Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Will Now Ask Users To Rank News Organizations They Trust (recode.net)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Recode: Facebook is doing a very un-Facebooky thing: It's going to start declaring that some news sources you see in your Facebook feed are better than others, and act accordingly. But Facebook being Facebook, it's going about it in the most Facebooky way possible: It's going to rely on users -- not the super-smart people who work at Facebook -- to figure out which of those sources are better. Mark Zuckerberg says the move is part of an effort to prioritize "news that is trustworthy, informative, and local," within the network and suggests that there will be more announcements to come. The one he describes today will prioritize what kind of news sources pop up in your Facebook News Feed, and will reward ones that Facebook thinks are "broadly trusted," based on user polls, so it can "build a sense of common ground." Facebook is also using today's news to refine last week's roll-out: Zuckerberg says the previously announced changes will reduce the amount of news stories people see in their feed to 4 percent, down from 5 percent.
Fox News, InfoWars, Art Bell. That's really all you need right there.
More Americans get their news from the Daily Show than any other nationality.
It's going to rely on users -- not the super-smart people who work at Facebook
This doesn't even sound sarcastic.
GRRR! Not THOSE news orgs you stupid proles!
If you ever want me back, you'll let me check a box that:
1) Only shows me content created by friends
2) Makes it come in chronological order
Everything else is pointless.
This will in no way be abused by ideologues asking their millions of flunkies to upvote their favorite extremist 'news' organizations without a second thought.
for trolls and astro-turfing...
Fox News, InfoWars, Art Bell. That's really all you need right there.
Indeed. The alt-right ditto-heads are going to crowdsource these rankings into an echo-chamber in the first 10 minutes. I can't imagine why anyone thought this was a good idea.
$(news group that doesn't support my political views)=fake
This is step one in banning our conservative media, under the guise of it being the choice of the masses
"Oh no, we didn't ban Infowars, YOU all did"
Many people out there don't use the space between their ears for an by kind of critical thinking. So they're apt to believe anything they read and rank something that is blatantly false as trusted ... The old I read it on the internet so it must be true syndrome.
"Fox News, InfoWars, Art Bell. That's really all you need right there."
And the Aryan 2 White Noise machine, so that you can sleep at night without having to think about equality.
Yeah, we should force people to read things they don't want to.. Because we're smarter and know what's best. And also white liberals.
Dailykoz.com, snopes, thehill, huffpo, and goatse is all the wokeness you need.
We now can select our facts by majority opinion.
Next we can take down science as it is a social construct with a bias toward western culture and straight white men specifically. We instead can have a plurality of accepted "facts" and have equally valid viewpoints that we label as science. Instead of logical arguments, a western concept that reeks of colonialism, we can operate based on consensus building and equal time for all sides. Democratic science and culturally sensitive "facts".
Total bullshit of course, and perhaps an early signal that society is descending into madness.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
"The alt-right ditto-heads are going to crowdsource these rankings into an echo-chamber in the first 10 minutes."
So it's good that there are 2 billion alt-left people there too.
Bernie Sanders had to turn to alternative news to get coverage for his Medicare for All push. Once in the while MSNBC will have him on to bash Trump but they don't let him get too far into the weeds on substantive policy. CNN just pretends he doesn't exist.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Some of these jokers hop from media outlet to media outlet, tainting whatever they touch along the way.
None Of The Above!!!!!
;)
I won't answer any poll that does not provide a none of the above option on all of their questions.
Just my 2 cents
I think it's because the objective of Facebook is so stupid. NOT the objectives of the people who want to use Facebook. It's the mismatch between their objectives and what Facebook wants that is creating such stupidity.
Facebook just wants your time and phuck you if you care about good time versus wasted time.
The OBVIOUS (ttMCO) countermeasure to this stupid idea is to create fake news sources more quickly. It also leaves the trolls and their sock puppets in place so that they can quickly link to the new fake news sources.
It needs to work the OTHER way around. Do you want to waste YOUR time studying news sources to determine if they are crap? Me neither.
