Org Mobile Site
Thread: Google, Facebook and fake news
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...4604&tid=ss_tw
Summary:
it's an interview with a guy who writes parody news articles and seems to make a good living out of it. I've looked at some of his articles and some of them were pretty funny. Less surreal or absurd than the average Onion article. It's also less obvious that they're jokes at first glance.
Apparently several of his articles were retweeted and forwarded by Trump supporters (including his old campaign manager Lewandowsky) as though they were actual news. The person interviewed in the article is bothered by it because the articles were intended as parodies and he's convinced he inadvertently galvanized support for Trump.
And then there's Google and Facebook which are apparently starting to take the problem serious.
To clarify: I'm not specifically talking about the US election here. On a related note, Facebook has been criticized in the Netherlands for the way their algorithms seem to provide content to people that already agrees with and reinforces their pre-existing views. I assume the criticism isn't just coming from the Netherlands since Facebook seems to have actually noticed.
So:
1) if Google and Facebook stop exposing their audience to fake news articles, would you approve? Should they try to prevent nonsense from becoming part of 'common sense'? I'm mostly thinking about malicious ones rather than (obvious) humorous ones.
2) if they don't follow through on #1, do you think governments should pressure them into doing so?
3) how many people do you suppose are really this stupid? The kind of people I'm thinking of are extremely visible on many parts of the internet. Comments sections of popular news websites come to mind. I used to think they're vastly overrepresented because loudmouthed and pushy also fits the stereotype, but now I'm less certain.
Summary:
it's an interview with a guy who writes parody news articles and seems to make a good living out of it. I've looked at some of his articles and some of them were pretty funny. Less surreal or absurd than the average Onion article. It's also less obvious that they're jokes at first glance.
Apparently several of his articles were retweeted and forwarded by Trump supporters (including his old campaign manager Lewandowsky) as though they were actual news. The person interviewed in the article is bothered by it because the articles were intended as parodies and he's convinced he inadvertently galvanized support for Trump.
And then there's Google and Facebook which are apparently starting to take the problem serious.
To clarify: I'm not specifically talking about the US election here. On a related note, Facebook has been criticized in the Netherlands for the way their algorithms seem to provide content to people that already agrees with and reinforces their pre-existing views. I assume the criticism isn't just coming from the Netherlands since Facebook seems to have actually noticed.
So:
1) if Google and Facebook stop exposing their audience to fake news articles, would you approve? Should they try to prevent nonsense from becoming part of 'common sense'? I'm mostly thinking about malicious ones rather than (obvious) humorous ones.
2) if they don't follow through on #1, do you think governments should pressure them into doing so?
3) how many people do you suppose are really this stupid? The kind of people I'm thinking of are extremely visible on many parts of the internet. Comments sections of popular news websites come to mind. I used to think they're vastly overrepresented because loudmouthed and pushy also fits the stereotype, but now I'm less certain.
The internet makes us dumber. It also reinforces our echo chambers.
I don't really approve of it. I saw Zuckerbergs comments where he basically flat out denied fake news had anything to do with swaying votes. I mean if Trump getting elected won't spur change, what will?
What is the going rate for knowingly publishing false information? There are a lot of applicable laws here. Like always though, they are slow to make it to the web.
Its not about being "stupid". There are a bunch of these fake news stories that never get any traction. I doubt there are large groups of people who get all their news from these stories. The problem is these stories fill gaps as people scroll through facebook. I know people who voted for Trump because Hil dawg killed 40,000 in Syria (a much more complicated issue). I also know people who think Trump actually said he'd run as a republican because the base was dumber (he didn't)
Long form is dying and supplanting it is crass and loud colors. So people are not stupid, they are Just not thinking critically
I don't really approve of it. I saw Zuckerbergs comments where he basically flat out denied fake news had anything to do with swaying votes. I mean if Trump getting elected won't spur change, what will?
What is the going rate for knowingly publishing false information? There are a lot of applicable laws here. Like always though, they are slow to make it to the web.
