12 ms·

Researchers studying Facebook misinformation say they were deplatformed

177 points by SmkyMt 5y ago

artificialLimbs 5y ago
Oh, people still read CNN? >> The study found that from August 2020 to January 2021, misinformation got six times more clicks on Facebook than posts containing factual news. I'd just love to see the breakdown and info in the posts here. >> But the far right and far left media ecosystems are "fundamentally different," Edelson said, with 40% of the media sources cited on the far right actively spreading false information. In other corners of the media ecosystem and other partisan groups, this number doesn't go above 10%. My favorite part is how they completely don't quantify this or link to other sources at all. Or is it that my ad blocking mechanisms are defeating me clicking on more trash?
ineedasername 5y ago
We took these actions to stop unauthorized scraping and protect people's privacy It's not really unauthorized if people installed the pluggin for the express purpose of providing the researchers with data about the ads they received and how their personal information may have gotten them targeted for those ads. Given IRB requirements, that would have to have been made clear to users as well. Not like the click-wrap "I agree" buttons Facebook and other use to keep knowledge what users are giving to them opaque.
- croes 5y ago
  Especially when FB banned the researchers user accounts and not prevent the data collection extension
- kelnage 5y ago
  I believe FB is being purposely disingenuous with its statement there - using the language of user privacy and security to protect itself from third-party academic research. The authorisation it talks about here is not the users - it’s their authorisation. The privacy concerns are the advertisers (yes, really - they claimed at one point some adverts include names and contact details for the advertiser, and hence constitute private information). That’s why they say “people’s privacy” without explicitly identifying the people they are protecting.
  - paulryanrogers 5y ago
    > they claimed at one point some adverts include names and contact details for the advertiser, and hence constitute private information So if Facebook allowed ads do contain PII haven't their privacy protections already failed? And if advertisers are allowed to include PII by design then it cannot really be private. If it is private then surely users whom the ad targets have a right to record their experience.
- samhw 5y ago
  They are referring to the privacy of _other_ users whose information could be scraped by these plugins, contrary to the privacy guarantees of their post (e.g. "only my friends can see this"). I'm sceptical of Facebook's motivations, but we should at least be accurate.
  - mishafb 5y ago
    Yeah, but obviosuly facebook doesn't have shadow profiles /s
  - paulryanrogers 5y ago
    This is possible with any extension that can scrape site data or every camera ever made. Also the source of the extension can prove such exfiltraion is not its purpose.
    - samhw 5y ago
      This extension is explicit about scraping and storing data from Facebook, which obviously makes it rather more of a target. And I'm not sure what the point of bringing up a camera is - obviously Facebook can't stop people doing that, but I can't see why that entails that they should simply do nothing about any scraping of data.
      - chuckee 5y ago
        They should do nothing because once they show data to a user, they have no legitimate claim to forbid that user from telling others what Facebook has shown them. What you're talking about is essentially DRM, using technological means to circumvent user rights.
- matheusmoreira 5y ago
  By unauthorized, they mean unauthorized by Facebook. They own their users and they'll be damned if they let some researchers shed light on their user exploitation activities. In this day and age, mere mortals are not allowed to do anything that goes against a corporation's business interests. If it costs them money, it might as well be illegal as far as they're concerned.
Tialco 5y ago
There should really be a ban on sites like FoxNews & CNN from hacker news.
temp8964 5y ago
> But the far right and far left media ecosystems are "fundamentally different," Edelson said, with 40% of the media sources cited on the far right actively spreading false information. In other corners of the media ecosystem and other partisan groups, this number doesn't go above 10%. This is simply a lie. The whole BLM / antifa / defund police / acab movement is based on misinformation. If you count those in, there is no way it is below 10%.
- tomlockwood 5y ago
  Interesting! Where are you getting your information?
  - rvz 5y ago
    This is a frequent problem with such comments like the one you just replied to. I am prepared to give them a chance for them to substantiate their claims, however if we ask them for any evidence and we still have no response, then the claim can be immediately be dismissed as baseless.
- zepto 5y ago
  My impression is that neither side is more “truthful”, but there is a strong qualitative difference between them. The left tends to use true facts but to exclude inconvenient contradictions, and build misleading narratives. The right on the other hand does seem to just spread straight up falsehoods. So if you fact check them both, the right will look a lot worse.
  - andyxor 5y ago
    if you swap the "left" and "right" labels you comment will be just as true (or false, depending on whom you ask). NYU has very strong reputation in hard sciences but their social studies are hopelessly left-leaning and probably as far from neutral as Taliban studies on women's rights.
    - zepto 5y ago
motohagiography 5y ago
Is it safe to say censorship, deplatforming, shadowbans, unbanking, watchlisting, and unpersoning is pretty much normalized, and now everyone can just say, "it is what it is," and imagine they aren't going to be caught up in the next wave?
- pengaru 5y ago