I also think it should be approached from the OTHER side, by considering the EARNED reputation of the entity that is telling me to "Look over here!" If that entity is a REAL person who has earned a REAL reputation, only then would I be willing to invest some of my precious time to look over there. If the EARNED reputation is high enough, I might even be eager to look.
If the entity in question has NO reputation or an EARNED NEGATIVE reputation, then I don't want to see the entity in the first place. You might want to adjust your filters differently. Maybe you want to see neutral reputations? If the system was that sophisticated, I actually want to see certain negative reputations if they are offset by other aspects. For example, I'd accept a certain amount of negative "politeness" if the reputation for "thought-provoking" (AKA "interesting" in Slashdot-speak) is positive.
Actually the same idea could apply on Slashdot. Details available upon polite (and sincere) request. Or you can just look over some of my old comments. Look for "public reputation" and "dual icon system". Sometimes I've described it using "avatar".
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
So how long will it take for major news organizations to figure out a way they can use the built in advertising to boost their ranks and better position themselves? Facebook relies on advertising money. If suddenly major advertisers are being ranked low do you really think Facebook will allow that? How long till companies are paying for better ranking?
Sent from my TARDIS
Where do you have your swastika tattoo?
Why is Snark Required?
So truth is now a popularity contest....they who shout loudest must be correct.
I'd thought a company ran by a college dropout would be smarter than that!
Where do you have your swastika tattoo?
Nowhere since that would be illegal. Otherwise I may have had one on the hand or something, but more likely I would just wear it on clothes or as pin or use it on paper slips or put it up on places with a pen or what not.
1: If Facebook had done it themselves, they'd be lambasted by wailing from certain groups that they are "biasing" the news. Regardless of whether not it was true, many people these days seem to believe that being presented with viewpoints you don't agree with automatically constitutes unethical bias.
2: If it only shows you news sources that you select as "trustworthy", well, then many people will be enjoying their own personal echo chamber. Neat.
3: If it uses mass aggregate results to select the "trustworthy" ones, then I can't help but think this is going to come out as a split down the middle between the top contested ones anyway. Mostly because of point #1.
Wow. Just wow. There's a plague of downright-insane SJWs like AmiMoJo or serviscope_minor, but you just managed to beat them all the other way. That's kind of rare for something that's not a throw-away troll spam account.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Indeed. The alt-right ditto-heads are going to crowdsource these rankings into an echo-chamber in the first 10 minutes. I can't imagine why anyone thought this was a good idea.
Everyone else does it and we're even forced to it. We're not allowed in the other medias so .. what's the obvious and only solution?
It's so fucking sad, mental and hillariously non-hillariously destructive that the freedom-hating socialists get away with making claims like "we need to start treating each other with respect!" as an answer to arguments with a harsh tone (note: It's not a counter-argument) after having called us racists and nazis for decades. Yeah.. About that: No. They should be called socialist-bastards, freedom-haters, communists, all of it the whole time and in a negative fashion and easily fend of just because their anti-individual enforced collectivism ideas isn't acceptable whatsoever.
It's just another way of trying to shut people up. Like always. And then they will be like "our opinion is that of the majority, haven't you noticed? You don't see or hear any other now do you?!" - as if.
"The alt-right ditto-heads are going to crowdsource these rankings into an echo-chamber in the first 10 minutes"
Might as well add the Huffington Post, MSNBC, Slate, and others to that list. Echo-chambers exist on both sides and are equally stupid no matter what their political leanings.
Just rate them all as ZERO, and non-news agencies as "-1".
Facebook will next offer a product that uses Venn diagrams to best show the similarities and differences between the people and products on their site. Oh the humanity.
--
You said it.
Huffington Post, MSNBC and Slate are not politically biased and certainly not echo chambers.
If they even are slightly honest with the feedback they get from the users.
Seems to me that news agency from the United Kingdom that we revolted against back in the days gives better news coverage than those agencies here in the colonies.
mfwright@batnet.com
I don't want to hear anything that might not confirm my bias!
Thanks.
I'm always right though.
For instance you don't see people like me modding down the communists posts into non-existance whereas they do it.
