5 ms·

But isn't that only happening because of FB allowing disinformation to spread so easily?

dmpk2k 6y ago
How would you achieve that?
dntrkv 6y ago
Curious how you think it's possible for FB to prevent the spread of disinformation? Everyone likes to pretend like Facebook has the ability to just stop disinformation, when in reality, even defining "disinformation" is basically impossible. Sure, you can bring up examples of blatant lies, but most of the effective disinformation is a lot more subtle and depends on what side of the issues you are on.
- nindalf 6y ago
  I have seen this question asked many times on such threads but have never seen a workable solution. Usually the response is something like "I'd shut the whole website down" or "I'd employ millions of moderators" or "I'd allow people to only post once a month" or "I would remove sharing links, only baby pictures allowed". Nothing practical. If you respond to any of these with examples of positive speech that would be harmed, there is no response. For example, if you curb political speech, people wouldn't be able to organise political protests. People wouldn't even agree on what should be considered 'political'. For example, is organising a BLM event political? Should it be allowed under the proposed rules? I'm happy to be proven wrong though. Maybe this is the thread where people will make practical suggestions.
  - munificent 6y ago
    What is "impractical" about "shut the whole website down"? When it was discovered that tetraethyl lead was widespread in the environment and caused neurological damage, it was banned. Yes, that materially harmed several chemical companies whose livelihood was based on producing tetraethyl lead. So what? If your business model harms people, I don't care if stopping harming people eliminates your business. People matter. Businesses do not. Are we supposed to just go, "Yeah, we know Facebook is harmful to millions, but won't someone think of the poor shareholders?" Then shrug and accept it?
    - dntrkv 6y ago
      Banning a harmful substance, and banning a platform for communication are not comparable. There is no shortage of sites that will take Facebook's place. What is the legislation you propose to prevent Facebook, or the millions of other existing or soon-to-be existing apps, from doing harm to people?
      - munificent 6y ago
        > Banning a harmful substance, and banning a platform for communication are not comparable. OK, consider gambling. That is simply a kind of software that enables people to engage in behavior that turns out to be harmful for a large number of them. And, because of that fact, it is heavily regulated. > What is the legislation you propose to prevent Facebook, or the millions of other existing or soon-to-be existing apps, from doing harm to people? I don't know if we know what sort of regulations would help yet. But I do know that if we assume a priori that corporations cannot be forced to change their behavior because it might hurt the poor corporation, then we will never figure out the answer.
        nindalf 6y ago
        Well that's all I'm asking for here. A practical proposal. Removing tetraethyl lead was certainly doable. Removing every car from the road was not. One was a targeted change that improved the industry, while the latter was so impractical that they never considered it. Here's a thought - you assume a priori that shutting down social media would be a net win. How did you come to that conclusion? Did you spare a thought for the people who's social lives revolve around spending time with friends online? You'd advocate for taking away these people's social networks because you're certain you know what's best for them?
        munificent 6y ago
        > you assume a priori that shutting down social media would be a net win. I didn't actually say that. I think many social media sites are net positives, like this one here. I think Facebook specifically is a net negative. > How did you come to that conclusion? Performing experiments on users' emotional state without their consent: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/06/everything-we-know-about-facebooks-secret-mood-manipulation-experiment/373648/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/06/every... Cambridge Analytica: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge_Analytica_data_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge_Ana... Facebook makes users feel worse about themselves: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-23709009 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-23709009 You get the idea. None of this is new. Some communities are more toxic than others. Some businesses are less ethical than others. I believe Facebook is an unethical business led by an unethical man making a product that is more harmful than good for most people. > Did you spare a thought for the people who's social lives revolve around spending time with friends online? You'd advocate for taking away these people's social networks because you're certain you know what's best for them? I did not advocate that.
  - freehunter 6y ago
    Why is it our responsibility to figure out how Facebook can fix their algorithm? They employ thousands of the smartest engineers in the world and pay them absolutely ridiculous amounts of money. If they wanted to fix it, they would. As just random people on the Internet, it’s not our job to figure out how to fix it. It’s our job to complain about it enough to make them fix it themselves.
