I think the beginning of the downfall was the like button for Facebook and the heart for Instagram. Once you introduce a voting system that determines what gets exposure and what gets buried, it seems like the inevitable outcome is that the garbage floats to the top. Especially as things scale to include huge groups of people.
  - mrjake 6y ago
    I think with Facebook there's another problem of "you may not be in the huge group of people", and you may not be even aware of the particular floating garbage. Not only you only are fed with the garbage from your social group, but also are basically deprived of the other groups' views.
- luckylion 6y ago
  Is it the source of hate campaigns though? Or is it the medium the hate campaigns are using to spread their message? Because I believe it's the latter, and if you ban it, the hate campaigns don't vanish, they just start using other mediums.
  - mcgt 6y ago
    >Because I believe it's the latter, and if you ban it, the hate campaigns don't vanish, they just start using other mediums. While true that it may not be a source per se, Facebook enables those ideas whereas they would normally (at least, in the past) be relegated to the darkest corners of the web. Take QAnon for example. The source is 8kun, which is accessible only through Tor and consisting of incel and white supremacist communities. Do you think the majority of people posting this material are getting it from the source in this case?
    - luckylion 6y ago
      I believe that they use Facebook because it's easy to use, not because it's the only available option outside the dark web. That is to say if Facebook removed them, they'd switch to some other platform. Might slow them down (won't have FB's built-in audience), but not nearly as much as only being available on the dark web. Hate campaigns worked pre-internet, and they'll still work post-FB. Maybe not as efficient, but I don't think efficiency is the limiting problem there.
  - zarkov99 6y ago
    True, but those other mediums would not work quite as well, so we would likely be better off.
james412 6y ago
Replace "Facebook" with "the Internet" and this whole statement still reads correctly
threatofrain 6y ago
Facebook at its core is a green list of people or voices you approve of. Any misinformation, hatred, or groupthink... is coming from the world you approve. And with regards to groupthink, there is surely some basic level of personal burden arising from the freedom of association.
- mikenew 6y ago
  It doesn't matter. You can argue that "people shouldn't fall prey to groupthink" and I'd agree with you. But they do. We're talking about a group of 2.6 billion people, not an individual. On average, people are a product of their environment. And the environment, in this case, is a bad one. It promotes all the wrong things and the incentives are in all the wrong places.
  - kmlx 6y ago
    the "environment" is in fact our society. you assume the cause is facebook, when in fact facebook is the effect of a sick society. but, facebook does help in bringing to light our abysmal failure in building society.
    - Joeri 6y ago
      It is a circle. Society influences facebook, facebook feeds back into society. For example, I’m convinced facebook’s amplification of pro-brexit and pro-trump messages in those campaigns was instrumental in their victory. No facebook, no president trump. I’ve also seen how facebook turned my sister into an anti-vaxxer. In essence you can look at facebook as a platform for information warfare. It tends to amplify lies, and some forces are more able to exploit that.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - kukx 6y ago
        It is your sister. You probably talk to her. Try convincing her. If you fail, is the Facebook to be blamed? I do not think so.
underwater 6y ago
If Facebook goes away another service takes it place. That's the nature of capitalism. Unless the concept of social media is explicitly outlawed then how does that solve anything?
cm2187 6y ago
What you say of its fundamental goal can be said of any other newspaper or any source of information.
- meowface 6y ago
  Exactly. For-profit social media and news media are both chock-full of perverse incentives. The only solution I can think of is to somehow promote the use of non-profit providers, but I know of no good/usable ones in either case. For news, there are individual, independent bloggers, and for social media there are closed chat groups or something, but that's about it.
  - sytelus 6y ago
    That's not the solution at all. Many of current media like Breitbart/Fox as well CNN/MSNBC leverage a fundamental bug in human psyche: emotional and shocking content keeps our attention! So these media try to hype/spice/misinform as long as it gets attention. You cannot counteract it by non-profits providing boring news. I don't know if there is any solution at all. I expect both sides to maximize spiced up news delivery for maximal attention and devotee base. At equilibrium, we may have these equally weighted strong groups which may randomly win election by small margin each time. This might not be too bad because over longer term all decisions and laws would be averaged out over two opposing philosophies resulting in overall centrist and balanced system.
    - meowface 6y ago
      It'd certainly be a start if there were at least some good alternatives for people to use. It wouldn't solve the problem, but at least there'd be an opening for norms and viewing habits to change a little.