  These kinds of practices have always been normalized in the context of internet web forums. They're privately owned and operated sites whose "members" amount to volunteer content contributors with zero legal right to be published via or given access to said site. Facebook is no different. There's a serious computer and internet literacy problem when the general public believes otherwise. Hell, doesn't SomethingAwful let users ban others for a fee?
  - fnord77 5y ago
    > Hell, doesn't SomethingAwful let users ban others for a fee? that's kinda brilliant
  - imgabe 5y ago
    There are lots of things that can be normalized at a small scale that don't work at a large scale. If you're a 3 person startup with your 2 best friends you can work in your living room, keep whatever weird hours you want, call each other rude nicknames, and joke around. When you're a 1000 person company with an HR department you need to have some clear procedures because there's lots of different people that can't all know and trust each other the way three people do. Likewise, a small niche forum with an insular community can police itself pretty much however it likes. A global communication network that has become telecom infrastructure for all intents and purpose has do a little more justification before it cuts someone off from what is becoming a vital service.
    - pengaru 5y ago
      > A global communication network that has become telecom infrastructure for all intents and purpose has do a little more justification before it cuts someone off from what is becoming a vital service. Until the Facebooks and Twitters of the world become legally classified as such, you're making the same mistake of expecting as much from what is legally absolutely no different from the SomethingAwfuls of the world.
andyxor 5y ago
don't violate the TOS if you want to use a platform for your research also based on Edelson statement this research seems to be heavily biased before it even completed, favoring one political wing statements as "true" vs. another as "false", probably not much scientific value was there in the first place
- croes 5y ago
  It's not on FB to decide the value of a study, that's the job of science. And FB's TOS seems to be, don't endanger our profit.
baud147258 5y ago
>> But the far right and far left media ecosystems are "fundamentally different," Edelson said, with 40% of the media sources cited on the far right actively spreading false information. In other corners of the media ecosystem and other partisan groups, this number doesn't go above 10%. how are they quantifying this? Or is there link to other sources on this?
- skinkestek 5y ago
  Don't be surprised if it is quantified the same way as the "ER filled with people overdosed on Ivermectin", i.e. by pulling the facts out of thin air.
  - pc86 5y ago
    Unless you actually have evidence this is the case (other than your own personal bias), this is a completely unhelpful comment. Presumably the study's methodology is documented somewhere, it just may not be published yet.
    - skinkestek 5y ago
      My methodology is well known: it is an educated guess. And no, I still think Western civilization including the press is pretty nifty compared to the alternatives, I just try to apply some pressure to get it to self correct.
- jsuqo 5y ago
  They are probably quantifying it using """independent""" fact checkers.
guilhas 5y ago
This is a private company. As a company they also have freedom of speech. Government should not interfere. They should be free to curate their own platform. You can create your own facebook... -HN after Trump was banned, or after NoNewNormal was banned by reddit It is amazing how fast the narrative changes, based on how people agree or disagree with the censored group in question. Do people notice they are behaving this way?
- williamdclt 5y ago
  I'm sure you've considered that maybe the people that were saying that then (which was far from everybody on HN) are not the same people that are saying something different now
  - guilhas 5y ago
    That would be something interesting to find out. One day I might crawl some controversial posts and to try and find people with most contradictory comments
- moksly 5y ago
  > HN after Trump was banned… Odd, that wasn’t my experience at all on HN. It seemed most people agreed that he should have been banned a lot sooner for being incredibly rude and racist. If anything the consensus at the time seemed to be Facebook and Twitter were cowards and wrong in that they only took action when it was free of consequences. I’m curious to know why you felt the need to post as you did though. What were you hoping to achieve? On one hand what you wrote is a strawman argument that’s rather unrelated to the topic, on the other hand, even if we pretend that you were correct and the entire community on HN was as you lay it out here, then why on earth would you come here? I hope you stay, however, but I think it would be good for you to stop judging people as groups. Every political thread on HN is full of different opinions and they aren’t all coming from the same people. We’re not a “hivemind” by any means. I’m Danish as an example, your mentioning Trump may just be the first time I have heard about him since Biden took office. I’m not sure where I would fit in your “HN” category, but I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t put me in the same box if you ever met me. It must be so hard and frustrating to think an entire community that you are part of is full of hypocrites instead of just full of interesting people. It shouldn’t be a negative experience to browse a social medium such as HN and if you find that it is, well, I would personally take a break, and I often do.
fortran77 5y ago
I'm skeptical that the "far right" spreads misinformation more than the "far left". I think that may reflect the bias of the researchers.
- fortran77 5y ago
  See https://unherd.com/2021/09/the-lefts-science-denial/ https://unherd.com/2021/09/the-lefts-science-denial/ for example

