Facebook Pledges To Crack Down on Government-led Misinformation Campaigns (theverge.com)

Facebook is pressing its enforcement against what it calls "information operations" -- bad actors who use the platform to spread fake news and false propaganda. From a report: The company, which published a report on the subject today, defines these operations as government-led campaigns -- or those from organized "non-state actors" -- to promote lies, sow confusion and chaos among opposing political groups, and destabilize movements in other countries. The goal of these operations, the report says, is to manipulate public opinion and serve geopolitical ends. The actions go beyond the posting of fake news stories. The 13-page report specifies that fake news can be motivated by a number of incentives, but that it becomes part of a larger information operation when its coupled with other tactics and end goals. Facebook says these include friend requests sent under false names to glean more information about the personal networks of spying targets and hacking targets, the boosting of false or misleading stories through mass "liking" campaigns, and the creation propaganda groups. The company defines these actions as "targeted data collection," "false amplification," and "content creation." Facebook plans to target these accounts by monitoring for suspicious activity, like bursts of automated actions on the site, to enact mass banning of accounts.

Comments

Ah yes, Facebook

[Anonymous Coward]

That paragon of integrity.

Re:Ah yes, Facebook

[unixisc]

Yeah. One thing I was wondering - does this mean that they'll become an online arm of the 'RESIST' movement, or does it mean that they'll stand up to actual international thuggish regimes, like North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Pali Authority, et al?

Re:Ah yes, Facebook

[ranton]

Yeah. One thing I was wondering - does this mean that they'll become an online arm of the 'RESIST' movement, or does it mean that they'll stand up to actual international thuggish regimes, like North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Pali Authority, et al?

We could get the best of both worlds and have it be all of the above.

Re:Ah yes, Facebook

[amiga3D]

Or the worst of both worlds. I think I'd rather sift through the crap myself than have the likes of Facebook and Google deciding what I can see.

Re:Ah yes, Facebook

[Humbubba]

If only Twitter would do the same!

---

John 18:38

Re:Ah yes, Facebook

[Altrag]

Trouble is, you're alone on that. Most people (possibly including yourself) not only don't want to sift through stuff, they don't know how and worse, they don't recognize that they don't know how. Its not even (entirely) a Dunning-Kruger effect either -- simple confirmation bias will ensure that you disproportionately trust things you already believe. And there's nothing you can do about it. Our brains are just wired to work that way.

So you need a way to sift through the crud that counteracts those effects and biases. Our AI technology can get us partway there these days, but its not sufficiently good to be relied on entirely. So you've got to have people in the mix. But those people will suffer the same effects you do and the only way to balance that is to throw enough (independent) people at the problem with differing viewpoints in order to average out the biases and hopefully come up with a reasonable consensus.

Now whether Facebook and Google are the best organizations to do that is up for grabs. But at this point, I'd say they're actually among our best bets. In particular, they're not beholden to anyone but themselves. News organizations used to be the people we trusted but they've kind of dropped the ball as news has transitioned from informing us toward trying to entertain us, with a good sprinkling of partisan politics and corporate sponsorship thrown in to spice things up.

So FB and Google. They've certainly got their fair share of issues. But what they don't really have (at least not yet) is a strong leaning toward any political spectrum, or any strong pressure from sponsors to avoid or promote specific stories. They're about as unbiased as you can find these days, outside of the few topics that directly affect their bottom line (I wouldn't necessarily trust Google to be fairly reporting on net neutrality rules for example, as they stand much to lose if net neutrality is weakened or goes away. In that particular case, Google's needs somewhat align with well.. basically anyone who isn't a major ISP.. so that works out for us but there will be other stories where Google is firmly on the opposing side.)

Re:Ah yes, Facebook

[AmiMoJo]

There seems to be a misconception that they are censoring stuff. They aren't, they just out a note next to it saying it is likely fake. You can still use your own judgement.

Re:Ah yes, Facebook

[rtb61]

I know exactly how to sift through the truth and lies, you test their validity in a court of law, the evidence on public display and challenged to ensure accuracy. If the politicised scum of Facebook think they entitled to call them selves, judge, jury and executioner of news, it is a pretty solid indication they are the last people to trust. Got a problem with a news story, take it to fucking court, else shut the fuck up with your deceitful, disingenuous censorship and propaganda. It's like month after month Facebook management announce another reason why people should leave them. Facebook your source for corporate approved propaganda where end users are silenced (of course if end users are silenced why would they stay).