  - searchableguy 6y ago
    I want people to pay. It will - Reduce majority of bots by making them unsustainable. - Provide direct money to improve moderation and make platforms liable. - Make journalism cater to individuals rather than ad networks. - Remove toxicity because trolls won't pay after getting banned regularly. No need for other fingerprinting methods. - Reduce the number of users and silo them automatically. Free business models are anti-competitive and result in worse service for the users by making platforms accountable to advertisers (other companies) than consumers. Force facebook to introduce minimum payment based on purchasing power. Outlaw free/freemium models in software or limit them to a time period (3-6 months). This won't apply to non-profit services. And open source will be fine since it will only apply to services or for-profit companies.
- thrwn_frthr_awy 6y ago
  Facebook's algorithms exploit the brain's attractiveness to decisiveness. They've know this and have chosen not to take action, except for small amounts so Mark can tell congress they are improving things. Source https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-knows-it-encourages-division-top-executives-nixed-solutions-11590507499 https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-knows-it-encourages-di... So besides straight up changing the algorithms to promote non-decisive content, these are a couple things I think could help: - Limit the spread of information in general in favor of content created by the people you follow - Un-personalize advertising
  - dntrkv 6y ago
    Facebook doesn't profit from divisiveness, they profit from engagement. The fact that divisive posts encourage more engagement tells me more about people in general, rather than Facebook's business model. > Limit the spread of information in general in favor of content created by the people you follow I don't think that's what people want from their social networks nowadays. FB, Twitter, YouTube, TikTok, Snapchat, etc all do not work this way anymore. Suggesting that Facebook revert their app to what it was 10 years ago is not a serious suggestion because there are many other apps that will fill that void. If it's not FB, another app will take its place and give people the outrage they're looking for. > Un-personalize advertising Advertising plays a very small part in this. Most of what you would call "disinformation" is spread through reposts, which are not affected by advertising. Sure, there might be some hostile actors out their spending money on pushing propaganda to the masses. But from my experience, people actively seek this nonsense out, the algorithms just make it easier for them to find it. In my eyes, the real problem is that most people aren't equipped with the right tools to identify bullshit. Simple things like an inability to gauge scale. e.g. "9,000,000 gallons of oil has been spilled from pipelines in the last 10 years" Is that a lot? I have no idea, but what I can do is compare that against other forms of oil transportation. Most people won't do that work though, they will go straight to outrage.
    - thrwn_frthr_awy 6y ago
      > I don't think that's what people want from their social networks nowadays. FB, Twitter, YouTube, TikTok, Snapchat, etc all do not work this way anymore. They don't work this way because it makes shareholder's the most money, not because it is the best experience for the user. > Advertising plays a very small part in this. Most of what you would call "disinformation" is spread through reposts, which are not affected by advertising. A completely false ad about a candidate of a different political party is much less likely to be called out or reported because it is only shown to a highly targeted group of people. This lack of accountability creates disinformation. These ads could not be ran as a billboard advertisement or in a non-personalized ad space. All of the counter arguments always come down to this: Facebook would make less money. And, yes, of course that is going to be the case because if any of these changes would make them more money they would have implemented them themselves. It requires a public corporation to accept that they are making the world a worse place, and to choose to make less money to stop doing that.
- elliekelly 6y ago
  Doesn't HN have some sort of "flame war" prevention feature where people are automatically prevented from commenting/replying in rapid succession? Rate-limiting posts/sharing and comments on Facebook seems like a good place to start. Maybe it isn't necessary (and probably not possible) that we stop disinformation entirely so much as we slow it down.
- CaptainZapp 6y ago
  > Curious how you think it's possible for FB to prevent the spread of disinformation? For example by doing something when they are warned for years by multiple entities that FB is used as a tool to support genocide, like in Myanmar. It seems that only when such things blow up publicly and the stench of bad publicity gets too bad they send out Zuckerbot announcing his usual platitudes to then get back to business as usual. And that's far from the only example were their product was used for oppression by authoritarian regimes. This company could do a hell of a lot more to counter this. But they just don't give a shit, unless publicity gets too bad. edit : word change

How would you achieve that?

