Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by msmash on from the fixing-things dept.

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.

21 of 108 comments (clear)

  1. Ah yes, Facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    That paragon of integrity.

    1. Re:Ah yes, Facebook by unixisc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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?

    2. Re:Ah yes, Facebook by ranton · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    3. Re:Ah yes, Facebook by amiga3D · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:Ah yes, Facebook by Humbubba · · Score: 2
      If only Twitter would do the same!

      ---

      John 18:38

    5. Re:Ah yes, Facebook by Altrag · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.)

    6. Re:Ah yes, Facebook by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  2. About time by klingens · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:About time by epyT-R · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    2. Re:About time by bmo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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

  3. Sounds exciting by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

    Millions of voices crying out suddenly silenced

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  4. False sense of security by MobyDisk · · Score: 2

    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.

  5. Would this move would have prevented the IRAQ war? by bogaboga · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  6. Is it how you call Propaganda these days ? by aduchate · · Score: 2

    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.

    1. Re:Is it how you call Propaganda these days ? by clonehappy · · Score: 2

      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?

  7. Good start! by EzInKy · · Score: 2

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

    --
    Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
  8. More proof social media is CANCEROUS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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!).

  9. Re:US Gov by ranton · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    --
    -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
  10. So by AHuxley · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  11. Competition... by WolfgangVL · · Score: 3, Funny

    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!

    --
    You are being ripped off every second of every day, so that advertisers can help rip you off even more tomorrow.
  12. Specificaly targetting truth telling by zedaroca · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.