Its not about being "stupid". There are a bunch of these fake news stories that never get any traction. I doubt there are large groups of people who get all their news from these stories. The problem is these stories fill gaps as people scroll through facebook. I know people who voted for Trump because Hil dawg killed 40,000 in Syria (a much more complicated issue). I also know people who think Trump actually said he'd run as a republican because the base was dumber (he didn't)
Long form is dying and supplanting it is crass and loud colors. So people are not stupid, they are Just not thinking critically
Originally Posted by Kralizec:
So:
1) if Google and Facebook stop exposing their audience to fake news articles, would you approve? Should they try to prevent nonsense from becoming part of 'common sense'? I'm mostly thinking about malicious ones rather than (obvious) humorous ones.
2) if they don't follow through on #1, do you think governments should pressure them into doing so?
3) how many people do you suppose are really this stupid? The kind of people I'm thinking of are extremely visible on many parts of the internet. Comments sections of popular news websites come to mind. I used to think they're vastly overrepresented because loudmouthed and pushy also fits the stereotype, but now I'm less certain.
Let me preface by saying I don't think this would rate a WaPo story had Hillary won. They're flailing for excuses and this seems to be the latest one....So:
1) if Google and Facebook stop exposing their audience to fake news articles, would you approve? Should they try to prevent nonsense from becoming part of 'common sense'? I'm mostly thinking about malicious ones rather than (obvious) humorous ones.
2) if they don't follow through on #1, do you think governments should pressure them into doing so?
3) how many people do you suppose are really this stupid? The kind of people I'm thinking of are extremely visible on many parts of the internet. Comments sections of popular news websites come to mind. I used to think they're vastly overrepresented because loudmouthed and pushy also fits the stereotype, but now I'm less certain.
1) I'm ok with this in principle. They're free to do whatever they want to. But, I can see potential for abuse as some could willfully "drift" what the definition of fake news is. What if one day they decide MSNBC isn't real news and drop it from results? Also, if you're getting your news from Facebook... Stop. Now.
2) No. Absolutely not.
3) I think any of the people that would countenance a fake story in favor/opposed to a candidate would already be predisposed towards that candidate.
Rumor, urban legend, gossip, these things are part of human communication. They are not novel to the internet era. As to your questions:
1) I do not support them doing this, but have no means to stop them. It may, however, finally get me to switch my primary search engine. I already don't bother with facebook.
2) Absolutely unacceptable.
3) It's not so much stupidity as it is that they want to believe. You have such beliefs too. We all do, even the most sceptical and ardent fact checkers.
1) I do not support them doing this, but have no means to stop them. It may, however, finally get me to switch my primary search engine. I already don't bother with facebook.
2) Absolutely unacceptable.
3) It's not so much stupidity as it is that they want to believe. You have such beliefs too. We all do, even the most sceptical and ardent fact checkers.
The fake news problem has existed for quite a while, and it's only because of the election that it finally gained serious notoriety. Facebook, Google andother search engines had this problem for years where dozens of fake news pages popped up all over the place but neither of them had consistent traffic, at least not enough to cause an impact.
Until Election 2016.
Look at this, for example - https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilver...-trump-misinfo
Until Election 2016.
Look at this, for example - https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilver...-trump-misinfo
They are a distraction - the problem with Facebook is that everyone has links only to those who they are friends with and who generally share their views (or at least don't disagree). Those who don't often get defriended - as happened after Brexit for example.
Add this to people posting links to sources of information and the bubble is complete - reality is increasingly excluded.
Add this to people posting links to sources of information and the bubble is complete - reality is increasingly excluded.
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk:
They are a distraction - the problem with Facebook is that everyone has links only to those who they are friends with and who generally share their views (or at least don't disagree). Those who don't often get defriended - as happened after Brexit for example.
Add this to people posting links to sources of information and the bubble is complete - reality is increasingly excluded.
UK-wise, the Brexit campaign was an example of the information bubble, but not nearly as much as the Corbyn support. The Labour leadership has formalised this social media bubble as the route they are going to take, away from engagement with Parliament. An indication of the success of this strategy could be seen in a recent by election, where Labour doubled their membership in the constituency. Unfortunately, their vote also halved in said constituency, pushing them back from 2nd to 3rd place. Oh well, as their ex-Militant supporters say, if Labour drops to a rump of 30-40 MPs it would still be a success, as long as they are all ideologically sound (sic).They are a distraction - the problem with Facebook is that everyone has links only to those who they are friends with and who generally share their views (or at least don't disagree). Those who don't often get defriended - as happened after Brexit for example.