- tsbinz 6y ago
  No, a traditional newspaper optimizes for number of subscribers/readers, not for time spent reading the newspaper. It's online ads that change the equation.
null_deref 6y ago
I agree with your line of thinking, but on what law can we base the notation that a platform that designed to give more exposure to provocative and polarizing content shouldn't exist?
- zarkov99 6y ago
  You could use the same tactics that were used to discourage smoking: forbid it for minors, force them to display a "health" warning banner, start a public health campaign shaming people for using it, etc.
- ithkuil 6y ago
  Shower thought: we've been (some countries more some less, some earlier some later) in a collective physical lockdown which was challenging to deal with but most people coped with it just fine. Surely, technology helped we had our entertainment and we managed to maintain some social bonds with friends and family via video. What if we engineer an "information lockdown"? Three months of no internet, no TV, only word of mouth communication of official billboards at the local level. Would we cope with that just fine? Would it help us learn somethings about us and learn to appreciate things, as the physical lock down has done for some things (like cooking, time with family, etc)
- ethanbond 6y ago
  They could give them anything more than minuscule slaps on the wrist for their long list of transgressions: 1. Anti competitive behavior 2. Advertising fraud (incredible how frequently their view/click counters are found to have bugs which consistently benefit FB) 3. Privacy violations (shadow profiles esp for minors) There are dozens of bases upon which Facebook can be punished for being a horrendous contribution to society.
amachefe 6y ago
This is equivalent to saying the world is full of evil and pain, the world should not exist. I don't understand why you think the world was better before Facebook and you definitely don't have the proof
- bamboozled 6y ago
  Except, Facebook is nothing like the world. I'm legitimately concerned Americans don't realize how incredibly perfect Facebook is for hijacking the democratic process. It's actually frightening to watch how it's being used. Yes it's affecting all countries and democracies but looking at where America was pre 2016 to now, it's really quite tragic.
  - splintercell 6y ago
    this makes very little sense to me, when I first came to America I could hear conservatives constantly complaining that the media has a very heavy liberal bias. Media constantly denied it obviously. Now with Facebook and social networks conservatives have their own information distribution system which cannot be controlled by the mainstream media, so the obvious criticism is "hijacking of the democratic process".
    - bamboozled 6y ago
      Think about it though, you can build a network with fake accounts or even just through a concerted effort to to do and spread disinformation, conspiracy theories and hate, polarise a nation and influence elections. It’s social networks weaponised and it’s absolutely beautiful by design, convenient, free and here is the real kicker? It’s completely legal and largely unregulated !!! By the way, I’m not on either political side here but are you trying to say I’m sticking up for republicans ?
techdragon 6y ago
You almost have it. It’s not fundamentally Facebook that is broken. It’s the “curated feed”... by becoming responsible for what users see they become responsible for the effects of this curation. In the old-old days when the “feed” was just stuff from the people you deliberately added yourself. Yes there was garbage but it wasn’t spread around algorithmically in order to help increase Facebook engagement and therefore their revenues. This was why I was so disappointed when Twitter switched the default page to the global algorithmically curated feed. The change from deliberate control by users saying “I want more of this” over to automatic and algorithmically driven control where the platform begins saying “we think you’ll like this, that, and a bunch of this extra thing because other people also like it” is the crossing of the rubicon. Once on the other side they are now undeniably responsible for the results.
dustingetz 6y ago
facebook is the state, try and stop it. we’ve been conquered. why should government be constrained by geography in the digital era?
codyswann 6y ago
Facebook, like a knife, is a tool. And like most tools, humans will find the most destructive way to use a tool.
wdr1 6y ago
> Facebook, as a platform, has enabled mass amounts of misinformation, hatred, and groupthink, to the point of becoming a serious concern for our democracy I don't disagree, but I've wondered why that doesn't lead to people using it less? One thing I've noticed is people care a lot less about misinformation favorable to their point of view. I've only see people angry about it against their perspective. Another observation is that people get upset about the most egregious & outrageous lies. I've actually wondered how dangerous those are. Someone willing to believe Obama wasn't born in the United States probably was going to vote against him no matter what. They've made up their mind & are just looking to now justify their decision. I think the more dangerous points are things that are right on the line of truth/fiction.

