Slashdot Mirror
Facebook's Fight Against Fake News Was Undercut by Fear of Conservative Backlash (gizmodo.com)
Facebook has been concerned about fake news stories that circulate on its social platform and how often such incidents occur. The company has had high-level internal debates over the matter since May, discussing different options to curb movements of hoax and false stories. Gizmodo reports Monday that Facebook executives conducted a wide-ranging review of products and policies earlier this year with "the goal of eliminating any appearance of political bias." The company even had a major update for the News Feed planned which could have supposedly filtered fake stories, but the update never saw the light of the day because it was afraid to use it. From the report:One source said high-ranking officials were briefed on a planned News Feed update that would have identified fake or hoax news stories, but disproportionately impacted right-wing news sites by downgrading or removing that content from people's feeds. According to the source, the update was shelved and never released to the public. It's unclear if the update had other deficiencies that caused it to be scrubbed. "They absolutely have the tools to shut down fake news," said the source, who asked to remain anonymous citing fear of retribution from the company. The source added, "there was a lot of fear about upsetting conservatives after Trending Topics," and that "a lot of product decisions got caught up in that." In an emailed statement, Facebook did not answer Gizmodo's direct questions about whether the company built a News Feed update that was capable of identifying fake or hoax news stories, nor whether such an update would disproportionately impact right-wing or conservative-leaning sites. Instead, Facebook said it "did not build and withhold any News Feed changes based on their potential impact on any one political party."
The alt-right is posting more fake stories than the alt-left - 38% to 19%. Now, a lot of people will point to that as a "right is more gullible for fake news than the left!" point, but I see it as "even 19% is really bloody terrible".
A lot of the BS, mind you, isn't to say maliciously done; it's a consequence of the clickbait era that we live in. Many people - including even teens in Macedonia - have learned that if you make up something with dramatic language and a sensationalist headline, people click and share it, and they get ad revenue. Factual accuracy doesn't come into equation - if you can sensationalize a real story: great; if you have to make up a story from whole cloth: also great! A single widely shared article can earn them $3k in a day. So they create fake news sites like "WorldPoliticus.com", "USADailyPolitics.com", etc and fill them with clickbait. Early on many of them did it about equally with the left and right, but they found that they got more clicks and shares from the right.
It's times like this I wish I had a friend named 'The Professor'.
Actually, that statement is itself based around fake news. Funny, that.
It's times like this I wish I had a friend named 'The Professor'.
Or reporting that Trump was racist to Mexicans when he said that illegal immigrant gangs were raping women.
There's probably some of that happening. But there's a big difference between that and Trump's public assertion that most Mexican illegal immigrants were rapists and murderers.
Or reporting that there was nothing at all to Benghazi and no reason to investigate. Or reporting that Muslims were mad about a movie about Mohammed and not celebrating the anniversary of 9/11 by showing their strength and attacking US embassies around the world.
Most of the protests, including the one at Benghazi, were a direct result of the Innocence of Muslims video which had just been released. This isn't even questioned by authorities of either political persuasion, what was controversial was whether the administration said that the attacks came because of the protest or because of al-Quaeda terrorism. The truth was that the protests over the video were real, and terrorists used to protests as cover to sneak up to the embassy undetected.
Or reporting that Huma Abedin had been vetted and there was nothing to suggest she had a connection to the Muslim Brotherhood when every member of her family was MB and their journal was funded by one of the first financiers of al-Qaeda.
Not that I trust your "vetting" of her family but this sounds like guilt by association. Not even association, but guilt by family member's association. And it was always bullshit. That was a fake story without merit, and even Michelle Bachmann's campaign manager thought she should apologize for making it up. John McCain also came out against it, saying that the letter offered no prove, and there not a single report to indicate that she was promoting anti-American activities in the government.
Or reporting that Hillary Clinton's email scandal was only about the use of a private server and not about putting classified SCIF and GAMMA data on unsecured systems, destruction of evidence, and lying to federal investigators
The private server was a wildly overblown issue, but just like Nixon, it wasn't the crime that got Hillary into trouble, but the coverup.
Or reporting that Gamergate was a harassment campaign
I guess you weren't paying attention, but both sides looked pretty shitty, and no one won in that conflict. We all lost.
Or reporting that the 2nd Amendment gives the National Guard the right to bear arms.
This is an absolutely bizarre thing to bring up. Why wouldn't the National Guard be able to bear arms? An individual right does not invalidate a group right.
Or reporting that transgender rights are being violated by making them use the correct bathrooms or referring to them by their real names or with the correct pronouns.
Times change, buddy. Used to be that gay folks couldn't get married either, or that women were sold off by their family for marriage with a dowry, and that they didn't any say in the matter. Over time, we get better, and there is NO benefit to the automatic assumption that people in the past had things figured out morally.