Curious how you think it's possible for FB to prevent the spread of disinformation? Everyone likes to pretend like Facebook has the ability to just stop disinformation, when in reality, even defining "disinformation" is basically impossible. Sure, you can bring up examples of blatant lies, but most of the effective disinformation is a lot more subtle and depends on what side of the issues you are on.

nindalf 6y ago
I have seen this question asked many times on such threads but have never seen a workable solution. Usually the response is something like "I'd shut the whole website down" or "I'd employ millions of moderators" or "I'd allow people to only post once a month" or "I would remove sharing links, only baby pictures allowed". Nothing practical. If you respond to any of these with examples of positive speech that would be harmed, there is no response. For example, if you curb political speech, people wouldn't be able to organise political protests. People wouldn't even agree on what should be considered 'political'. For example, is organising a BLM event political? Should it be allowed under the proposed rules? I'm happy to be proven wrong though. Maybe this is the thread where people will make practical suggestions.
- munificent 6y ago
  What is "impractical" about "shut the whole website down"? When it was discovered that tetraethyl lead was widespread in the environment and caused neurological damage, it was banned. Yes, that materially harmed several chemical companies whose livelihood was based on producing tetraethyl lead. So what? If your business model harms people, I don't care if stopping harming people eliminates your business. People matter. Businesses do not. Are we supposed to just go, "Yeah, we know Facebook is harmful to millions, but won't someone think of the poor shareholders?" Then shrug and accept it?
  - dntrkv 6y ago
    Banning a harmful substance, and banning a platform for communication are not comparable. There is no shortage of sites that will take Facebook's place. What is the legislation you propose to prevent Facebook, or the millions of other existing or soon-to-be existing apps, from doing harm to people?
    - munificent 6y ago
      > Banning a harmful substance, and banning a platform for communication are not comparable. OK, consider gambling. That is simply a kind of software that enables people to engage in behavior that turns out to be harmful for a large number of them. And, because of that fact, it is heavily regulated. > What is the legislation you propose to prevent Facebook, or the millions of other existing or soon-to-be existing apps, from doing harm to people? I don't know if we know what sort of regulations would help yet. But I do know that if we assume a priori that corporations cannot be forced to change their behavior because it might hurt the poor corporation, then we will never figure out the answer.
      - nindalf 6y ago
        Well that's all I'm asking for here. A practical proposal. Removing tetraethyl lead was certainly doable. Removing every car from the road was not. One was a targeted change that improved the industry, while the latter was so impractical that they never considered it. Here's a thought - you assume a priori that shutting down social media would be a net win. How did you come to that conclusion? Did you spare a thought for the people who's social lives revolve around spending time with friends online? You'd advocate for taking away these people's social networks because you're certain you know what's best for them?
        munificent 6y ago
        > you assume a priori that shutting down social media would be a net win. I didn't actually say that. I think many social media sites are net positives, like this one here. I think Facebook specifically is a net negative. > How did you come to that conclusion? Performing experiments on users' emotional state without their consent: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/06/everything-we-know-about-facebooks-secret-mood-manipulation-experiment/373648/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/06/every... Cambridge Analytica: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge_Analytica_data_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge_Ana... Facebook makes users feel worse about themselves: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-23709009 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-23709009 You get the idea. None of this is new. Some communities are more toxic than others. Some businesses are less ethical than others. I believe Facebook is an unethical business led by an unethical man making a product that is more harmful than good for most people. > Did you spare a thought for the people who's social lives revolve around spending time with friends online? You'd advocate for taking away these people's social networks because you're certain you know what's best for them? I did not advocate that.
- freehunter 6y ago
  Why is it our responsibility to figure out how Facebook can fix their algorithm? They employ thousands of the smartest engineers in the world and pay them absolutely ridiculous amounts of money. If they wanted to fix it, they would. As just random people on the Internet, it’s not our job to figure out how to fix it. It’s our job to complain about it enough to make them fix it themselves.