Add this to people posting links to sources of information and the bubble is complete - reality is increasingly excluded.
"Insisting my opponants won because 51% of the country believe lies that seep into their echo chambers makes me feel better than accepting the possibility my side might be in the wrong" - Half of last week's MSM articles in a nut shell.
It is an imaginary issue that really exists.
People who have a job often already live in a bubble because most jobs surround them with a certain kind of people.
A business consultant probably has different friends than a mailman.
Not to forget that people may not talk about politics in face to face conversation because they fear it could ruin their (likely superficial) friendships just like doing the same on Facebook does. In that case, one could say that Facebook just releases the pressure valves and exposes the hard reality that was previously suppressed but cooking right below the surface.
As for suppressing the fake news, I am not sure whether it actually helps spread them or whether people weren't already idiotic enough before that. The problem with suppressing them is, and Zuckerberg is aware of that, that it will make them look biased inevitably. The people WANT to believe in those fake news, that need already existed before someone made them. The problem with the market is that most participants are idiots and all the others are despicable, arrogant elitists.
Maybe we should cut out the part we call the "lizard brain"? Have drones do it on all of us simultaneously and see what happens.
People who have a job often already live in a bubble because most jobs surround them with a certain kind of people.
A business consultant probably has different friends than a mailman.
Not to forget that people may not talk about politics in face to face conversation because they fear it could ruin their (likely superficial) friendships just like doing the same on Facebook does. In that case, one could say that Facebook just releases the pressure valves and exposes the hard reality that was previously suppressed but cooking right below the surface.
As for suppressing the fake news, I am not sure whether it actually helps spread them or whether people weren't already idiotic enough before that. The problem with suppressing them is, and Zuckerberg is aware of that, that it will make them look biased inevitably. The people WANT to believe in those fake news, that need already existed before someone made them. The problem with the market is that most participants are idiots and all the others are despicable, arrogant elitists.
Maybe we should cut out the part we call the "lizard brain"? Have drones do it on all of us simultaneously and see what happens.
Originally Posted by Husar:
It is an imaginary issue that really exists.
People who have a job often already live in a bubble because most jobs surround them with a certain kind of people.
A business consultant probably has different friends than a mailman.
Not to forget that people may not talk about politics in face to face conversation because they fear it could ruin their (likely superficial) friendships just like doing the same on Facebook does. In that case, one could say that Facebook just releases the pressure valves and exposes the hard reality that was previously suppressed but cooking right below the surface.
As for suppressing the fake news, I am not sure whether it actually helps spread them or whether people weren't already idiotic enough before that. The problem with suppressing them is, and Zuckerberg is aware of that, that it will make them look biased inevitably. The people WANT to believe in those fake news, that need already existed before someone made them. The problem with the market is that most participants are idiots and all the others are despicable, arrogant elitists.
Maybe we should cut out the part we call the "lizard brain"? Have drones do it on all of us simultaneously and see what happens.
It's not just a case of being exposed to a limited and self-selecting subset of information. It's also refusing to take in information that contradicts what they want to think. Recently Greyblades posted a video (on Trump IIRC) with all the hallmarks of a conspiracy theory: non-mainstream, pulling in disparate elements via a narrator including conclusion, etc. This for him counted as useful information. Contrast with his dismissal of a professional documentary I posted, which follows the rigour that those who deal professionally with information observe, and which experts (politicians and historians) across the spectrum universally recognise as one of the best of its kind. Narrators distant from the sources are trusted as bearers of information because they say what the listener wants to think, but primary sources closest to the events aren't trusted because they don't say what the listener wants to think.It is an imaginary issue that really exists.
People who have a job often already live in a bubble because most jobs surround them with a certain kind of people.
A business consultant probably has different friends than a mailman.
Not to forget that people may not talk about politics in face to face conversation because they fear it could ruin their (likely superficial) friendships just like doing the same on Facebook does. In that case, one could say that Facebook just releases the pressure valves and exposes the hard reality that was previously suppressed but cooking right below the surface.
As for suppressing the fake news, I am not sure whether it actually helps spread them or whether people weren't already idiotic enough before that. The problem with suppressing them is, and Zuckerberg is aware of that, that it will make them look biased inevitably. The people WANT to believe in those fake news, that need already existed before someone made them. The problem with the market is that most participants are idiots and all the others are despicable, arrogant elitists.
