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

[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

[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: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

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.