4 ms·

Facebook Is Not Necessary

39 points by chrbutler 5y ago

paulpauper 5y ago
> When enough fake news is spread, serious things can happen. Bad things. At a small scale, an individual’s reputation can be ruined. At a larger one, a foreign government can manipulate the outcome of a rival’s election. people keep repeating this like it is a truism, but how many specific examples are there of this and how much damage does fake news really do? Which specific piece of fake news influenced the 2016 U.S. presidential election? Where are these fake news stories that are always going viral? The only viral fake news that I have seen are The Onion and Babylon Bee but those are intentional satires.
- chrbutler 5y ago
  https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-020-0833-x https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-020-0833-x
  - chrbutler 5y ago
    A team of researchers led by Andrew Guess of Princeton University tracked the internet use of over 3000 Americans in the lead up to the 2016 presidential election. They found Facebook to be the referrer site for untrustworthy news sources over 15% of the time. By contrast, Facebook referred users to authoritative news sites only 6% of the time. The authors state, “This pattern of differential Facebook visits immediately prior to untrustworthy website visits is not observed for Google (3.3% untrustworthy news versus 6.2% hard news) or Twitter (1% untrustworthy versus 1.5% hard news).”
    - bquest2 5y ago
      is there updated data from the 2020 election? FB has done a lot sine 2016
- chrbutler 5y ago
  and more: "approximately 57% of Trump supporters read at least one fake news article in the month prior to the 2016 election compared to only 28% of Clinton supporters. Older Americans were also more likely to visit untrustworthy news websites. Perhaps most alarming is the observed “stickiness” of fake news websites. The researchers estimate that people spend an average of 64 seconds consuming a fake news articles compared to only 42 seconds on verified news stories."
  - axguscbklp 5y ago
    These statistics do not mean much if based on a politically biased definition of what "fake news" is. I count much of the mainstream left-leaning media's reporting on BLM-related issues as fake news because it is based on an accidental or deliberate misreading of crime and policing statistics. If you used my definition of fake news, the percentages that you quote would probably be quite different.
- smt88 5y ago
  You're asking for data and then using your anecdotal experience as proof that whatever data you're going to get will be false. Do you see how that A) puts the burden of research you should do yourself onto someone else, and B) tells people that you won't believe them anyway? There have been thousands of articles and studies with specific examples. You should try Googling it first and build up a real counterpoint before telling people you don't believe all the research.
renewiltord 5y ago
Guys, when you give people the ability to share things, they'll share things with each other that aren't true. Facebook is as much to blame for this as Gutenberg is. The extent to which people will go to avoid accepting that grandpa actually is racist is astonishing. No, dude, Facebook didn't make grandpa racist. It gave your racist grandpa the ability to talk to other racists. Facebook accurately detects that your grandpa wants to talk to racists and gives him that ability.
- chrbutler 5y ago
  I think that's a fair counterpoint, but I'm not sure it covers the whole charge. What Facebook does is both to limit the diversity of opinion to which a single user is exposed, as well as extend the reach of particular points of view (those on the more extreme end, which are more "performative"). That creates validation of points of view that can be expressed harmfully, and creates a gathering cloud of cultural force that would likely not exist without it's influence.
- lupire 5y ago
  The algorithms radicalize people: https://www.wired.com/story/christchurch-shooter-youtube-radicalization-extremism/amp https://www.wired.com/story/christchurch-shooter-youtube-rad... Just because Facebook and Youtube managemt aren't doing as intentionally as Fox News management does, doesn't make the effect not real.
- rkk3 5y ago
  "Facebook is as much to blame for this as Gutenberg is." The invention of the printing press is a good analogy to Facebook; it catalyzed the Protestant Reformation which caused centuries of persecution, war and unrest in Europe. Communication media are very powerful tools that have far reaching effects. It's not about "blame".
  - chrbutler 5y ago
    What Facebook and Gutenberg have in common is that money controls the flow of information. But that's where the comparison ends. If Gutenberg had built his printing press to only print information that would fit within one's existing preferences, then it would have been a lot like Facebook. But the reason we know about Gutenberg is because it did the opposite.
agumonkey 5y ago
A fun stream of photos to go along https://getpocket.com/explore/item/photographer-removes-our-smartphones-to-show-our-strange-and-lonely-new-world?utm_source=pocket-newtab https://getpocket.com/explore/item/photographer-removes-our-...