Maybe we should cut out the part we call the "lizard brain"? Have drones do it on all of us simultaneously and see what happens.
I wonder if Greyblades has taken the trouble to watch The Wilderness Years yet, to see what Jeremy Corbyn has to say about his plans for the Labour party. Third person narrators are trustworthy sources of information apparently, but the future leader describing on camera what he wants to do with the party isn't worth listening to as "It's just a video" (sic).
Originally Posted by Pannonian:
It's not just a case of being exposed to a limited and self-selecting subset of information. It's also refusing to take in information that contradicts what they want to think.
That's what I meant when I said "The people WANT to believe in those fake news, that need already existed before someone made them.".It's not just a case of being exposed to a limited and self-selecting subset of information. It's also refusing to take in information that contradicts what they want to think.
Originally Posted by Xiahou:
1) I'm ok with this in principle. They're free to do whatever they want to. But, I can see potential for abuse as some could willfully "drift" what the definition of fake news is. What if one day they decide MSNBC isn't real news and drop it from results? Also, if you're getting your news from Facebook... Stop. Now.
2) No. Absolutely not.
3) I think any of the people that would countenance a fake story in favor/opposed to a candidate would already be predisposed towards that candidate.
I'm not a big fan of slippery slope arguments in general. You know that voting age was generally 21+ in most countries at one point, right? It wouldn't surprise me if people argued against lowering the age by saying "what's next, toddlers voting?"1) I'm ok with this in principle. They're free to do whatever they want to. But, I can see potential for abuse as some could willfully "drift" what the definition of fake news is. What if one day they decide MSNBC isn't real news and drop it from results? Also, if you're getting your news from Facebook... Stop. Now.
2) No. Absolutely not.
3) I think any of the people that would countenance a fake story in favor/opposed to a candidate would already be predisposed towards that candidate.
There's an obvious reason in favour of it. Many people don't double check what they read, and many people do treat Facebook as a way to keep informed about the world. Even though they really shouldn't.
Originally Posted by Husar:
As for suppressing the fake news, I am not sure whether it actually helps spread them or whether people weren't already idiotic enough before that. The problem with suppressing them is, and Zuckerberg is aware of that, that it will make them look biased inevitably. The people WANT to believe in those fake news, that need already existed before someone made them. The problem with the market is that most participants are idiots and all the others are despicable, arrogant elitists.
Is this your trademark sarcasm again? I really can't tell.As for suppressing the fake news, I am not sure whether it actually helps spread them or whether people weren't already idiotic enough before that. The problem with suppressing them is, and Zuckerberg is aware of that, that it will make them look biased inevitably. The people WANT to believe in those fake news, that need already existed before someone made them. The problem with the market is that most participants are idiots and all the others are despicable, arrogant elitists.
Nobody consciously thinks "today's a nice day, I'm going on Facebook and read some stories that I rationally know to be false but am going to believe anyway".
If you're thinking about people who are already predisposed to conspiracy theories, then they'll just have to put some effort in getting their daily dosage of BS. There are too many of these people as it is, no need for Google and Facebook to increase their number.
.....
It's not a freedom of speech thing either, for those of you who think that. You're free to publish what you want, and you can upload fake stories without consequenses until somebody provides evidence that you broke some sort of law (like libel). That does not mean that search engines or social media should accomodate you by diverting traffic to you.
Many fake news outlets are purely profit driven and designed as clickbait. If internet companies start giving less credence to stuff like, "OBAMA IS A NON-CITIZEN, BIRTH CIRTIFICATE IS A FAKE. CLICK HERE! (also, 60% discount on Viagra!!!!!)" I would consider that a big step forward.
Kralizec, in that case it would be more appropriate for Facebook to disable its news module entirely and leave it to individual users to share articles on their walls or however.
Originally Posted by Montmorency:
Kralizec, in that case it would be more appropriate for Facebook to disable its news module entirely and leave it to individual users to share articles on their walls or however.
Relevant article that agrees with youKralizec, in that case it would be more appropriate for Facebook to disable its news module entirely and leave it to individual users to share articles on their walls or however.
