6 ms·

Facebook could stop 10B impressions from “repeat misinformers”, but doesn't

dokem 5y ago
What happened to the wisdom of "don't believe what you read on the internet"? There used to be a general skepticism that existed alongside the internet when I was a kid. I think people still remember this for the most part and the war on 'misinformation' is essentially a battle of opinions and ideas, no facts.
- bashinator 5y ago
  > I think people still remember this for the most part. I don't. I think that memory is from small subset of the general public who were early adopters and developers of the Internet.
modularform123 5y ago
They'll have to start with CNN, NBC, MSNBC, NY Times and their ilk for the countless times they repeated the Russia hoax, the Covington boys hoax, the Bubba Smollett hoax, the Jussie Wallace hoax, just to name a few.
EricE 5y ago
lol - "repeat misinformers" Ministry of Truth indeed. Orwell wrote 1984 as a warning, not as a flipping implementation guide.
- dang 5y ago
  Please don't post unsubstantive and/or flamebait comments to HN, even when something feels Orwellian. It doesn't help.
  - option_greek 5y ago
    Okay may be lol is not really HN style. But how is the above comment flame bait. It just calls the article calling for Orwellian measures which it does by any reasonable standard (thought police?).
    - dang 5y ago
      When the topic is inflammatory and a comment consists of name-calling and rhetoric, that's flamebait. We want curious, thoughtful conversation here—comments should add new information, not repeat well-trodden paths. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- ben_w 5y ago
  Orwell wrote a dark mirror of the world he already lived in — a world where the literal Soviet Union switched from the role of “ally which helped us defeat the literal Nazis” to “evil bastards we’ve always hated”. Likewise, 1984’s Ministry of Truth was based on the real UK Ministry of Information, which did actual propaganda and censorship and only dissolved in 1946, shortly before he wrote the novel.
  - throwawaysea 5y ago
    Maybe you're not making this point, but why is the UK Ministry of Information any different from Facebook? I think the fact that Facebook is a private company does not matter. A significant portion of society's speech and opinions are held in this one digital town square. Their influence is larger than most governments, including the UK. When they censor certain speech and allow others, that is propaganda at a scale similar to governments, and just as damaging.
oxymoran 5y ago
And who determines what is “misinformation”?
- mrfusion 5y ago
  Who will guard the guards?
  - LudwigNagasena 5y ago
    Well, in the West we came up with these nice concepts of the separation of power, checks and balances, democracy. But as neither nationalization of a large tech company such as Facebook nor giving it a monopoly over information seems desirable, why don’t we just agree that it should stay out of this completely.
- root_axis 5y ago
  For content displayed on the facebook.com website, Facebook makes this determination.
- dredmorbius 5y ago
  Where nobody is willing to stand in on the editorial side, the decision is being made, effectively, by the submitter pool with the largest content creation capacity, and its interaction with algorithmic and promoted content dissemination. That is, the decision is already being made, the only question is whether or not the results have strong truth valance. The ship has, in a word, sailed. If you create a vast, global, instant, high-fidelity, interactive content dissemination system with a strongly aspirational and appealing audience, then parasitic opportunists who seek only to serve their own rather than others' interests will flock to it. And have, in spades. And I've seen this game play out repeatedly: in print, on radio, television, Usenet, email, and since approximately 1997, on the Web and mobile Internet. There are parties already making truth determinations, and their doing a demonstrably horrible job at it from a common weal perspective. And that is the problem. "Just don't use Facebook" doesn't work for two principle reasons: 1. Facebook is increasingly central to, or required for, numerous real-world interactions. 2. Even if, as I do, you don't use the service, you live in the world it creates. Facebook has massive negative externalities. Like, oh, say, civil war and genocide in Myanmar, to mention only one aspect. (There are others closer to home for most readers here. I'm hoping HN won't lose its collective mind if I don't mention these.) Another element that factors in is that Big Lie propaganda is reliant on disseminating the Big Lie. Scale is directly the problem, and offering unrestricted access to, choose the amplification metaphor of your choice, the printing press, microphone, camera, TV/Radio station, etc., has risks. Especially for those who would see the tools themselves burned down along with all else. In which case, drastically curtailing the spread of any content from identified actors and their associated networks responsible for spreading obvious and notable disinformation ... is highly defensible. I'm well aware of numerous arguments, predicated on or observing exceptions to free speech, which typically follow such statements. I find both the free-speech absolutist and the private property / private actor restriction privilege arguments tired and uninspired. The reality is complex, and I don't have either simple solutions or any which are conformant simultaneously with "free speech" or "property rights" positions. Both, to my mind, exist in a nexus and network of overlapping interests and rights. I've suggested "information autonomy" as an alternative to "free speech", though the expansion of that notion quickly points out internal conflicts. Common weal might offer one path out.