Re:Ah yes, Facebook

[guises]

Nothing here suggests that they're going to start taking on political ideologies, only the manner in which some proponents of those ideologies spread their message.

Re:Ah yes, Facebook

[kenai_alpenglow]

NK, Iran, etc should be easy (Turkey maybe not so much). How about the elephant in the room--$China$?

Re:Ah yes, Facebook

[Capsaicin]

[S]imple confirmation bias will ensure that you disproportionately trust things you already believe. And there's nothing you can do about it. Our brains are just wired to work that way.

I don't disagree with the general tenor of your argument, but to this I must object. There's plenty we can do about it: it starts with honestly questioning ourselves as to whether we are letting our biases colour our understanding, and it proceeds by the applying the evidence in attempts to rebut those presumptions ordered thinking demands. Even if few people are motivated to do it, dispassionate fact-checking is possible. While here is no guarantee the conclusions will always be correct (Type I and II errors suck!), we can adopt correct methodologies, which, it is hoped, will draw correct conclusions more often than not and which, most importantly, allow for subsequent correction in light of the evidence (as methodologies built upon poor presumptions may not).

Re:Ah yes, Facebook

[Altrag]

I assumed the word "practical" what implied. My bad.

you test their validity in a court of law

When there's dozens if not hundreds of BS stories coming out every week, I doubt you're going to find any court of law willing to waste that much time on the issue -- by the time you'd prosecuted your first one, there would be 100,000 new ones waiting in line. And you're assuming the court is somehow less biased than FB's gang of reviewers. Maybe differently biased, but completely unbiased is a pretty wild claim especially in today's political environment.

Facebook think they entitled to call them selves, judge, jury and executioner of news, it is a pretty solid indication they are the last people to trust

They're not. They're claiming to be the judge, jury and execution of new posted on their website. If you don't like them doing that, you're free to pick up your fake news elsewhere.

else shut the fuck up with your deceitful, disingenuous censorship and propaganda

The whole point is to try and shut up the deceitful propaganda because they aren't shutting themselves up, and neither the government (who is producing most of the crap in the first place) nor the news organizations (who used to be the ones doing this sifting work) are willing or maybe even capable of stopping it.

Re:Ah yes, Facebook

[Altrag]

honestly questioning ourselves as to whether we are letting our biases colour our understanding

That's exactly my point. You cannot do that. You may think you can, but all of the research and evidence available points very strongly towards that not being the case and if you believe you're special somehow, then you're probably in this group of people: "and worse, they don't recognize that they don't know how." That's why you really need multiple people on the job with different viewpoints -- attempt to cancel out those built-in biases by averaging across a population sample (even if its a small sample of 2-3 people that's better than one.)

dispassionate fact-checking is possible

Possible yes, practical not so much when there's hundreds of stories to check each week. FB's plan is to essentially match quantity to quantity. We'll see how they do with regards to quality.

Re:Ah yes, Facebook

[Capsaicin]

That's exactly my point. You cannot do that. You may think you can, but all of the research and evidence available points very strongly towards that not being the case ...

I did read your original comment, I realise that's your point. My point is that you are wrong, Oh, and so far as I know, there has been no research whatsoever into my personal lack of objectivity.

[I]f you believe you're special somehow, then you're probably in this group of people: "and worse, they don't recognize that they don't know how."

Of course I'm somehow special, but that is not the point. The point is that there is an ordered methodology by which evidence can be examined. There are canonical presumptions (and they tend to be variations of the null effect presumption ... eg. the presumption of innocence) which guide how evidence is correctly to be applied.

Thus the probability that I am in the group of people who "don't recognize that they don't know how," were it based on the fact that the majority of subjects in "confirmation bias" experiments were shown to demonstrate such lack of self-awareness, should not allow you to conclude that I am, in fact, in that group (of course you didn't, you merely spoke to the probability that I would be). In any case this isn't about me, nor my perhaps unique educational background, or a "special" temperament &c.: the methodological analysis of evidence predates my birth and will endure my demise.

[W]hy you really need multiple people on the job with different viewpoints -- attempt to cancel out those built-in biases by averaging across a population sample ...