Short summary: right now Facebook selects news items for their end users while eschewing any responsibility for their menu, under the cop-out aphorism that they "can't be the arbiters of truth". It's a legal gray area and probably can't last.
Originally Posted by Kralizec:
I'm not a big fan of slippery slope arguments in general. You know that voting age was generally 21+ in most countries at one point, right? It wouldn't surprise me if people argued against lowering the age by saying "what's next, toddlers voting?"
There's an obvious reason in favour of it. Many people don't double check what they read, and many people do treat Facebook as a way to keep informed about the world. Even though they really shouldn't.
Firstly, I did say I'm generally OK with it since displaying "news" links is their prerogative.I'm not a big fan of slippery slope arguments in general. You know that voting age was generally 21+ in most countries at one point, right? It wouldn't surprise me if people argued against lowering the age by saying "what's next, toddlers voting?"
There's an obvious reason in favour of it. Many people don't double check what they read, and many people do treat Facebook as a way to keep informed about the world. Even though they really shouldn't.
As to the "slippery slope" rebuttal... Many conservatives have taken to calling CNN the Clinton News Network this election cycle and say anything put out by them is lies. Similarly, liberals have been calling Fox News 'Faux News' for years. I don't think either of those sources should be excluded as "fake news", but I know many of the more blind partisans on each side truly believe one or both are "fake" and would approve of their disfavoured outlet being filtered out. Who decides what's fake or not?
I don't think we have an algorithm good enough to do it right and I don't trust the intellectual honesty of people to do it objectively. It gets down to the consumers intelligence- if they have any, they'll spot phony news. If they don't.... there's no helping them anyway.
Originally Posted by Xiahou:
Firstly, I did say I'm generally OK with it since displaying "news" links is their prerogative.
As to the "slippery slope" rebuttal... Many conservatives have taken to calling CNN the Clinton News Network this election cycle and say anything put out by them is lies. Similarly, liberals have been calling Fox News 'Faux News' for years. I don't think either of those sources should be excluded as "fake news", but I know many of the more blind partisans on each side truly believe one or both are "fake" and would approve of their disfavoured outlet being filtered out. Who decides what's fake or not?
I don't think we have an algorithm good enough to do it right and I don't trust the intellectual honesty of people to do it objectively. It gets down to the consumers intelligence- if they have any, they'll spot phony news. If they don't.... there's no helping them anyway.
The most reliable algorithm is to use the BBC as a baseline. Labour accuse it of rightwing bias, while the Conservatives accuse it of leftwing bias. When both sides of the political divide accuse you of bias towards the other side, you can be reasonably confident of your impartiality.Firstly, I did say I'm generally OK with it since displaying "news" links is their prerogative.
As to the "slippery slope" rebuttal... Many conservatives have taken to calling CNN the Clinton News Network this election cycle and say anything put out by them is lies. Similarly, liberals have been calling Fox News 'Faux News' for years. I don't think either of those sources should be excluded as "fake news", but I know many of the more blind partisans on each side truly believe one or both are "fake" and would approve of their disfavoured outlet being filtered out. Who decides what's fake or not?
I don't think we have an algorithm good enough to do it right and I don't trust the intellectual honesty of people to do it objectively. It gets down to the consumers intelligence- if they have any, they'll spot phony news. If they don't.... there's no helping them anyway.
Originally Posted by Pannonian:
When both sides of the political divide accuse you of bias towards the other side, you can be reasonably confident of your impartiality.
Not really. Just about any outlet that is not rabidly and openly biased can dig up representatives of both sides to stake that argument on. Further, this assumes that an accurate answer lies in the space between the two sides. On most issues that garner serious interest by both partisan interests, this is reasonably likely to be the case. However, it doesn't and cannot speak to any bias with regards to issues that don't generate a partisan divide.When both sides of the political divide accuse you of bias towards the other side, you can be reasonably confident of your impartiality.
Originally Posted by Pannonian:
The most reliable algorithm is to use the BBC as a baseline. Labour accuse it of rightwing bias, while the Conservatives accuse it of leftwing bias. When both sides of the political divide accuse you of bias towards the other side, you can be reasonably confident of your impartiality.