froggertoaster 5y ago
The problem with articles like this (and advocacy groups like Avaaz) is that their definition of "hateful" and "inaccurate" content casts a rather large net of which their definition is rather nebulous. Their claims are dubious at best.
- sayhar 5y ago
  From reading the article, I'm reasonably certain that Avaaz is using Facebook's own definitions.
mrfusion 5y ago
Thanks but I’d rather decide what’s misinformation for myself.
- daze42 5y ago
  My thoughts exactly. I can't believe anyone is advocating for censorship regardless of the accuracy of the content.
- Uberphallus 5y ago
  Me too, but most people can't be trusted to decide for themselves and are lead to believe crazy shit only because it brings ad revenue in the best case, because of interests of bad actors in the worst. Where to draw the line is the point of the discussion, because the democracy of the viral nonsense is causing more damage than a straight up dictatorship, IMO.
  - sneak 5y ago
    It's supremely arrogant to believe that you can decide for yourself, but "most people can't be trusted to decide for themselves". Let people make their own decisions.
    - ben_w 5y ago
      Sure, but they didn’t say they were any better. I mean, it’s not like I know much about civil engineering, or trade policy, or diplomacy, or law, or policing, or military and defence issues, or agriculture and food stability, or economics, or education policy, other than that most of these are things you can get degrees (or equivalent) in, and if I spend three years studying each of them I’d still be a much of a noob in those topics as someone who thinks “lines of code is a good measure of productivity” is in the world of software. I still believe democracy is better than any known alternative; it just isn’t, y’know, flawless.
    - Uberphallus 5y ago
      It might be arrogant, but not supremely. Maybe the line leaves me out of deciding the content I can consume. I'm pretty stupid out of my fields of interest anyway. Joking aside, it's taken me lots of effort, but if anything is important to me, my life, or my loved ones, I double check it, even if I agree with it or I'm naturally inclined to believe it. I've also learnt to love to stand corrected, and to say that I'm wrong. But that's unfortunately above what most people I deal with on a daily basis are able or willing to do, supremely so when you bring religion or politics in the mix. And that's normal, and thoroughly studied[0]. That also means that, in many subjects, people already made up their minds and aren't actually taking decisions, as you suggest they are, but having psychological knee-jerk reactions. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief_perseverance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief_perseverance
centimeter 5y ago
I’m not spending time reading a salon article, but I’m willing to bet money that their definition of “repeat misinformer” is total bullshit.
- dang 5y ago
  Ok, but please don't post unsubstantive comments to HN. Edit: you've unfortunately been breaking the site guidelines so often that I think we need to ban this account. If you don't want to be banned on HN, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you've read the guidelines and genuinely want to use the site as intended.
gdsdfe 5y ago
just freaking leave facebook already, you don't need it
- tpoacher 5y ago
  Just because you won't take an interest in Politics, doesn't mean that Politics won't take an interest in you. *(s/Politics/Facebook/g)
  - gdsdfe 5y ago
    Euh yeah that somewhat works for politics but it doesn't apply at all for facebook
    - tpoacher 5y ago
      I disagree. You can read about the reasons why in this facebook article I wrote where I call you out by name.
      - gdsdfe 5y ago
        hmmm gotcha
throwaway_1237 5y ago
I’m so tired of Facebook’s irresponsible behavior. I sold my FB stock even though I still believe it’ll go up, I just can’t participate in their bullshit.
mrfusion 5y ago
Name one time in history when the group burning books and censoring people were the good guys.
- bashinator 5y ago
  Name one other time in history when memes could be spread and amplified at the same rate and level as through social media.
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    Europe survived the invention of the printing press just fine. The parallels between the internet and the printing press are many.
    - root_axis 5y ago
      The owner of a particular press made their own determination about what was worthy of printing.
    - bashinator 5y ago
      Wasn't aware that the printing press could instantaneously distribute material to a majority of the people on Earth within seconds, at virtually no cost. The parallels between the Internet and the printing press may be many, but the differences are IMO vastly greater.
  - raarts 5y ago
    And because of this you now think the ones burning the books and censoring people are the good guys?
kats 5y ago
This political group wants something, so they are just trying to make readers mad until they get it.
jrnichols 5y ago
Of course they don't. Just like they don't keep showing me things from "WOW app" and "OMG app" and "WTF app" or "BBQ app" (you get the point) that I have blocked/hidden/filtered repeatedly. Facebook just wants to show you sensationalist trash and call it "engagement."