To reduce this methodology to absurdity: we might fill a room with people of various self-declared ideological convictions, dispense with all evidence and simply get the assembled crowd to vote on whether a particular item is "fake news" or real. I trust this is not what you envisage, however the point of my reduction is that it is not the summing of biases, but the application of correct method that is necessary for fact checking. The additional problem is that the unconscious ideology shared by people overtly declaring different political allegiances will merely be re-inscribed by any bias balancing methodology.

Take as an example the Monty Hall problem. Most people incline to the wrong answer on first being confronted by it, which most likely reflects a systematic cognitive error which humans in general share. Yet the application of the correct conditional probability will arrive at the correct answer. The human mind is indeed subject to cognitive error, yet it has also been able to devise methods by which our limits may be overcome. I would rather trust fact checking that is not some supposed balancing of biases, but the application of rigorous methodology.

FB's plan is ...

... in part at least, to leverage professional fact-checkers.

My main objection to your argument, what motivated me to write, is that it constitutes an abrogation of responsibility to endeavour to transcend one's biases. The point of studying cognitive failings is not to throw one's hands up in the air and to declare "I cannot challenge my biases!" but rather the opposite.

Squirrel!

[Anonymous Coward]

Does my subject need any commentary?

About time

[klingens]

So what exactly will they do to prevent misinformation spread by the 50 US governments (federal and all 50 states)?
Those are by far the worst spreaders world wide by a wide margin. Past highlights which have been all proven to be false are especially all war related news from 120 years ago up to today. Every single one of them, from "Remember the Maine!", to Gulf of Tonkin, to babies in incubators, responsibility to protect, WMDs, sarin, etc.

Lies, more lies, US government.

Re:About time

[epyT-R]

Yeah because other world governments never distort facts to justify their agendas.

Re:About time

[bmo]

No, you twit, his point was that if they're going to censor non-US "fake news sites" they should censor US fake-news *also.*

But that's not going to happen, because "Official News" is what the US government wants you to believe and nothing else. There is no independent mainstream media anymore. The ones with "access" to the WH and elsewhere in DC are the ones that act as stenographers for the official party line (the party being that of the moneyed), truth be damned.

Just because other countries do it doesn't mean it's right for us to do it. And just because other countries do it, doesn't mean we /don't'/ as I will illustrate further down below.

If you defend the "purity" of the US, then you've bought into the biggest pile of bullshit going.

I wrote this the week following Easter:

---begin paste ---

I watched a Sunday news program this Easter with The Nan (Marirose's mom). The harebrained manufacture of consent and propaganda being spewed from the Tee Vee astounded me in its transparency. I just /couldn't/ accept what they were selling because it felt like I was in a time warp being sold the same bill of goods about Saddam. And it was about going to war with /both/ Syria and North Korea.

I couldn't tell you which one it was, because I never saw the intro and my Sunday viewing habits are... scarce.

All the way from Vietnam to the present day...

"Every time we've gone to war in my lifetime, the government has lied to us" - Jimmy Dore

Jimmy Dore is my age. He's absolutely correct.

From the Gulf of Tonkin to today, it's been a lie /every time/. Without fail, it's been a lie.

Every
Single
Time

For my 51 years on this spinning speck of dirt in the universe, these lies have caused millions to needlessly suffer and die either directly in the case of Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc., (this includes the war on some drugs in Columbia and elsewhere and covert wars such as in Central America) or indirectly in the case of Cambodia and others. And absolutely nobody in the US, who has any power at all, has any negative repercussions on them for starting a war with a lie. Indeed, such people rise to the top and wear epaulets with stars on them and shiny suits or at least show up on TV as a sage and get paid to offer pro-war opinion.

The entire history of the US from the end of WWII to today is the history of manufactured consent for war through the media. Had Herr Goebbels lived to see it instead of taking cyanide, he would have been proud.

"Now you can join the ranks of the illustrious
In history's great dark hall of fame
All our greatest killers were industrious
At least the ones that we all know by name

But you can reach the top of your profession
If you become the leader of the land
For murder is the sport of the elected
And you don't need to lift a finger of your hand"

-- The Police "Murder by Numbers"

When I leave this vale of tears or shuffle off this mortal coil, the number of middle fingers I will have to give will be counted in /sagans/.

Fuck you, you fucking fucks.

---end paste---

I was corrected later that the use of media to manufacture consent for war in the US was /at least/ as old as the Spanish American War.

--
BMO

Re:About time

[AHuxley]

With less of the Smith–Mundt Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...–Mundt_Act US propaganda is legal in the domestic setting.