In the UK, both "Rightwing" and "Leftwing" are an incredibly small selection of all options. No one is saying "hey, maybe a Chinese government Meritocracy is something to consider". It is either pro-EU is more open to the world, or anti-EU is more open to the world. No one considers whether being open to the world is innately a good thing (I do - but the point is there remain many, many things that are not explored).The most reliable algorithm is to use the BBC as a baseline. Labour accuse it of rightwing bias, while the Conservatives accuse it of leftwing bias. When both sides of the political divide accuse you of bias towards the other side, you can be reasonably confident of your impartiality.
Or humanitarian aid into a warzone. Both sides argue how this should be done. It doesn't appear to be discussed whether it should be done and even why we are getting involved in the war in the first place.
Originally Posted by :
Or humanitarian aid into a warzone. Both sides argue how this should be done. It doesn't appear to be discussed whether it should be done and even why we are getting involved in the war in the first place.
Really? Seems more like the other way around with respect to "whether" and "how". Or are you thinking of the subject of "intervention" more broadly?Or humanitarian aid into a warzone. Both sides argue how this should be done. It doesn't appear to be discussed whether it should be done and even why we are getting involved in the war in the first place.
Originally Posted by Montmorency:
Really? Seems more like the other way around with respect to "whether" and "how". Or are you thinking of the subject of "intervention" more broadly?
Probably best the broader point regarding intervention. But it appears we hear that giving aid is a good idea and the BBC is often at pains to say that the people are without medical aid and are hungry - as if this isn't always the case in wars. Really? Seems more like the other way around with respect to "whether" and "how". Or are you thinking of the subject of "intervention" more broadly?
Regarding aid we have had aid convoys and of course humanitarian ceasefires discussed. No one has pointed out that allowing all sides to rearm is mainly going to make the war drag out for longer.
Even who is in charge is based upon what external actors want, not the Syrnian people themselves. They might elect someone who didn't win the popular vote - or even worse they might and that would be evidence of voter fraud. Only democracies are allowed to have systems such as this.
Originally Posted by :
Regarding aid we have had aid convoys and of course humanitarian ceasefires discussed. No one has pointed out that allowing all sides to rearm is mainly going to make the war drag out for longer.
IMO an all-around political and humanitarian good move would be direct management and funding of refugee camps in Jordan and Lebanon. Of course that opens more aid workers to raids and attacks, but it sidesteps the need for troops on the ground beyond defensive outposts at the camps to supplement local forces.Regarding aid we have had aid convoys and of course humanitarian ceasefires discussed. No one has pointed out that allowing all sides to rearm is mainly going to make the war drag out for longer.
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk:
In the UK, both "Rightwing" and "Leftwing" are an incredibly small selection of all options. No one is saying "hey, maybe a Chinese government Meritocracy is something to consider". It is either pro-EU is more open to the world, or anti-EU is more open to the world. No one considers whether being open to the world is innately a good thing (I do - but the point is there remain many, many things that are not explored).
Or humanitarian aid into a warzone. Both sides argue how this should be done. It doesn't appear to be discussed whether it should be done and even why we are getting involved in the war in the first place.
That's the legacy of being on the side of the Good Guys in WWII. If we want to continue carping on that legacy, we have to live up to the image we've created for ourselves.In the UK, both "Rightwing" and "Leftwing" are an incredibly small selection of all options. No one is saying "hey, maybe a Chinese government Meritocracy is something to consider". It is either pro-EU is more open to the world, or anti-EU is more open to the world. No one considers whether being open to the world is innately a good thing (I do - but the point is there remain many, many things that are not explored).
Or humanitarian aid into a warzone. Both sides argue how this should be done. It doesn't appear to be discussed whether it should be done and even why we are getting involved in the war in the first place.
Originally Posted by Pannonian:
That's the legacy of being on the side of the Good Guys in WWII. If we want to continue carping on that legacy, we have to live up to the image we've created for ourselves.
It was delusional before WW2 and has continued to be afterwards. We joined WW2 to protect Poland and failed miserably, supported Stalin, sent the Cossacks back to be shot etc etc etc...That's the legacy of being on the side of the Good Guys in WWII. If we want to continue carping on that legacy, we have to live up to the image we've created for ourselves.
We fought wars all over the place in the preceding years and conspired with the Israelis to get back the Suez canal and equally failed to involved in many others. There is no logic to how we are the Good Guys beyond we say we are. So why not just continue saying we are Good rather than worry about reality?
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO