Facebook Exec Admits 'No Real Understanding' for the Scope of Fake News (mercurynews.com)

Three executives from Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube appeared at Stanford to discuss free speech in the social media age, with one law professor raising concerns about how the online giants are curating their services. All three tech executives talked about increasing transparency and authenticity. But all acknowledge that nothing is foolproof and political speech in particular is most difficult to regulate, if it should be at all. "That puts a lot of control in the hands of the companies sitting here in term of what kind of speech is allowed to have the global reach," said Juniper Downs, YouTube's global head of public policy and government relations. "That is a responsibility we take very seriously and something we owe to the public and a civil society...."

Facebook is making information available on its platform to researchers to help understand the effect of Facebook usage on elections. Still, Facebook's Vice President of Public Policy Elliot Schrage urged caution. "There is no agreement whatsoever on the prevalence of false news and fake propaganda on our platform," he said. "We have no real understanding of what the scope of misinformation is." He suggested that despite these chaotic times, "I do think we should be pretty modest and circumspect in the approaches we take." Social media companies need to find creative ways to improve the spread of information, Schrage said. But it won't be easy. "No one company," he said, "is going to solve this problem."

Comments

Re:BAN BUMP STOCKS... apk

[DRJlaw]

I've talked to some former marines about that, and they say you can approximate a bump stock with "a belt"... as in the one that you hold your pants up with...

Ban it if you want... it just won't matter.

The "perfect being the enemy of the good" fallacy writ large. You admit that you can only approximate the effects of a bump stock with a belt, yet you imply that because we could not ban belts that it won't matter that we ban bump stocks.

Bullshit. The purpose-built device performs better and is easier to use than the jerry-rigged, belt-based alternative. Making it more difficult to rig a bump-stock-like device is a net win - especially since there is essentially no legitimate reason to use a bump-stock. Shooters using bump-stocks are less accurate and have less control over their weapons -- the exact opposite of the goals of a hunter, a target shooter, and frankly those engaged in self-defense.

If you boil down the statistics on the mass shootings you'll find that the US actually has normal to LOW numbers of mass shooting deaths.

Could be lower. No need for a "spray and pray" device outside of a military context, and even then doctrine highly discourages that sort of use in most situations.

this line of logic fails and then people just come up with a new thing to ban that won't have any material consequence on outcomes.

Sorry, rhetoric does not substitute for evidence, especially when your video shows someone firing a five round burst from the hip in a random direction -- it's epitome of the one-handed 'gangsta style' pistol grip transposed to an AR-15. "Approximate" does not equal "buy off-the-shelf add-on that allows Joe Bloe to essentially create a "shoulder-fired machine gun." We all see it, a majority of us tired of it, and the final rule banning these devices is coming.

Lifelong gun owner, never an NRA member, and yes, "deaf" to this sort of bullshit.

Re: BAN BUMP STOCKS... apk

[jedidiah]

> Let me ask you a question: why do you need semi-automatic weapons that fire high-powered rounds? This isn't a rhetorical question.

You are deeply confused and highly ignorant about guns.

The AR-15 doesn't fire a particularly high powered round. It's a varmint rifle. It's not even powerful enough to be considered legal for hunting in some places because of this.

Lay off the media narrative.

The AR-15 has the advantage of being less random and destructive than a shotgun and much easier to handle than some pea shooter like a 38 special. A 9mm round actually has more penetrating power when it comes to human bodies.

Re:Translation

[jedidiah]

> Were you demanding actual EVIDENCE of any wrong doing from Hillary Clinton before declaring her corrupt and criminal ?

Didn't need too. She promised a direct military confrontation with Russia during the debates. I understood this was what she was promising because I read the military press. I don't limit my sources to CNN.

The MSM gets basic verifiable facts wrong. That's not even getting into their political agenda or editorial narrative.

The thing that really intrigues me is how liberals can still screech about giving the government a monopoly on their future cancer treatment when the government is currently in the control of a hated enemy. You basically want Bernie and Trump to put your life in the hands of Trump and Ryan. That's utterly deranged.