Re:About time

[bongey]

Iraq wasn't a lie, just that the intelligence was really bad and Saddam was trying to bluff that he had chemical weapons. I was there as line infantry in 2003, every single Iraq unit was told that some other unit had chemical weapons. Turns out , no one actually had them. Saddam was advised by more than one foreign government that the US wouldn't actually attack, well that failed.

Until they receive a order from the CIA

[evolutionary]

All it takes is a CIA order to confirm any information, whether true or not, and kind of like Monopoly, you can't pass go, you can't consultant a lawyer, you can't breath a word of it to ANYONE....or else...

Re:US Gov

[Anonymous Coward]

Only when a Republican is in office and China is exempt.

Sounds exciting

[fustakrakich]

Millions of voices crying out suddenly silenced

False sense of security

[MobyDisk]

I fear that a generation of people will grow-up thinking that Facebook is the ultimate source of accurate information since it automatically does all these things to cull fake news. It's good that they do this, but it might create a false sense of security among the gullible.

Free speech is overrated

[fiannaFailMan]

It's always interesting to contrast European and American views on the limits of speech. The Germans have very strict regulations on what you can say for obvious reasons given the abuse of free speech in that country's mid-twentieth century history. They recognize that sometimes one man's rights conflict with another's. Which was more important, Hitler's right to speak or the right-to-life for a million Jews?

In America speech is a lot more free but this also brings with it the danger of propagating hate speech. Organizations like the NRA, KKK and Westboro Baptist Church are examples of people who abuse that freedom and help to sow hatred which puts the lives of others in danger.

Thankfully FB is a private entity and hence not bound by the First Amendment. It's good to see Zuck finally waking up to his responsibilities and snapping out of the libertarian dream-world where nothing bad happens when people get to say what they like. Hate speech and lies have real world consequences, and it's okay to take a stand for truth.

Re:Free speech is overrated

[fiannaFailMan]

Trump is many things but he is not "globalist!"

Re: Free speech is overrated

[fiannaFailMan]

Why you blame Hitler for your entire country's fuck up. I got news dip shit MOST of your country was in on it. You tried to be the worlds biggest ass holes and you failed. Now live with it and stop blaming Hitler because in the end you're all fuck ups.

Fuck knows why this got modded up. Most people in the country voted for Hillary, she took the popular vote by over a million votes. Did you not get that in your news, you amusingly stupid mucksavage?

Would this move would have prevented the IRAQ war?

[bogaboga]

The company, which published a report on the subject today, defines these operations as government-led campaigns -- or those from organized "non-state actors" -- to promote lies, sow confusion and chaos among opposing political groups, and destabilize movements in other countries. The goal of these operations, the report says, is to manipulate public opinion and serve geopolitical ends.

I will never forget the then Secretary of State saying IRAQ had WMDs, leading to a war that has killed thousands and sown seeds of mayhem in Iraq.

They were not done. They then attacked one of the most prosperous Arab countries (read Libya).

They now have Syria in their sight...again to destabilize.

Whether this would have stopped the meaningless carnage I what I do not know.

I have not been a friend of FB, but they have my full support in this effort.

Re:US Gov

[bill_mcgonigle]

No, they are going to cut taxes and not cut spending and the US citizenry will not have their currency debased by monetary inflation. Truth-o-Meter: Very Truthy!

Is it how you call Propaganda these days ?

[aduchate]

Alternate facts, Government-led Misinformation Campaigns. When we get so used to talk through euphemisms, we are getting dangerously close to an Orwellian world. I think it is time to name the Trump administration bullshit for what it really is. Propaganda.

Re:Is it how you call Propaganda these days ?

[clonehappy]

The Trump administration, and every previous administration. And every administration of every government across the globe, worldwide. And every administration of each of those governments since their inception. Every government ever puts out propaganda and bullshit.

Your user ID is low enough that I can't possibly believe that you're just now, in 2017, coming to the realization that governments are all-propaganda-all-the-time. Do you expect people who want to control you to be forthcoming and honest about their intentions, ever?

Good start!

[EzInKy]

But let us know when they also crack down on private lead misinformation campaigns.

illuminati confirmed!

[Thud457]

you mean like the "food pyramid" they came out with and now all the kids be fat?