What happened to the wisdom of "don't believe what you read on the internet"? There used to be a general skepticism that existed alongside the internet when I was a kid. I think people still remember this for the most part and the war on 'misinformation' is essentially a battle of opinions and ideas, no facts.

bashinator 5y ago
> I think people still remember this for the most part. I don't. I think that memory is from small subset of the general public who were early adopters and developers of the Internet.

modularform123 5y ago

They'll have to start with CNN, NBC, MSNBC, NY Times and their ilk for the countless times they repeated the Russia hoax, the Covington boys hoax, the Bubba Smollett hoax, the Jussie Wallace hoax, just to name a few.

EricE 5y ago

lol - "repeat misinformers" Ministry of Truth indeed. Orwell wrote 1984 as a warning, not as a flipping implementation guide.

dang 5y ago
Please don't post unsubstantive and/or flamebait comments to HN, even when something feels Orwellian. It doesn't help.
- option_greek 5y ago
  Okay may be lol is not really HN style. But how is the above comment flame bait. It just calls the article calling for Orwellian measures which it does by any reasonable standard (thought police?).
  - dang 5y ago
    When the topic is inflammatory and a comment consists of name-calling and rhetoric, that's flamebait. We want curious, thoughtful conversation here—comments should add new information, not repeat well-trodden paths. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
ben_w 5y ago
Orwell wrote a dark mirror of the world he already lived in — a world where the literal Soviet Union switched from the role of “ally which helped us defeat the literal Nazis” to “evil bastards we’ve always hated”. Likewise, 1984’s Ministry of Truth was based on the real UK Ministry of Information, which did actual propaganda and censorship and only dissolved in 1946, shortly before he wrote the novel.
- throwawaysea 5y ago
  Maybe you're not making this point, but why is the UK Ministry of Information any different from Facebook? I think the fact that Facebook is a private company does not matter. A significant portion of society's speech and opinions are held in this one digital town square. Their influence is larger than most governments, including the UK. When they censor certain speech and allow others, that is propaganda at a scale similar to governments, and just as damaging.

oxymoran 5y ago

And who determines what is “misinformation”?

mrfusion 5y ago
Who will guard the guards?
- LudwigNagasena 5y ago
  Well, in the West we came up with these nice concepts of the separation of power, checks and balances, democracy. But as neither nationalization of a large tech company such as Facebook nor giving it a monopoly over information seems desirable, why don’t we just agree that it should stay out of this completely.
root_axis 5y ago
For content displayed on the facebook.com website, Facebook makes this determination.
dredmorbius 5y ago
Where nobody is willing to stand in on the editorial side, the decision is being made, effectively, by the submitter pool with the largest content creation capacity, and its interaction with algorithmic and promoted content dissemination. That is, the decision is already being made, the only question is whether or not the results have strong truth valance. The ship has, in a word, sailed. If you create a vast, global, instant, high-fidelity, interactive content dissemination system with a strongly aspirational and appealing audience, then parasitic opportunists who seek only to serve their own rather than others' interests will flock to it. And have, in spades. And I've seen this game play out repeatedly: in print, on radio, television, Usenet, email, and since approximately 1997, on the Web and mobile Internet. There are parties already making truth determinations, and their doing a demonstrably horrible job at it from a common weal perspective. And that is the problem. "Just don't use Facebook" doesn't work for two principle reasons: 1. Facebook is increasingly central to, or required for, numerous real-world interactions. 2. Even if, as I do, you don't use the service, you live in the world it creates. Facebook has massive negative externalities. Like, oh, say, civil war and genocide in Myanmar, to mention only one aspect. (There are others closer to home for most readers here. I'm hoping HN won't lose its collective mind if I don't mention these.) Another element that factors in is that Big Lie propaganda is reliant on disseminating the Big Lie. Scale is directly the problem, and offering unrestricted access to, choose the amplification metaphor of your choice, the printing press, microphone, camera, TV/Radio station, etc., has risks. Especially for those who would see the tools themselves burned down along with all else. In which case, drastically curtailing the spread of any content from identified actors and their associated networks responsible for spreading obvious and notable disinformation ... is highly defensible. I'm well aware of numerous arguments, predicated on or observing exceptions to free speech, which typically follow such statements. I find both the free-speech absolutist and the private property / private actor restriction privilege arguments tired and uninspired. The reality is complex, and I don't have either simple solutions or any which are conformant simultaneously with "free speech" or "property rights" positions. Both, to my mind, exist in a nexus and network of overlapping interests and rights. I've suggested "information autonomy" as an alternative to "free speech", though the expansion of that notion quickly points out internal conflicts. Common weal might offer one path out.

