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.

Comments

How about no news at all?

[gatkinso]

I just want to look at my friends kids and pet pics. Is that so much to ask?

Re:How about no news at all?

[OtisSnerd]

Take a look at the F. B. (Fluff Busting) Purity add-on, it hides a lot of that unwanted junk on Facebook. It works with Firefox, Chrome, Edge, Safari, Opera, and Maxthon browsers, on Windows, Mac, and Linux. http://www.fbpurity.com/ I've been using it for over a year, and it's updated regularly.

Re:How about no news at all?

[cayenne8]

Yeah, and it isn't like the group "Common Sense Media" is a neutral organization at all either...that would likely be going from bad to worse if FB used them too.

If you see the worlds "Common Sense" on about anything these days....it is definitely a push for something for the hard left in the US.

Re:How about no news at all?

[Austerity Empowers]

Except a lot of the fake news is coming from your friends political links.

I wish they could find a way to ban all of it. Just go back to pictures of food and kids and those desperate "You don't care enough to hit reply" posts.

I can feel some of their pain, any attempt to deal with "fake news" is going to scream censorship and bias to someone. The term has no actual meaning anymore, when actual news is being labelled fake, and fake news is being bought into by masses of tin-foil hat conspiracists.

Re:How about no news at all?

[swb]

Except a lot of the fake news is coming from your friends political links.

This is the real crux of the problem. People on Facebook have become militantly political, down all the usual dividing lines. People I've known for 10-20 years who never appeared to have any political opinions are now rabidly political on Facebook.

My own sense is that this grew out of Facebook enabling the easy re-sharing of links and pictures. At first it was just mostly dumb memes, but as election season hit it quickly became a way of sharing and ultimately manufacturing and reinforcing partisan outrage.

I don't think Facebook can fix this without some heavy AI analysis of submitted links and images that eliminates the ability to re-share political ones without hindering the ability to re-share non-political content. News links might be more amenable to machine analysis, but images would be touch. The only other option is just disabling re-sharing of any of them, which I think users would find an unacceptable functionality limitation.

An individual can "solve" this themselves by unfriending people who post too much political stuff, but my own sense is that means gutting even moderate-sized friend lists, rendering the entire thing kind of pointless.

I've kind of abandoned it completely myself. I'm missing out on some socialization, but mostly I think it's false socialization with people in ordinary circumstances I wouldn't keep in touch with. A loss perhaps for some old friends and family, but not enough to make it worth putting up with.

Totally unbiased opinion by TFA's 'journalist'

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re: Totally unbiased opinion by TFA's 'journalist'

[InPursuitOfTruth]

Prove it. I saw an alleged post by such yesterday. It was just a guy wearing a t-shirt making a joke. This isn't "fake news" cuz it is a joke, not news. When did making jokes become "election interference". When did FREE SPEECH become a threat?

Re: Totally unbiased opinion by TFA's 'journalist'

[bondsbw]

It's not so much that free speech is a threat. It's that the truth tends to be more boring than sensationalism.

Re:Totally unbiased opinion by TFA's 'journalist'

[tsqr]

your utopia sounds nice, but here in the real world there is much more going on. theres a reason its illegal for foriegn governments to influence US elections.

Except for a few well-defined cases, it's not illegal for foreign governments to attempt to influence US elections. For example, In a decision that was later affirmed by the Supreme Court, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the foreign national ban “does not restrain foreign nationals from speaking out about issues or spending money to advocate their views about issues. It restrains them only from a certain form of expressive activity closely tied to the voting process—providing money for a candidate or political party or spending money in order to expressly advocate for or against the election of a candidate.” Bluman v. FEC, 2012.

Note the word "expressly". If an ad paid for by a foreign entity speaks against the policy or behavior of a candidate (whether true or false), but does not explicitly say "Do not vote for " or "Vote for " , it's legal.

Educate yourself..

Re:Totally unbiased opinion by TFA's 'journalist'

[LynnwoodRooster]

If FB were in China, they definitely would not allow the US to write obviously fake news articles.

If they were in China, the Chinese Government would not allow ANYONE to write articles critical of the Government - fake OR true. If your article is pro-Government - fake or true - it would be published. Being fake or true would have nothing to do with it, it would come down to "is it critical of the Government".

I hate to break it to Facebook, but...

[Kierthos]

... 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.

Re:I hate to break it to Facebook, but...

[mwvdlee]

Option A: Spend millions of dollars on curators and get criticized for it.
Option B: Do nothing and get criticized for it.

Oh, and option A has the added risk of accidentally blocking some not-entirely-fake news and getting sued because of it.

Fix what?

[InPursuitOfTruth]

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?

Re:Fix what?

[geekmux]

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?

