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."

12 of 189 comments (clear)

  1. Thin end of the wedge by vakuona · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Thin end of the wedge by jd · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That's simple. The fundamental rule has always been that facts are universal, opinion is personal. Virtually every respectable media outlet has a version of that doctrine.

      You can say what you like, think what you like, feel what you like, but you can choose only these. You cannot choose a different set of facts.

      No, that doesn't stop you writing fantasy or fiction. As the late, great Terry Nation once said, if on your world rocks can talk, then that is fact. On that world, rocks talk.

      It does not stop caricatures. Britain has incredibly strong libel laws, but TW3, Spitting Image and HIGNFY are not just applauded by those they put down, the famous and powerful were/are integral to them.

      All it stops is malicious, twisted Misty Mountains nastiness. Gollum! That doesn't take a Ministry of Truth, any Bagginses will do.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    2. Re:Thin end of the wedge by stevew · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Not my experience through this last election cycle. Just saw a friend who was black-listed from posting because she chose to forward something from a "Secretary of State for CA" FB page. I read the post at it's source - NOTHING there that was either controversial or even partisan (and Partisan SHOULD BE OKAY!) Thought Police are ALREADY HERE!

      --
      Have you compiled your kernel today??
    3. Re: Thin end of the wedge by jd · · Score: 4, Informative

      The BBC was interviewing this interesting guy, Dr David Kelly, who said there weren't. The Guardian was running articles on CIA attempted coups launched via the weapons inspector teams. The Independent was skeptical of the claims, as weapons inspectors had found nothing and President Bush was making shrill claims he couldn't back.

      Most of the media covered the Plame affair, with clear and open coverage of the fact that no yellowcake had been bought or shipped to Iraq.

      I'd say most of the free media were very, very doubtful of the claims.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  2. Pathetic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?

  3. It's all "social media", not only facebook by fbobraga · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Here, on Brazil elections, the main "guilty" was WhatsApp... Twitter helped too, besides facebook

  4. Only Democrat/Progressive Misinformation Allowed by Jarwulf · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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...

  5. Re:Of course they can - here's how: by fbobraga · · Score: 3, Insightful

    1. Shut the company down.

    ... and other popular social media platform will rise. I think only a heavy liability for this companies, by helping the spread of "fake news", can solve this question: attack their wallets, so their will inhibit this practices :P

  6. It's called censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What next, someone censoring which books get publshed? There is a fine line between "misinformation" and information which makes some people uncomfortable. Facebook should stay out of the censorship business. One person's "minsinformation" is another person's truth.

  7. It's All About The Bottom Line by ytene · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  8. Perennial Question by sycodon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  9. Re:Facts are facts, they don't change with the wea by Raenex · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.