39 points by chrbutler 5y ago

> When enough fake news is spread, serious things can happen. Bad things. At a small scale, an individual’s reputation can be ruined. At a larger one, a foreign government can manipulate the outcome of a rival’s election. people keep repeating this like it is a truism, but how many specific examples are there of this and how much damage does fake news really do? Which specific piece of fake news influenced the 2016 U.S. presidential election? Where are these fake news stories that are always going viral? The only viral fake news that I have seen are The Onion and Babylon Bee but those are intentional satires.

chrbutler 5y ago
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-020-0833-x https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-020-0833-x
- chrbutler 5y ago
  A team of researchers led by Andrew Guess of Princeton University tracked the internet use of over 3000 Americans in the lead up to the 2016 presidential election. They found Facebook to be the referrer site for untrustworthy news sources over 15% of the time. By contrast, Facebook referred users to authoritative news sites only 6% of the time. The authors state, “This pattern of differential Facebook visits immediately prior to untrustworthy website visits is not observed for Google (3.3% untrustworthy news versus 6.2% hard news) or Twitter (1% untrustworthy versus 1.5% hard news).”
  - bquest2 5y ago
    is there updated data from the 2020 election? FB has done a lot sine 2016
chrbutler 5y ago
and more: "approximately 57% of Trump supporters read at least one fake news article in the month prior to the 2016 election compared to only 28% of Clinton supporters. Older Americans were also more likely to visit untrustworthy news websites. Perhaps most alarming is the observed “stickiness” of fake news websites. The researchers estimate that people spend an average of 64 seconds consuming a fake news articles compared to only 42 seconds on verified news stories."
- axguscbklp 5y ago
  These statistics do not mean much if based on a politically biased definition of what "fake news" is. I count much of the mainstream left-leaning media's reporting on BLM-related issues as fake news because it is based on an accidental or deliberate misreading of crime and policing statistics. If you used my definition of fake news, the percentages that you quote would probably be quite different.
smt88 5y ago
You're asking for data and then using your anecdotal experience as proof that whatever data you're going to get will be false. Do you see how that A) puts the burden of research you should do yourself onto someone else, and B) tells people that you won't believe them anyway? There have been thousands of articles and studies with specific examples. You should try Googling it first and build up a real counterpoint before telling people you don't believe all the research.

renewiltord 5y ago

Guys, when you give people the ability to share things, they'll share things with each other that aren't true. Facebook is as much to blame for this as Gutenberg is. The extent to which people will go to avoid accepting that grandpa actually is racist is astonishing. No, dude, Facebook didn't make grandpa racist. It gave your racist grandpa the ability to talk to other racists. Facebook accurately detects that your grandpa wants to talk to racists and gives him that ability.

chrbutler 5y ago
I think that's a fair counterpoint, but I'm not sure it covers the whole charge. What Facebook does is both to limit the diversity of opinion to which a single user is exposed, as well as extend the reach of particular points of view (those on the more extreme end, which are more "performative"). That creates validation of points of view that can be expressed harmfully, and creates a gathering cloud of cultural force that would likely not exist without it's influence.
lupire 5y ago
The algorithms radicalize people: https://www.wired.com/story/christchurch-shooter-youtube-radicalization-extremism/amp https://www.wired.com/story/christchurch-shooter-youtube-rad... Just because Facebook and Youtube managemt aren't doing as intentionally as Fox News management does, doesn't make the effect not real.
rkk3 5y ago
"Facebook is as much to blame for this as Gutenberg is." The invention of the printing press is a good analogy to Facebook; it catalyzed the Protestant Reformation which caused centuries of persecution, war and unrest in Europe. Communication media are very powerful tools that have far reaching effects. It's not about "blame".
- chrbutler 5y ago
  What Facebook and Gutenberg have in common is that money controls the flow of information. But that's where the comparison ends. If Gutenberg had built his printing press to only print information that would fit within one's existing preferences, then it would have been a lot like Facebook. But the reason we know about Gutenberg is because it did the opposite.

agumonkey 5y ago

A fun stream of photos to go along https://getpocket.com/explore/item/photographer-removes-our-smartphones-to-show-our-strange-and-lonely-new-world?utm_source=pocket-newtab https://getpocket.com/explore/item/photographer-removes-our-...