One can already filter and control what is seen in their own feeds. And when the signal-to-noise ratio gets too high, often the best way to control the feed is to fucking unplug from it. Many people have left Farcebook for this very reason, and have been better off without it.

As far as tagging content goes, that's a dead idea from the start. Clicks and likes are all that matter these days, which is exactly why we continue to have a bullshit peddling problem. And as long as clicks and likes generate massive revenue, they will continue to be a priority. That means truth and facts will come second, which will never solve any problem of fake news.

Facebook can't win

[MobyDisk]

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.

Re:Facebook can't win

[tsqr]

the content is provided by the users and it is not the responsibility of Facebook to tell people that they are idiots.

I agree with respect to user-submitted content. But, when Facebook accepts payment for advertisements, Facebook is responsible for that content.

Re:Facebook can't win

[pots]

And if they use a panel of experts than the experts are controlling the news people see. That's not good either.

... Why? What if, instead of calling them "experts," we called them "journalists"? Is that still bad? Even though that's how it is anyway, and how it has always been?

You could make the standard argument about bias, but that's why we get our news from multiple sources (multiple journalists) instead of just one. Let's try a medical analogy: your rely on your doctor for medical advice, because you doctor spends all of his time on that crap and knows a lot more about it than you do. If you disagree with your doctor or don't like what he says, then you get a second opinion from another knowledgeable doctor who, let me repeat, follows developments in his field closely and knows more about it than you do.

If you still don't like what any doctors are saying, and you're dumb, you might talk to some conspiracy theorist down the street who will sell you a bunch of leaves and tell you that they're definitely better than what "those pharma-shills" will give you, because these leaves are "totally natural man," and not full of that "mercury (or whatever) that you know causes autism."

So. Is it a bad thing that the kook down the street isn't given equal status? Is it a problem that panels of doctors at the FDA and elsewhere control, to some degree, the advice that you get? If so, would we be better off if they weren't there? Supposing that there were no controls on who could call themselves a doctor and what advice they could give - we could expect a real caccophony of medical advice and products, all being pushed by interested parties. The volume of information would certainly be larger, but would we be better informed for that?

Re:Facebook can't win

[pots]

The thing about a second opinion is, it's not necessarily different from the first. The point of seeking a second opinion is not to keep talking to doctor after doctor until one says something you like. If every doctor has the same opinion, it's likely because that opinion is what is true.

And I did provide an example of someone you can go to in order to get a differing opinion if that's really what you're after: the kook down the street.

Re:Facebook can't win

[MobyDisk]

No. Because they get modded down. And they get modded down by the users of the site, not by the admins. That's the key.

Good

[Pyramid]

No service should be filtering what you see based on unseen algorithms or so called, "experts". Give the individual a robust tool-set to make their own decisions.

To those of you saying a system should be implemented, who exactly would you cede what you should see to? Who knows better than you?

Dear media please die already.

[Charcharodon]

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,

There's only one thing to fix about "fake news"

[fustakrakich]

The readers.

Fake News about Fake News

[Uberbah]

The worst psyop since Saddam planning 911 and having WMD's is the propaganda about Russian propaganda.

Re: Totally unbiased opinion by TFA's 'journalist

[Anonymous Coward]

And you, obviously, are the final arbiter of Truth and Fiction. Because you say so.

You reject out of hand any criticism of your team, no matter how accurate or demonstrably true, yet will believe entirely the latest Russia Collusion story that comes with no named sources, no documents, and often no logic.

Under your watchful gaze, not a single Russian collusion story has been deemed "false" or even questionable, despite being entirely unsupported by an iota of evidence.

No thanks. You can keep your "truth" and I'll keep mine.

Re: Totally unbiased opinion by TFA's 'journalist

[fizzer06]

tbannist may actually believe that everything he wrote is actually true. In the good old days, you know, when America was Great, people like him used to get jackets with long sleeves and rooms with padded walls.

This is why we don't trust your "experts"

[DeplorableCodeMonkey]

This doesn't violate Facebook standards. Or for those who won't read TFL:

Group Threatening to Burn 'Activist Mommy' Alive Doesn't Violate Standards, Facebook Says

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.

That's already in.

[DrYak]

I wonder about option "C": Allow the user to pick their own review board. For example, have people from the Daily Kos, Breitbart, der Spiegel, CNN, MSNBC, Comedy Central, and other news organizations offer a review/weighting service for articles, with the ability for a user to pick and choose among them. This way, they are not stuck with what one groups deems as valid.
This way, FB can't be accused of being partisan, since people can choose who (if any) reviews news articles and sets validity scores for them.

This is also how accidentally FB works now already.

The only difference is instead of paying professional for their view, it pools the data that it has for free : the opinion and behaviour of your friends.