They always blame the other / our side but it's themselves who are in power, themselves who remove freedom and democracy, themselves who want to destroy identity and nurture it at the same time (depending on whose identity it is of course, destroy all white/european people but keep racism for their own socialist agendas by grouping all other ethnicities together and measure their outcome and falsly claim they are discriminated against and need the stealing authoritorian socialists as their saviors.)
They are the true 100% never hesitating or appologizing fascists and racists. Except their non-free anti-individualistic society is constructed on their stupid idea just like with Islamism rather than on ethnicity. The threat and outcome is the same. Yet you're supposed to apploud it and be fine with it because it's their creation rather than someone else's.
Why would I use a throw-away account? I've got nothing to be ashamed of. I have four Facebook accounts of which three I remember but they are all in variations of my real name and are only there because like for instance two of them are banned (always for 30 days.) My good real / active twitter account is kinda gone. I registered a pair of others but haven't bothered with them because nowadays twitter is an echo-chamber of friends posts so you get no reach anyway. The account is closed for "suspecious activity" but I don't seem to be able to unlock it one way or the other (it may have been hacked inbetween, I don't care, it had awful security by design.)
I think Mark is going to discover how much common ground we do NOT have.
As will the left with fake news CNN, MSNBC, etc
I actually kinda want to have my passwords and a request to have all my accounts changed to my real name and all my posts turned to public as a testament.
Maybe there's some individual post for privacy reasons which shouldn't be so but .. Yeah. To spread the real thoughts and information rather than the false stuff society/rulers claim is the one which exist when they have tidied away all the stuff they didn't liked.
Nowhere since that would be illegal.
I'm assuming you are living in a regressive country without 1st Amendment protection... Europe ?
Just so, but why nothing approximating a constructive solution? If I ever saw a mod point, I wouldn't "invest" an insightful mod in such a trivial observation.
So now I should bet that my longer and more substantive comment below will never see the light of a mod point, except perhaps negative ones from some of the angry and threatened sock puppets? If my constructive suggestion were actually implemented, they would certainly be invisible and dead to me.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
People are already split into camps as to which sources they trust. They're not going to start believing CNN or Fox just because Facebook tells them to.
Facebook just found a way to collect more user data while offering them exactly what they want.
CNN, Fox, MSNBC, etc. will be begging for this information and pouring the $$$ at Mark's feet.
Time to educate their followers, citizens start about clicking on social media.
Up vote the national broadcaster with the good news about the nation.
Down vote the negative international press about corruption, trade deals, pollution.
Up vote for tourism and happy news.
SJW can ban news about any political topic they don't like. No more news about illegal migrants.
Got a new movie? Up vote the good reviews. Ban the negative reviews and remove the accounts of the negative reviewers.
Every movie review thats linked and still searchable will be great.
Faith groups will present their faith in the best way. Want to change your faith? No links, news, support to find anything on that. All that gets deranked by cult and faith members. Report blasphemy and have all faith members report that user so their ip can be discovered by their government.
Political questions? Get the party faithful to rank the good news. Remove the bad new links. Never happened No links, no news.
No links to decades of newspaper stories about the past of a candidate. Its only positive, good new news about the campaign today thats on message and will be approved by party "users".
A big brand memory hole https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... for anyone with enough support or who can buy enough clicks in the needed ip ranges.
Freedom of speech and freedom after speech is now been sold to any gov, mil, faith, theocracy , kingdom, dictatorship, NGO, brand, studio, state gov, city gov, politician, person who can afford to click a lot.
Should have just followed the US Constitution and kept free speech for all.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Moderately insightful branch of the discussion. I can actually answer in terms of my longer suggestion below:
The earned public reputation should be based on several dimensions, but the dimensions should NOT be related to ideology or positions on specific issues. Or if there are some dimensions of that sort, then I think they should be discounted in the default settings and people would have to enable them if they really want to. (I'm imagining a "Trump" dimension that assesses positive or negative sentiments towards #PresidentTweety, and I admit that I would be sorely tempted to enable it and filter in favor of negative scores on that dimension...)
