Slashdot Mirror
Can Facebook Keep Large-Scale Misinformation From the Free World? (sfgate.com)
You can have a disaster-free Election Day in the social media age, writes New York Times columnist Kevin Roose, "but it turns out that it takes constant vigilance from law enforcement agencies, academic researchers and digital security experts for months on end."
It takes an ad hoc "war room" at Facebook headquarters with dozens of staff members working round-the-clock shifts. It takes hordes of journalists and fact checkers willing to police the service for false news stories and hoaxes so that they can be contained before spreading to millions. And even if you avoid major problems from bad actors domestically, you might still need to disclose, as Facebook did late Tuesday night, that you kicked off yet another group of what appeared to be Kremlin-linked trolls...
Most days, digging up large-scale misinformation on Facebook was as easy as finding baby photos or birthday greetings... Facebook was generally responsive to these problems after they were publicly called out. But its scale means that even people who work there are often in the dark... Other days, combing through Facebook falsehoods has felt like watching a nation poison itself in slow motion. A recent study by the Oxford Internet Institute, a department at the University of Oxford, found that 25 percent of all election-related content shared on Facebook and Twitter during the midterm election season could be classified as "junk news"...
Facebook has framed its struggle as an "arms race" between itself and the bad actors trying to exploit its services. But that mischaracterizes the nature of the problem. This is not two sovereign countries locked in battle, or an intelligence agency trying to stop a nefarious foreign plot. This is a rich and successful corporation that built a giant machine to convert attention into advertising revenue, made billions of dollars by letting that machine run with limited oversight, and is now frantically trying to clean up the mess that has resulted... It's worth asking, over the long term, why a single American company is in the position of protecting free and fair elections all over the world.
Despite whatever progress has been made, the article complains that "It took sustained pressure from lawmakers, regulators, researchers, journalists, employees, investors and users to force the company to pay more attention to misinformation and threats of election interference. Facebook has shown, time and again, that it behaves responsibly only when placed under a well-lit microscope.
"So as our collective attention fades from the midterms, it seems certain that outsiders will need to continue to hold the company accountable, and push it to do more to safeguard its users -- in every country, during every election season -- from a flood of lies and manipulation."
Most days, digging up large-scale misinformation on Facebook was as easy as finding baby photos or birthday greetings... Facebook was generally responsive to these problems after they were publicly called out. But its scale means that even people who work there are often in the dark... Other days, combing through Facebook falsehoods has felt like watching a nation poison itself in slow motion. A recent study by the Oxford Internet Institute, a department at the University of Oxford, found that 25 percent of all election-related content shared on Facebook and Twitter during the midterm election season could be classified as "junk news"...
Facebook has framed its struggle as an "arms race" between itself and the bad actors trying to exploit its services. But that mischaracterizes the nature of the problem. This is not two sovereign countries locked in battle, or an intelligence agency trying to stop a nefarious foreign plot. This is a rich and successful corporation that built a giant machine to convert attention into advertising revenue, made billions of dollars by letting that machine run with limited oversight, and is now frantically trying to clean up the mess that has resulted... It's worth asking, over the long term, why a single American company is in the position of protecting free and fair elections all over the world.
Despite whatever progress has been made, the article complains that "It took sustained pressure from lawmakers, regulators, researchers, journalists, employees, investors and users to force the company to pay more attention to misinformation and threats of election interference. Facebook has shown, time and again, that it behaves responsibly only when placed under a well-lit microscope.
"So as our collective attention fades from the midterms, it seems certain that outsiders will need to continue to hold the company accountable, and push it to do more to safeguard its users -- in every country, during every election season -- from a flood of lies and manipulation."
Once we appoint Facebook as gatekeeper of truth, a "Ministry of Truth" as it were, who gets to ensure that that Facebook determines the truth correctly and in a non-partisan way, and doesn't inadvertently or otherwise misinform its users from a position of privilege.
So fucking pathetic. This shit is as old as communicat. Dis/info is nothing, people should exert effort to understand what is going on. Otherwise we trade one propaganda for another.