Minitrue

[Anonymous Coward]

Step 1: Flood the world with the worst of junk news for years.
Step 2: Cry out publicly against the spread of fake news and misinformation.
Step 3: Affirm that they will ensure all the news presented from their platform is the Truth.
Step 4: Coupled with knowledge of each individual psychological profile, customize a supply of Truth to serve corporate government profit models. Present historical fact to support, and perhaps better, the status quo.
Step 5: Profit.

Is FaceBook the Ministry of Truth?

Keep a lookout for newspeak.

Re:US Gov

[ranton]

Don't be so partisan. While I agree Republicans are by far the worst abusers of fake propaganda, Democrats aren't completely immune to the problem.

Re:US Gov

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty sure the parent was saying Facebook would ignore the lies of Democrats as this whole "fake news" thing is mainly a left-wing censorship campaign.

More proof social media is CANCEROUS

[Anonymous Coward]

How much more evidence do you need to see before you leave social media, especially Facebook, behind for good? You do not need Facebook. You do not need any social media at all. Go be social with people the right way, in person, face-to-face, or at least call them on the phone (Remember that? Talking to people? It is still a Thing, go do more of it!).

Re:US Gov

[ranton]

Pretty sure the parent was saying Facebook would ignore the lies of Democrats as this whole "fake news" thing is mainly a left-wing censorship campaign.

I'm also pretty sure you are correct about his intentions, but considering that is an absurd opinion I gave him the benefit of the doubt.

Re:US Gov

[Anonymous Coward]

I was. It is. The parent poster proves my case by his frothing reply "YOU SO PARTISAN - MY SIDE IS PURE!"

We just had 8 years where fake news, propaganda and anything released from the Obama Administration was treated as unabashed facts. Now, suddenly the tables have turned and we have to have watchdogs and monitoring for propaganda so facebook can tell us TEH TRUUFF!

Yeah, that's a load of BS. Facebook is just continuing to carry the DNC's water as they always have.

So

[AHuxley]

No mention of the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989.
No upsetting Communist Party leaders.
No negative comments on past Communist leaders.
No comments on cults, faiths, monarchies, theocracies.
No news about war crimes and weapons sales.
Banning of all faith related cartoons.
No blasphemy.
Dont mention the policy of allowing illegal migrants to wonder around.
No negative reviews of movies.
No comments on the role of SJW reporting comments to governments.
No comments on herbicides.
No comments on genetic engineering.
No quoting, linking to any whistleblower material. No comments about or links to terms like Birdwatcher or Blackpearl.
No comments about engineers.
No links about circumventing access-control measures or comments on anti-circumvention laws.

Competition...

[WolfgangVL]

FACEBOOK will tolerate no competition when it comes to influencing public opinion! We simple cannot allow this despicable ungood news-speak and thought-crime on our platform! Our platform is only for doubleplusgood news-speak. It's the deplorables of course! Remember to report any bad-think you come across! We have provided good-think links and a handy report button to ease your patriotic duty! We must all work together to this end my friends, for Facebook has always been at war with Snapchat, and we must always double-think of the children!

Re:US Gov

[kenai_alpenglow]

As opposed to "Raise taxes and we won't have more debt added than all the previous administrations combined"? Oh, and by the way, have the AAA rating reduced? How about we just assume the Govt will be biased according to the party in power, put on our own filter to correct for which way it's leaning, and not try to have biased 3d parties tell us what is "The Truth"? Are we too lazy to think for ourselves?

Specificaly targetting truth telling

[zedaroca]

The title is misleading. They are actually pledging to crack down on Government-led INFORMATION campaigns.
Their report reads:

One aspect of this included malicious actors leveraging conventional and social media to share information stolen from other sources, such as email accounts, with the intent of harming the reputation of specific political targets. These incidents employed a relatively straightforward yet deliberate series of actions:
Private and/or proprietary information was accessed and stolen from systems and services (outside of Facebook);
Dedicated sites hosting this data were registered;
Fake personas were created on Facebook and elsewhere to point to and amplify awareness of this data;
Social media accounts and pages were created to amplify news accounts of and direct people to the stolen data.
From there, organic proliferation of the messaging and data through authentic peer groups and networks was inevitable.

They are clearly talking about the Podesta and Clinton emails. The truth was spread and they don't want it to happen again.

What about the ads?

[overlook77]

However, ads that look exactly like news stories to intentionally mislead people are 100% OK.

That's easy...

[thomn8r]

Just block Fox News and Breitbart