peteretep 6y ago

I can't see history being especially kind to Mark Zuckerberg.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago
The thing is, history is written by the winners. Depending on which side wins ultimately wins the cultural and political battle, I could see future school children learning in history class how Mark Zuckerberg was a hero for standing virtually alone for the principles of free speech when all the other big media and big tech companies sought to censor conservative voices. If the other side wins, then Mark Zuckerberg will be vilified as an ally of the horrible, racist alt-right. History, and how history views stuff is not a passive thing, but an active thing based on winners and losers.
- tsimionescu 6y ago
  This is an old trope, and only half true. You only have to look at the Bible to see that some figures who absolutely won in their lifetimes and for many years afterwards can nevertheless ultimately be remembered as demons - King Herod and Pontius Pilate being good examples here.
  - Svip 6y ago
    I thought the trope 'history is written by winners' is not just that the winners of the time when it happened, but more importantly the 'winners' (i.e. rulers) of the time when the story is being told. Our perception of history change, because the powers that be (i.e. the winners) change.
  - fiblye 6y ago
    And Rome became a Christian empire and the story that remained was what we know today.
osrec 6y ago
I agree with you in the long term, but in the short term, it will be quite the opposite, given the level of control his platform currently enjoys.

0xy 6y ago

>Facebook's fact-checking rules dictate that pages can have their reach and advertising limited on the platform if they repeatedly spread information deemed inaccurate by its fact-checking partners. "fact-checking partners" such as BuzzFeed (no, really!), partisan Politifact, hyper-partisan Vox and the Washington Post.

peteretep 6y ago
Do you have some examples of where you don't agree with the fact-checking services of any of the sources you've shared?
- 0xy 6y ago
  Sure, a notable recent example is Politifact labeling Biden's comments that busing would turn schools into a "racial jungle" as "half true", even though the statement was actually stated by him and is on record. [1] There's an entire website dedicated to their bias. [2] Another obvious point of bias was Politifact labeling a statement by Trump that "CNN did a poll where Obama and I are tied" as "pants on fire" because it was "one poll" (he never stated otherwise). [3] [1] https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/tim-graham/2020/07/10/politifact-nervously-tries-add-context-bidens-old-racial-jungle https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/tim-graham/2020/07/10/p... [2] https://www.politifactbias.com/ https://www.politifactbias.com/ [3] https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2011/apr/27/donald-trump/trump-says-recent-cnn-poll-shows-him-competitive-c/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2011/apr/27/donald-tru...
  - viraptor 6y ago
    The way I understand it, they object to the "CNN did a poll" part. There's one poll that exists with a close result, but it's not a CNN poll. It means we don't even know if he got lucky with a lie, or did he know about that poll and made a mistake about the source. (Fwiw, I agree it's not a pants on fire situation. (Mostly) false, sure.)
  - mhh__ 6y ago
    > [3] From 2011, is that the best you have?

mnm1 6y ago

I'm not surprised that Facebook is biased towards conservatives. That's the only way that kind of information could spread. If it was penalized, almost all that information would be removed. It's just conspiracy theories and lies. Doesn't bode well for the election that they are doing this right before, clearly to influence and spread the misinformation. Yes, they just want their ad dollars at the expense of the entire society. Hopefully they'll be broken up at some point before they drive a wedge through our society. I doubt other social media has a better track record.