177 points by SmkyMt 5y ago

Oh, people still read CNN? >> The study found that from August 2020 to January 2021, misinformation got six times more clicks on Facebook than posts containing factual news. I'd just love to see the breakdown and info in the posts here. >> But the far right and far left media ecosystems are "fundamentally different," Edelson said, with 40% of the media sources cited on the far right actively spreading false information. In other corners of the media ecosystem and other partisan groups, this number doesn't go above 10%. My favorite part is how they completely don't quantify this or link to other sources at all. Or is it that my ad blocking mechanisms are defeating me clicking on more trash?

ineedasername 5y ago

We took these actions to stop unauthorized scraping and protect people's privacy It's not really unauthorized if people installed the pluggin for the express purpose of providing the researchers with data about the ads they received and how their personal information may have gotten them targeted for those ads. Given IRB requirements, that would have to have been made clear to users as well. Not like the click-wrap "I agree" buttons Facebook and other use to keep knowledge what users are giving to them opaque.

croes 5y ago
Especially when FB banned the researchers user accounts and not prevent the data collection extension
kelnage 5y ago
I believe FB is being purposely disingenuous with its statement there - using the language of user privacy and security to protect itself from third-party academic research. The authorisation it talks about here is not the users - it’s their authorisation. The privacy concerns are the advertisers (yes, really - they claimed at one point some adverts include names and contact details for the advertiser, and hence constitute private information). That’s why they say “people’s privacy” without explicitly identifying the people they are protecting.
- paulryanrogers 5y ago
  > they claimed at one point some adverts include names and contact details for the advertiser, and hence constitute private information So if Facebook allowed ads do contain PII haven't their privacy protections already failed? And if advertisers are allowed to include PII by design then it cannot really be private. If it is private then surely users whom the ad targets have a right to record their experience.
samhw 5y ago
They are referring to the privacy of _other_ users whose information could be scraped by these plugins, contrary to the privacy guarantees of their post (e.g. "only my friends can see this"). I'm sceptical of Facebook's motivations, but we should at least be accurate.
- mishafb 5y ago
  Yeah, but obviosuly facebook doesn't have shadow profiles /s
- paulryanrogers 5y ago
  This is possible with any extension that can scrape site data or every camera ever made. Also the source of the extension can prove such exfiltraion is not its purpose.
  - samhw 5y ago
    This extension is explicit about scraping and storing data from Facebook, which obviously makes it rather more of a target. And I'm not sure what the point of bringing up a camera is - obviously Facebook can't stop people doing that, but I can't see why that entails that they should simply do nothing about any scraping of data.
    - chuckee 5y ago
      They should do nothing because once they show data to a user, they have no legitimate claim to forbid that user from telling others what Facebook has shown them. What you're talking about is essentially DRM, using technological means to circumvent user rights.
matheusmoreira 5y ago
By unauthorized, they mean unauthorized by Facebook. They own their users and they'll be damned if they let some researchers shed light on their user exploitation activities. In this day and age, mere mortals are not allowed to do anything that goes against a corporation's business interests. If it costs them money, it might as well be illegal as far as they're concerned.

Tialco 5y ago

There should really be a ban on sites like FoxNews & CNN from hacker news.

temp8964 5y ago

> But the far right and far left media ecosystems are "fundamentally different," Edelson said, with 40% of the media sources cited on the far right actively spreading false information. In other corners of the media ecosystem and other partisan groups, this number doesn't go above 10%. This is simply a lie. The whole BLM / antifa / defund police / acab movement is based on misinformation. If you count those in, there is no way it is below 10%.

tomlockwood 5y ago
Interesting! Where are you getting your information?
- rvz 5y ago
  This is a frequent problem with such comments like the one you just replied to. I am prepared to give them a chance for them to substantiate their claims, however if we ask them for any evidence and we still have no response, then the claim can be immediately be dismissed as baseless.
zepto 5y ago
My impression is that neither side is more “truthful”, but there is a strong qualitative difference between them. The left tends to use true facts but to exclude inconvenient contradictions, and build misleading narratives. The right on the other hand does seem to just spread straight up falsehoods. So if you fact check them both, the right will look a lot worse.
- andyxor 5y ago
  if you swap the "left" and "right" labels you comment will be just as true (or false, depending on whom you ask). NYU has very strong reputation in hard sciences but their social studies are hopelessly left-leaning and probably as far from neutral as Taliban studies on women's rights.
  - zepto 5y ago

motohagiography 5y ago

Is it safe to say censorship, deplatforming, shadowbans, unbanking, watchlisting, and unpersoning is pretty much normalized, and now everyone can just say, "it is what it is," and imagine they aren't going to be caught up in the next wave?