- searchableguy 6y ago
  I want people to pay. It will - Reduce majority of bots by making them unsustainable. - Provide direct money to improve moderation and make platforms liable. - Make journalism cater to individuals rather than ad networks. - Remove toxicity because trolls won't pay after getting banned regularly. No need for other fingerprinting methods. - Reduce the number of users and silo them automatically. Free business models are anti-competitive and result in worse service for the users by making platforms accountable to advertisers (other companies) than consumers. Force facebook to introduce minimum payment based on purchasing power. Outlaw free/freemium models in software or limit them to a time period (3-6 months). This won't apply to non-profit services. And open source will be fine since it will only apply to services or for-profit companies.
thrwn_frthr_awy 6y ago
Facebook's algorithms exploit the brain's attractiveness to decisiveness. They've know this and have chosen not to take action, except for small amounts so Mark can tell congress they are improving things. Source https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-knows-it-encourages-division-top-executives-nixed-solutions-11590507499 https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-knows-it-encourages-di... So besides straight up changing the algorithms to promote non-decisive content, these are a couple things I think could help: - Limit the spread of information in general in favor of content created by the people you follow - Un-personalize advertising
- dntrkv 6y ago
  Facebook doesn't profit from divisiveness, they profit from engagement. The fact that divisive posts encourage more engagement tells me more about people in general, rather than Facebook's business model. > Limit the spread of information in general in favor of content created by the people you follow I don't think that's what people want from their social networks nowadays. FB, Twitter, YouTube, TikTok, Snapchat, etc all do not work this way anymore. Suggesting that Facebook revert their app to what it was 10 years ago is not a serious suggestion because there are many other apps that will fill that void. If it's not FB, another app will take its place and give people the outrage they're looking for. > Un-personalize advertising Advertising plays a very small part in this. Most of what you would call "disinformation" is spread through reposts, which are not affected by advertising. Sure, there might be some hostile actors out their spending money on pushing propaganda to the masses. But from my experience, people actively seek this nonsense out, the algorithms just make it easier for them to find it. In my eyes, the real problem is that most people aren't equipped with the right tools to identify bullshit. Simple things like an inability to gauge scale. e.g. "9,000,000 gallons of oil has been spilled from pipelines in the last 10 years" Is that a lot? I have no idea, but what I can do is compare that against other forms of oil transportation. Most people won't do that work though, they will go straight to outrage.
  - thrwn_frthr_awy 6y ago
    > I don't think that's what people want from their social networks nowadays. FB, Twitter, YouTube, TikTok, Snapchat, etc all do not work this way anymore. They don't work this way because it makes shareholder's the most money, not because it is the best experience for the user. > Advertising plays a very small part in this. Most of what you would call "disinformation" is spread through reposts, which are not affected by advertising. A completely false ad about a candidate of a different political party is much less likely to be called out or reported because it is only shown to a highly targeted group of people. This lack of accountability creates disinformation. These ads could not be ran as a billboard advertisement or in a non-personalized ad space. All of the counter arguments always come down to this: Facebook would make less money. And, yes, of course that is going to be the case because if any of these changes would make them more money they would have implemented them themselves. It requires a public corporation to accept that they are making the world a worse place, and to choose to make less money to stop doing that.
elliekelly 6y ago
Doesn't HN have some sort of "flame war" prevention feature where people are automatically prevented from commenting/replying in rapid succession? Rate-limiting posts/sharing and comments on Facebook seems like a good place to start. Maybe it isn't necessary (and probably not possible) that we stop disinformation entirely so much as we slow it down.
CaptainZapp 6y ago
> Curious how you think it's possible for FB to prevent the spread of disinformation? For example by doing something when they are warned for years by multiple entities that FB is used as a tool to support genocide, like in Myanmar. It seems that only when such things blow up publicly and the stench of bad publicity gets too bad they send out Zuckerbot announcing his usual platitudes to then get back to business as usual. And that's far from the only example were their product was used for oppression by authoritarian regimes. This company could do a hell of a lot more to counter this. But they just don't give a shit, unless publicity gets too bad. edit : word change