Slashdot Mirror
Facebook VP Says Company Won't Use Experts To Fix Fake News Because It is Worried About Criticism (theoutline.com)
Joshua Topolsky, writing for The Outline: According to Axios reporter Ina Fried, the vice president of global communications, marketing, and public policy (phew!) at Facebook shook off suggestions that the network should use outside media literacy watch dogs as opposed to outsourcing its "fake news" problem to a "statistically representative" group of its own users. While speaking at the tech conference DLD (Digital Life Design) in Munich, he revealed that the real motivation behind the company's decision was one based almost entirely on optics. This shouldn't come as much of a surprise, as the company has been totally ignorant and outrageously slow in accepting responsibility for what has been a disaster for its users. While Twitter is turning to media literacy groups such as Common Sense Media and the National Association for Media Literacy for solutions to its own troll and fake news epidemic, Facebook continues to cower behind a broken concept that the company is a neutral platform where all of its participants are equally weighted.
I just want to look at my friends kids and pet pics. Is that so much to ask?
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
Why should Facebook take any responsibility for content that is posted by their users? Why should they suddenly become a media curator, instead of a social network? Why is TFA written as though it was completely obvious and indisputable truth?
Don't get me wrong, I hate Facebook as much as the next guy, but I hate the tone of this article even more and the righteous anger radiating from it is just revolting. It's like the author is begging for even more corporate censorship and is extremely pissed off that it's not being dished out in a timely manner.
... they're going to be criticized no matter what they do about this.
I mean, if they hire an outside group to handle this, the user-base will complain that either the wrong group was picked, or that group was not conservative enough, not liberal enough, not whatever enough... you pick. Hell, they'd probably get accused of everything under the sun.
However, the same thing will happen if they pick internal users to be their test-bed for this. "Oh, you picked the wrong users. They're too conservative, too liberal, whatever." It doesn't matter, there's bad optics no matter what.
Doesn't mean that they shouldn't try. Just be prepared for the butt-hurt no matter what you do.
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
The concept that there is a "problem" is premised on several notions: - Only those in the US should have free speech on the Internet. - US readers are unable to think for themselves and scrutinize. They need a protective overlord. What would be more acceptable is tagging content that has certain attributes, then letting readers do what they wish with such tagged content. In fact, instead of debating what algorithms or filters FB, Twitter or any other potential big brother should have, how about letting readers customize their own algorithms and be empowered to control what they see in their feeds? Why isn't this concept being proposed?
Facebook can't win here. If they spread fake news people blame them directly. And if they use a panel of experts than the experts are controlling the news people see. That's not good either. The article attacks them for the decision, saying it is marketing, but I think Facebook is right here. It isn't their job to be the news police.
This simply isn't Facebook's problem. The users are to blame, and this isn't a new problem. Just like Slashdot or Reddit or any other internet forum, the content is provided by the users and it is not the responsibility of Facebook to tell people that they are idiots. Studies show that people click like on things, and then repost them, without even reading the articles. And most people don't seem to be able to distinguish political fact from reality even if they do read the articles.
This problem happened before the internet. In the US, go to a grocery store and look at what news is available for purchase. It is 40% tabloids (AKA "fake news"), 40% celebrity gossup, 40% real news. Facebook is no different.
This is why come to Slashdot: there are educated people here, and debunkers here. I go straight to the discussion first because half the stories are garbage.
The 'fact checking' is entirely political.
The worst fake news are establishment media companies.
They are smart not to outsource their issue. Those so called "experts" out there all end up just peddling a different form of fake news. Facebook is already in enough hot water, bringing those dumbasses in would have just made things worse. In the end they are still destined for Myspace glory because they cant leave well enough alone.
Just give me a way to block annoying sources of content, whether they be a person (the crazy Aunt) or a bunch of asshats trolling clickbait. I don't need you telling me what to think,
This doesn't violate Facebook standards. Or for those who won't read TFL:
Amazing how the examples in the linked article don't constitute a violation of standards on harassment and threatening violence. Must be like the Sarah Palin principle. You can say "someone should shit down Sarah Palin's throat" on national television and not be roundly condemned, but say anything about women on the other side, no matter how tepid the statement, and it's going to be a 2 minute hate session.