pengaru 5y ago
These kinds of practices have always been normalized in the context of internet web forums. They're privately owned and operated sites whose "members" amount to volunteer content contributors with zero legal right to be published via or given access to said site. Facebook is no different. There's a serious computer and internet literacy problem when the general public believes otherwise. Hell, doesn't SomethingAwful let users ban others for a fee?
- fnord77 5y ago
  > Hell, doesn't SomethingAwful let users ban others for a fee? that's kinda brilliant
- imgabe 5y ago
  There are lots of things that can be normalized at a small scale that don't work at a large scale. If you're a 3 person startup with your 2 best friends you can work in your living room, keep whatever weird hours you want, call each other rude nicknames, and joke around. When you're a 1000 person company with an HR department you need to have some clear procedures because there's lots of different people that can't all know and trust each other the way three people do. Likewise, a small niche forum with an insular community can police itself pretty much however it likes. A global communication network that has become telecom infrastructure for all intents and purpose has do a little more justification before it cuts someone off from what is becoming a vital service.
  - pengaru 5y ago
    > A global communication network that has become telecom infrastructure for all intents and purpose has do a little more justification before it cuts someone off from what is becoming a vital service. Until the Facebooks and Twitters of the world become legally classified as such, you're making the same mistake of expecting as much from what is legally absolutely no different from the SomethingAwfuls of the world.

andyxor 5y ago

don't violate the TOS if you want to use a platform for your research also based on Edelson statement this research seems to be heavily biased before it even completed, favoring one political wing statements as "true" vs. another as "false", probably not much scientific value was there in the first place

croes 5y ago
It's not on FB to decide the value of a study, that's the job of science. And FB's TOS seems to be, don't endanger our profit.

baud147258 5y ago

>> But the far right and far left media ecosystems are "fundamentally different," Edelson said, with 40% of the media sources cited on the far right actively spreading false information. In other corners of the media ecosystem and other partisan groups, this number doesn't go above 10%. how are they quantifying this? Or is there link to other sources on this?

skinkestek 5y ago
Don't be surprised if it is quantified the same way as the "ER filled with people overdosed on Ivermectin", i.e. by pulling the facts out of thin air.
- pc86 5y ago
  Unless you actually have evidence this is the case (other than your own personal bias), this is a completely unhelpful comment. Presumably the study's methodology is documented somewhere, it just may not be published yet.
  - skinkestek 5y ago
    My methodology is well known: it is an educated guess. And no, I still think Western civilization including the press is pretty nifty compared to the alternatives, I just try to apply some pressure to get it to self correct.
jsuqo 5y ago
They are probably quantifying it using """independent""" fact checkers.

guilhas 5y ago

This is a private company. As a company they also have freedom of speech. Government should not interfere. They should be free to curate their own platform. You can create your own facebook... -HN after Trump was banned, or after NoNewNormal was banned by reddit It is amazing how fast the narrative changes, based on how people agree or disagree with the censored group in question. Do people notice they are behaving this way?

williamdclt 5y ago
I'm sure you've considered that maybe the people that were saying that then (which was far from everybody on HN) are not the same people that are saying something different now
- guilhas 5y ago
  That would be something interesting to find out. One day I might crawl some controversial posts and to try and find people with most contradictory comments
moksly 5y ago
> HN after Trump was banned… Odd, that wasn’t my experience at all on HN. It seemed most people agreed that he should have been banned a lot sooner for being incredibly rude and racist. If anything the consensus at the time seemed to be Facebook and Twitter were cowards and wrong in that they only took action when it was free of consequences. I’m curious to know why you felt the need to post as you did though. What were you hoping to achieve? On one hand what you wrote is a strawman argument that’s rather unrelated to the topic, on the other hand, even if we pretend that you were correct and the entire community on HN was as you lay it out here, then why on earth would you come here? I hope you stay, however, but I think it would be good for you to stop judging people as groups. Every political thread on HN is full of different opinions and they aren’t all coming from the same people. We’re not a “hivemind” by any means. I’m Danish as an example, your mentioning Trump may just be the first time I have heard about him since Biden took office. I’m not sure where I would fit in your “HN” category, but I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t put me in the same box if you ever met me. It must be so hard and frustrating to think an entire community that you are part of is full of hypocrites instead of just full of interesting people. It shouldn’t be a negative experience to browse a social medium such as HN and if you find that it is, well, I would personally take a break, and I often do.

fortran77 5y ago

I'm skeptical that the "far right" spreads misinformation more than the "far left". I think that may reflect the bias of the researchers.

fortran77 5y ago
See https://unherd.com/2021/09/the-lefts-science-denial/ https://unherd.com/2021/09/the-lefts-science-denial/ for example