cblconfederate 6y ago

i really love to watch tech companies being forced to dance the censorship dance. Yeah, that s how it works, when you join the dance, you dance

golemiprague 6y ago

Should remove any intervention in content unless it is against the law. It is not their job and they are not capable to decide what is misinformation and what is not. In most cases it is more a matter of opinion than facts and even facts are not that clear always. Just let people put what they want and decide what they believe and what not.

dandare 6y ago

I hate when words drift in meaning and I am not happy to see the "conservatism" label being used with clearly alt-right media. I would go as far as argue that the GOP does not not represent conservative values any more and the party is Conservative in name only. (Likewise I hate it when socialism is labeled as liberalism in the US, or when cronyism and corruption are labeled as capitalism.)

pas 6y ago
These labels were never really defined anyway. Yes, I hate it too, just like "left", "right", "democracy" (is North Korea a democracy? they have elections! turnout is 100%, anyone can run for office! they even have 3 parties and independents too! yaay!) But at the same time it's the "no true scotsman" if we say that the moment some Conservative (or conservative?) says something dumb they stop being true Conservatives.
- dandare 6y ago
  Those are very good points.
amanaplanacanal 6y ago
You probably need to say “traditional conservative” or something like that to get at what you are talking about. What you see is what conservatism is now. Unfortunately.
rgoulter 6y ago
"I hate when words drift in meaning" John McWhorter discusses this as an inevitability with language. (Indeed, he wrote a book with title / subtitle "Words on the Move: Why English Won't - and Can't - Sit Still (Like, Literally)"). He discusses various examples of this happening, both in political and non-political contexts. His suggestion is to just accept it, and to help communication remain clear by using new words once old words become too ambiguous to be useful. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmcqcyyR1Y0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmcqcyyR1Y0
- 6y ago

im3w1l 6y ago

I think from a lot of peoples point of view, the fact checkers have a left-wing bias. Seen from that perspective, Facebook is just correcting for the bias. People on the right often don't even want the fact-check system to exist in the first place. It was pushed by left-wing people who hoped they could use it to kick out the right.

makomk 6y ago
Perhaps even including from the point of view of people who notice that what the fact checkers declare to be true depends on which partisan side it supports. For example, it's amazing how fast the official unemployment figure switched from being the One True Measure of unemployment and any claim that differed from it a lie when Trump was running against a Democrat incumbent, to suddenly not being so once Trump was the incumbent. There also seems to be a noticable bias in the overall rating given on a lot of sites, with conservative claims shifted a step or two towards "false" compared to liberal or left-wing claims with an equivalent level of actual accuracy as described in the text. The thing is, on some level I think a lot of the cheerleaders of fact checking as a weapon against right-wing information must know this and want it. There's been quite a bit of outrage over organisations fact-checking left-wing claims as false, especially when it's a fact checker affiliated with a decidedly non-left wing and non-Democrat supporting site that does it, including claims that it's destroying democracy, dubious arguments about false equivalence, and using the possibility of Facebook penalties to imply it's suppressing left-wing speech. (There was also a really revealing incident where, after a state Democrat party got caught really blatently violating Facebook's rules against voter suppression ads in a tight election, nearly all publications just didn't cover it despite thorougly covering the announcement of those rules. I don't think they got penalized beyond having the offending ads pulled, so the victim narrative would probably have been hard to pull off.)
- IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago
  Which fact checkers are labeling current unemployment figures a lie?
CathedralBorrow 6y ago

nfoz 6y ago

I suspect that Facebook is powerful enough to choose election winners whose policies will favour them. Much moreso, and with much less visibility, than regular media companies.

code_closure 6y ago

On one post people are saying: FB should not exist! On another post people are saying: country X is bad as it bans FB! It’s just so funny to see this.