As regards the trolls, sock puppets, and idiots: It doesn't matter if they are sincerely stupid, proudly ignorant, mindlessly fanatical, or just paid to fake it. No sense in wasting time on them. Until an entity has EARNED a positive reputation, I don't need to see it. (And when I say earned, that includes network-based verification of the evidence of that reputation, unless you can come up with something stronger.)
As the ancient joke goes, detailed suggestions available upon polite request.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
We have to make sure you violent alt-left brainwashed libtard kids have something to attack and call racist.
Keeps you busy and not out fucking up the real world.
Maybe this explains the Fermi Paradox. Advanced civilizations eventually invent Social Media and rot from the inside before they can develop interstellar travel.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Lol, you really do follow your master's training well
I think my main complaint is that individuals haven't improved their bullshit filters as quickly as technology has ramped up content distribution and flow rate of said bullshit. Not an easy problem to solve either. But I'm well in my right to demand improvements even if I don't wish to be the architect of a new society.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
I've got a much better method to make it more neutral.
Let me note what sources I trust and what sources I don't trust. Let me make that decision, not piles of others from who knows where, and likely gaming the system. Or at least offer me the option of using my own trust scores instead of the default, probably tilted to the far left (but yes, maybe titled to the alt-right Infowars types as well if the system gets gamed).
We all need to just go vote for The Onion and Slashdot.
People now seek out news that will validate their beliefs.
How are you going to deal with this?
Yep. Fix things by making them worse.
Yep... the Trump fans will all give Fox News and Breitbart top rankings, while slamming NPR and the New York Times.
Democrats will do the exact opposite, basically insuring that most major news sites will have a "Neutral" rating.
Equality like the alt-left's Islamic version of equality? How did the alt-left get both Muslims *and* LGBTQ to support them? Muslims literally kill LGBTQ, it's like the sheep supporting the wolves.
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
Trustworthy: Pravda, Islamic Republic News Agency, Agencia Venezolana de Nocitas.
Untrustworthy: CNN, Fox, NY Times
The same way they got the blacks to support them even though the democrats started slavery, defended it to the bitter end, and then created the KKK and went on to support an anti-black racist agenda for the next 100 years.
I suppose you have to give Facebook credit for being honest about slanting the "news". Spoon-feeding people news from sources they are comfortable with is exactly the WRONG thing to do if your goal is informed, enlightened subscribers. Facebook's goal SHOULD be to provide the best balance it's algorithms can generate of opposing, or at least differently slanted, versions of the same news story or topic. That way if you're a lefty you can read the news versions you like but you might elect to read how the right is reporting the same story (and vice versa of course). Facebook can still do some version of the "trust" thing to cull relatively unreliable news sources across the political spectrum. Making it easier for people to consider points of view other than their own is a much more worthy goal than just automatically parroting any one version of "truth".
Don't worry, facebook will "Correct" this problem. If they do not like the news source it will be marked as untrusted even if it gets 2 million "Trusted" votes. The comment about users voting and facebook having "no" influence is just window dressing and will be proven a lie. I predict that CNN and MSNBC will still be marketed as "Trusted" sources regardless of the number of negative votes.
Most Oblivious Post of the Year awards are cancelled, we have a winner here people.
they ask you what sources you think are legit to better manipulate you, not because they don't already know what sources they like best....
Terribly misleading, and you know it.
No. Snowflakes are your kind. Also the racist, the anti-democrats, the freedom haters, the socialists, the dictators, the assholes, the dehumanizers, the authoritorian assholes, ..
No I don't need a safe-space but I would like to have a space where I can tell you idiots how wrong and nasty you are.
I'm not free and I don't have any guns. I'm a Swede you see. I can't shoot stuff. Right now at-least. Of course you can get guns in Sweden too but the legal guns aren't all that great for taking down lots of people you don't like. There's of course a bunch of illegal guns in Sweden which work better for that purpose but those who have access to those are more likely the kind of people you associate with instead.
I grew up in a communist country and ran away - people with your mentality were our oppressors..