froggertoaster 5y ago

The problem with articles like this (and advocacy groups like Avaaz) is that their definition of "hateful" and "inaccurate" content casts a rather large net of which their definition is rather nebulous. Their claims are dubious at best.

sayhar 5y ago
From reading the article, I'm reasonably certain that Avaaz is using Facebook's own definitions.

mrfusion 5y ago

Thanks but I’d rather decide what’s misinformation for myself.

daze42 5y ago
My thoughts exactly. I can't believe anyone is advocating for censorship regardless of the accuracy of the content.
Uberphallus 5y ago
Me too, but most people can't be trusted to decide for themselves and are lead to believe crazy shit only because it brings ad revenue in the best case, because of interests of bad actors in the worst. Where to draw the line is the point of the discussion, because the democracy of the viral nonsense is causing more damage than a straight up dictatorship, IMO.
- sneak 5y ago
  It's supremely arrogant to believe that you can decide for yourself, but "most people can't be trusted to decide for themselves". Let people make their own decisions.
  - ben_w 5y ago
    Sure, but they didn’t say they were any better. I mean, it’s not like I know much about civil engineering, or trade policy, or diplomacy, or law, or policing, or military and defence issues, or agriculture and food stability, or economics, or education policy, other than that most of these are things you can get degrees (or equivalent) in, and if I spend three years studying each of them I’d still be a much of a noob in those topics as someone who thinks “lines of code is a good measure of productivity” is in the world of software. I still believe democracy is better than any known alternative; it just isn’t, y’know, flawless.
  - Uberphallus 5y ago
    It might be arrogant, but not supremely. Maybe the line leaves me out of deciding the content I can consume. I'm pretty stupid out of my fields of interest anyway. Joking aside, it's taken me lots of effort, but if anything is important to me, my life, or my loved ones, I double check it, even if I agree with it or I'm naturally inclined to believe it. I've also learnt to love to stand corrected, and to say that I'm wrong. But that's unfortunately above what most people I deal with on a daily basis are able or willing to do, supremely so when you bring religion or politics in the mix. And that's normal, and thoroughly studied[0]. That also means that, in many subjects, people already made up their minds and aren't actually taking decisions, as you suggest they are, but having psychological knee-jerk reactions. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief_perseverance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief_perseverance

centimeter 5y ago

I’m not spending time reading a salon article, but I’m willing to bet money that their definition of “repeat misinformer” is total bullshit.

dang 5y ago
Ok, but please don't post unsubstantive comments to HN. Edit: you've unfortunately been breaking the site guidelines so often that I think we need to ban this account. If you don't want to be banned on HN, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you've read the guidelines and genuinely want to use the site as intended.

gdsdfe 5y ago

just freaking leave facebook already, you don't need it

tpoacher 5y ago
Just because you won't take an interest in Politics, doesn't mean that Politics won't take an interest in you. *(s/Politics/Facebook/g)
- gdsdfe 5y ago
  Euh yeah that somewhat works for politics but it doesn't apply at all for facebook
  - tpoacher 5y ago
    I disagree. You can read about the reasons why in this facebook article I wrote where I call you out by name.
    - gdsdfe 5y ago
      hmmm gotcha

throwaway_1237 5y ago

I’m so tired of Facebook’s irresponsible behavior. I sold my FB stock even though I still believe it’ll go up, I just can’t participate in their bullshit.

mrfusion 5y ago

Name one time in history when the group burning books and censoring people were the good guys.

bashinator 5y ago
Name one other time in history when memes could be spread and amplified at the same rate and level as through social media.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  Europe survived the invention of the printing press just fine. The parallels between the internet and the printing press are many.
  - root_axis 5y ago
    The owner of a particular press made their own determination about what was worthy of printing.
  - bashinator 5y ago
    Wasn't aware that the printing press could instantaneously distribute material to a majority of the people on Earth within seconds, at virtually no cost. The parallels between the Internet and the printing press may be many, but the differences are IMO vastly greater.
- raarts 5y ago
  And because of this you now think the ones burning the books and censoring people are the good guys?

kats 5y ago

This political group wants something, so they are just trying to make readers mad until they get it.

jrnichols 5y ago

Of course they don't. Just like they don't keep showing me things from "WOW app" and "OMG app" and "WTF app" or "BBQ app" (you get the point) that I have blocked/hidden/filtered repeatedly. Facebook just wants to show you sensationalist trash and call it "engagement."