The modern world is toddler level. Not by our choice but by corps and the loudest screechers?
As always, the answer is "HELL FSCKING NO!"
The US not only spends about ten times more on weapons than anyone else, leads a magnitude more of wars than anyone else, the US also has the biggest public relations aka propaganda budget with a similar leading number. No one spends as much money as the US on ads, both the private sector and the public.
The US government has the biggest spin machine by far world wide, that goes both for public and private, no distinction The US produces more lies, more propaganda, more spin than any other country in the world.
So why would one the US' biggest ad companies like facebook filter these lies^Wads they make their livelihood with?
Oh, you mean filter the doubleplusungood information that the mainstream narrative doesn't like? Yes those they can will filter with the best AI money can buy.
However, since AI is actually no AI but pretty much shit, there will still be many unwelcome single postings going through through the cracks, similar like spammers get through mailfilters. This ensures a constant low intensity craze that every politician can point to when they don't like a particular result. "We didn't lose cause our program was bad and the candidate behaved worse than Darth Vader, no, those evilmongers over there are to blame and no one else. Kill them!"
Which is why a half a million dollar media campaign from a troll company who wanted to produce account followers, supposedly has derailed an election where the candidates alone spend directly more than two billion dollars, and the wider public spent more like 20 billions. Including untold millions from foreign, mostly allied, countries.
Those are probably the half million dollars with the most impact in all of human history.
No more of that cheap Ruskie misinformation and FAKE NEWS. Only 100% pure cornfed American misinformation err I mean TruthTM allowed. As determined by a cartel of self appointed completely unbiased neutral Bay Area Silicon Valley megacorporations and East Coast far left media conglomerates. Not only will they control everything you see they will also control everything you can say and do by threatening to cut you off from their increasingly mandatory monopoly for any reason they feel like. But don't worry, the government is not involved. officially so you have no right to complain according to liberals....Ahhh America...land of the Free...
Fakebook's purpose is to censor all it can.
This means that what remains after censorship is propaganda.
This is all about profit, plain and simple.
There are numerous steps that Facebook could take that would allow them to positively identify every single registered user. This would reduce the potential for fake content, because anyone found to be posting the same would be identifiable, would lose their accounts and would not be able to re-activate them.
The problem is that not only might this discourage people from creating an account, but it would also introduce an operational cost for Facebook themselves, since they would have to pay people to review such content and make decisions about revoking access.
But it is possible, all of it.
In fact, this is an excellent example of the reason that there needs to be a tighter form of regulation around companies like Facebook, because - as this example clearly shows - unless there is a legal obligation for Facebook to do something, they won't - because it will dent their profits. Going even further, strengthening the requirement for Facebook (and similar organisations) to establish the identity of users doesn't really have a material impact on the free speech of those users. Facebook wouldn't be telling those people what to write or not write. Instead, they would be making their users accountable for their actions.
Which, on reflection, seems entirely reasonable.
No, I don't have a Facebook account. Never have. Never will.
That is not the problem. People who form their opinions and beliefs from social media are the problem. That form of stupidity is on the rise.
Who decides what is fake and what is their agenda?
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Worrying that nonsense like this gets modded "+5 insightful".
A recent documentary on Channel 4 showed that Facebook is very reluctant to censor anything, often allowing really extreme material to remain up. That's because such material is profitable, and Facebook's main goal is to make money.
The fake news and propaganda is making Facebook lose money because people don't want to go there and don't trust them any more. Plus Zuck got hauled in front of Congress which has bad optics, so they are doing something about it. Granted, it's mostly marketing.
So the claim that their purpose is censorship is clearly, demonstrably bullshit. It's part of a conspiracy theory that maintains that all the real news is censored, and everything you see is fake and what the shadowy all powerful leftist censors want you to see.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Facts are immutable.
There is no dispassionate dispenser of "facts". Facts can be reported out of context. Some facts can be omitted, while others amplified. What are considered "facts" one day can be found to be falsehoods the next. And facts can be spun together to paint a misleading or partisan narrative.
If you think that facts favour the left, question why you're on the right.
If you think "facts" favor the left, then question your own bias.