That make no sense.
media is plural already; what IS the obvious and only solution? spam on facebook?? nobody wants to treat you with respect - may be they start that way, but then you prove them wrong very fast
Social media is basically Facebook or Google. There's not really much alternatives to that. They own a bunch of other companies too and Twitter behaves just the same. Of course there _IS_ alternatives too but there you won't have any audience anyway. Also the governments control the media and support them and direct them anyway and alternatively the private companies running those media platforms have their own agendas and put even further limitations on... the lack of freedom of speech and take away even more of it. And of course beyond that you've got the moderators in whatever group on those pages or people who just sort what they want to see in their own feeds as well.
Spamming on Facebook isn't much of a solution if you get banned each time. Or?
Respect got nothing to do with it. People don't need to agree with me. But the problem is we aren't allowed to express our opinion in these socialist-globalist democratures/plutocracies/psychopath "elite" rule.
Wrong about what?
also nobody wants to argue with you
They don't want to argue because then they can be proven wrong and don't get things there way. They are anti-democratic and don't care. The "fascists." Just not nationalists, because idiots.
you are racists and nazis
Racist and racist. I don't really care whatever I'm racist or not. I care about being right. If I'm right but being right make you a racist then I'm a racist and the anti-racists are wrong. So be it. I'm no Nazi, or well, at-least not originally.. I don't like socialism and authoritarian rule. Then again considering the enemy and the lack of democracy and solutions we're not left with much of an alternative. But it's not really an ideological determination by then but rather self-defense and the better of two evils.
the minute you have enough crowd to disappear in you make your voice pretty clear
Where's that crowd really? And how is it made clear when it's always shut down? It's more of a myth than an actual thing ..
communists kept me imprisoned in eastern europe - for many years - you know nothing about socialism or communism or marks or lenin or stalin or any of it
Good for you. What does it have to do with me?
there's opinions that make people welcome at parties and sought in conversation and there's opinions that make you repulsive. yours are the latter....
I don't care. The goal isn't to be the greatest ass-kisser. I don't know why you figured that. The goal is that I want to speak what's on my mind and reach out with it. I don't give a fuck what you and your stupid buddies think about it. Feel free to dislike it. That's not the problem.
Wonderful, now Facebook will know my news feed preference and from that extrapolate my political and social affiliations and use that to market me with even more targeted advertising.
As if CNN won't hire Brock's astroturfers to boost their ratings.
Zuck's an ass and an asshole.
with the motivation that "it's what the people wanted". Any users who mistrust American news sources? Well then you're clearly a Russian who is being paid by Putin.
Another turn of the old censorship and propaganda mill.
The "alt-left" wants nothing to do with liberals, labor unionists, socialists, communists, skeptics, humanists, or New Deal style progressives. That pretty well eliminates their mass support.
I really doubt the world has even a million self loathing, socially degenerate, openly bigoted running dog stooges of big capital. It's just that the few who do exist get a whole fucking lot of airtime from the propaganda organs.
You don't live in Kärrtorp, do you? Because you sound just like some of the assholes who do.
Doublespeak, Facebook looks for the best outlets for propaganda.
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
hahah.. exactly!
Is as dumb as all of us.
What could possibly go wrong?
#mobrules
#echochamber
They're in for a rude awakening.
Indeed. The alt-right ditto-heads are going to crowdsource these rankings into an echo-chamber in the first 10 minutes. I can't imagine why anyone thought this was a good idea.
Those sources aren't any less reliable than CNN or the Washington Post. That's not praise for Fox or Infowars, it's an insult to CNN and WaPo. They are unreliable propaganda trash just as much as the others.
Wow. Sure.
HuffPo: the outlet run almost exclusively by Jewish women pretending to be white, who's sole mission in life is to explain to you why being white is not OK.
one that does not censor, or sell information
No, he lives in Sweden and he's a fucking liar. The Nazi Party and its associated regalia were never outlawed here.
Your hatred and ignorance will be your undoing.
Jewish people aren't white?
what a miserable response to a serious problem...
What do I care about what 10 million facebook users think about what I want to see? They went from being a great way to keep in touch with your friends to the equivalent of an ongoing job interview where you better not say or like the wrong thing. I give them 5 years and they will be joining the ranks of AOL, Yahoo and dozens of other internet giants.