It also has the same big draw-back : it creates a biased bubble. Except that currently the bubble isn't based on partisan media, but on what you talk with your friends and what popular in your circle. And currently the bubble costs nothing.

What you're proposing will just cost FB more money (gotta pay the reviewers) while not filtering that much bullshit out (to be broad you'll have to hire reviewer from all range of political inclination - and thus invariably you'll end up with lots of not so bright influencable people who have elected to rely most on media that has the same extremist bias).

In short: your racist uncle will just pick some alt-right media as they favorite reviewer, your whinny step daughter will pick her favorite feminazi SJW media.
And they'll both end up re-posting/forwarding the same shit as before.

Re: Totally unbiased opinion by TFA's 'journalist

[Archangel Michael]

Its actually worse than that. There is plenty of evidence of Russian Collusion to rig the election, and it is all Hillary, DNC and the Deep State.

Hillary/DNC paid for the Russian Dossier
Russian Dossier was filled with Russian Propaganda from FSB
Hillary's Husband (Bill) was paid millions of dollars from FSB sources for "speeches"
Hillary signed off on Uranium One, in spite of an ongoing investigation into Russian trying to corner the Uranium market.
Obama Justice Dept and FBI agents were actively colluding to overturn the election
Obama and Justice Dept used the Fake Russian FSB Dossier to get a FISA court warrant to spy tap Americans, namely the opposition party.

This is just what we KNOW. I realize that the GP post doesn't account for any of this, because he's probably watching CNN or MSNBC which is talking about how much diet coke and McDonalds Trump consumes, or something equally inane. Or perhaps its on the ScarJo speech at the Liberal Women's march about how awful men are, especially James Franco, while ignoring that she praised Woody Allen or her cuddling up and beaming at Roman Polanski getting a Hollywood Award of some kind.

The selective nature of their outrage is humorous. Their disdain for average people (who knew these people were gross pigs long before Hollywoudn't) extends from Hollywood to the beltway.

The problem with censors.

[fish_in_the_c]

Is they will always favor themselves and censor those things that criticize them.
The problem with having no censor is people will have to decide for themselves what is true or false and will sometimes get it wrong.

The argument that 'The normal individual can't be trusted, or expected, to know what I true and false' Is the greatest argument against any kind of democratic rule that can be made. It is actually however the reason why our constitution created a republic with strong states rights. In as much as we have moved away from that model we have made it much easier for small groups of people to control the population.

Re: Totally unbiased opinion by TFA's 'journalist

[tbannist]

And you, obviously, are the final arbiter of Truth and Fiction.

Aren't we all our own final arbiters of Truth and Fiction?

You reject out of hand any criticism of your team, no matter how accurate or demonstrably true,

I don't have a team in your politics, but I recognize bull shit when someone writes it. Claiming that Hillary Clinton "got away with actual literal treason" is bullshit and you ought to know it too. It's not because I think Hillary Clinton is innocent as pure driven snow, for example, if you want to claim she committed gross negligence in handling classified documents, and should get jail time, I'll disagree with your position (and I'll back up my disagreement with facts), but I won't question your grip on reality.

yet will believe entirely the latest Russia Collusion story that comes with no named sources, no documents, and often no logic.

Not really, I think it's pretty unlikely that Mueller will find any damning evidence that Trump actually colluded with the Russians to win the election. I find it amusingly ironic that a book that the Trump White House has declared as Fake News, Fire and Fury, actually does a pretty good job of explaining one potential reason why collusion at the top level of Trump's presidential campaign is unlikely to be found: Trump never planned to win. If that claim is true (I find it more amusing than convincing, given the source), then Trump couldn't have collaborated with the Russians to win the election because he never wanted to win until after he did. If Trump planned to lose the election, and managed to screw it up by winning, then he has a pretty good defence against that accusation, but frankly, Trump probably can't admit that until after the 2020 election because if he says it, then his followers might realize they'd been manipulated and duped by a con man, and then they might not vote for him in 2020...

Anyway, I'm not sure what you think I should be believing or not believing here. Mueller is definitely investigating and indictments have been laid against people, and people have plead guilty. That's more than an iota of evidence for something, according to my perspective. Or am I supposed to believe that there is no Mueller, no Mueller investigation, and the whole thing has been made up by the media?

No thanks. You can keep your "truth" and I'll keep mine.

No, you won't. You're going to share your truth every time you post, just like I am. You don't have to like or believe what I write, but you can't stop me from making fun of the crazies who write ridiculous posts. Don't worry, though, I also make fun of the crazy liberals, when I see them, it's just there really aren't that many on Slashdot any more and when I do see them, the Warriors for Trump have already beaten me to the punch...