This looks like a continuation of a long running theme in the media: how awful and terrible and threatening to democracy it is when Google and Facebook suddenly made it easy to be exposed to lots of alternative points of view on the same story.
The media have been going after Google News for years with various arguments. Now they're latching on to "Only human editors can ensure your news is not fake". I suspect it'll fail like all the rest unless they can convince governments to regulate, and even then maybe not as Germany and Spain's attempt to control Google News didn't work out.
At any rate, Facebook isn't in denial. They're talking about the problem and fixing it, which is probably quite easy to do algorithmically (once you've knocked off the existing sites, simply send sites that appear to be news but which are brand new through manual review).
American media still is in denial though. Other than a few articles blaming all their mistakes on polling companies, I haven't seen much self reflection amongst journalists on why their trust numbers are so low, why so many Americans have simply concluded they're hopelessly biased and tuned them out, or why it's tech companies that now control their traffic instead of themselves.
> how awful and terrible and threatening to democracy it is when Google and Facebook suddenly made it easy to be exposed to lots of alternative points of view on the same story
You are being sarcastic here but (imho) gossip, fake news, and echo chambers are really threatening democracy.
> I haven't seen much self reflection amongst journalists
The problem is that journalists are getting caught in a vicious circle. Either they present true news and have little viewers, or present gossip or echo what people want to hear and have lots of viewers.
Hold on. The NYT just admitted bias recently regarding their reporting on the election, and an opinion piece talks about 'Liberal Intolerance' in the NYT, but now FB is almost as culpable due to false stories? I still think there is a higher signal-to-noise ratio when there are many people able to debunk a piece on FB or other social media, than when a hardcopy, accepted as trusted source such as the NYT once was, posts a story.
The fly-over states were discounted by most media, and people are still reeling from the election results they can't believe. People raise the popular vote in political conversations, not realizing that almost all of Hillary's popular vote differential came from NY and CA, again urban coastal vs. the fly-over states. People are in denial about what other Americans aside from them felt about all of this.
I predicted a Trump victory in July and September publicly on Twitter, and I am no fan of Trump, or Hillary for that matter. People laughed at me. I was born and raised in a working-class neighborhood in Brooklyn, so it came from purely talking to other Americans in my travels in the US and overseas, and I am no journalist tasked to go out and get the Five Ws [1].
The fact that a lot of media didn't think Trump would win is unrelated to the fact that fake news is damaging to democracy.
Just like fake science is damaging to scientists. Fake scientific articles are read, quoted and shared through the scientific community and it can take a long time to weed out.
How many people still believe Obama is a muslim because they read it (repeatedly) on Facebook? I'm guessing millions.
I think the purported liberal slant of the mainstream media is a separate (though related) issue from the blatantly-false news stories that come from both sides of the aisle, that permeate through social media platforms.
The suggestion that Facebook and other channels of distribution should filter "fake" or "bad" news is not well thought out. Why would we want a private entity have any say in what is being shared? We should be fighting for net neutrality, not for what amounts to censorship.
Fake news is a real problem, but this seems like an unfair no-win for Facebook from major media outlets. When they had more human editors on trending topics it was "Facebook is injecting their own bias into news and manipulating the public."
Now that it's more purely algorithmic it's "Facebook isn't policing content enough and making it too easy for fake outlets to manipulate the public."
I'm certain that when they follow up by cranking up machine learning to censor fake content it will be "algorithms don't stop everything fake and sometimes block real things, thus manipulating the public."
I still use Messenger and occasionally Groups (for events I don't plan) so I opted to block my newsfeed instead using a browser extension. I've found that to be a very manageable and in my experience healthy option.
There are also lots of fake articles from the alt-left being shared with millions in FB.
An example, is the foto of thousands of Albanian immigrants on a boat going to Italy in the 80's, being shared as being the foto of thousands of European refugees running away from the Nazis and going to North Africa in the 40's, that keeps resurfacing all the time.
Articles like this one from NyTimes, implying that this kind of stuff only favours the right are a big part of the problem. It passes a message that censorship is good, but only if it's applied solely to the right wing.
Facebook, Twitter and Google all pushing same agenda. Alternatives needed, services that are truly unopionated as they should be. Otherwise we all can watch CNN and believe all what they say.
Sounds like you didn't read the whole article, as it mentions anti-Trump fake news and then answers your question:
After the election, Mr. Zuckerberg claimed that the fake news was a problem on “both sides” of the race. There are, of course, viral fake anti-Trump memes, but reporters have found that the spread of false news is far more common on the right than it is on the left.
The Macedonian teenagers found this, too. They had experimented with left-leaning or pro-Bernie Sanders content, but gave up when they found it wasn’t as reliable a source of income as pro-Trump content. But even if Mr. Zuckerberg were right and fake news were equally popular on both sides, it would still be a profound problem.
I have no idea what this "news" site is, but I'm pretty sure that the US is not currently rushing to prepare for a North Korean nuclear missile launch.
In that case it enforces your opinion. So it's still of influence.
There are however a lot of votes that decide last minute. There are also voters that have decided, but can't be bothered to vote. In that case it might change and opinion.
You can't say that it's impossible for fake news to influence anyone. How many people believe that Obama is a muslim because they read it (repeatedly) on Facebook? I'm guessing millions.
[+] [-] detaro|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zigzigzag|9 years ago|reply
The media have been going after Google News for years with various arguments. Now they're latching on to "Only human editors can ensure your news is not fake". I suspect it'll fail like all the rest unless they can convince governments to regulate, and even then maybe not as Germany and Spain's attempt to control Google News didn't work out.
At any rate, Facebook isn't in denial. They're talking about the problem and fixing it, which is probably quite easy to do algorithmically (once you've knocked off the existing sites, simply send sites that appear to be news but which are brand new through manual review).
American media still is in denial though. Other than a few articles blaming all their mistakes on polling companies, I haven't seen much self reflection amongst journalists on why their trust numbers are so low, why so many Americans have simply concluded they're hopelessly biased and tuned them out, or why it's tech companies that now control their traffic instead of themselves.
[+] [-] amelius|9 years ago|reply
You are being sarcastic here but (imho) gossip, fake news, and echo chambers are really threatening democracy.
> I haven't seen much self reflection amongst journalists
The problem is that journalists are getting caught in a vicious circle. Either they present true news and have little viewers, or present gossip or echo what people want to hear and have lots of viewers.
[+] [-] eggy|9 years ago|reply
The fly-over states were discounted by most media, and people are still reeling from the election results they can't believe. People raise the popular vote in political conversations, not realizing that almost all of Hillary's popular vote differential came from NY and CA, again urban coastal vs. the fly-over states. People are in denial about what other Americans aside from them felt about all of this.
I predicted a Trump victory in July and September publicly on Twitter, and I am no fan of Trump, or Hillary for that matter. People laughed at me. I was born and raised in a working-class neighborhood in Brooklyn, so it came from purely talking to other Americans in my travels in the US and overseas, and I am no journalist tasked to go out and get the Five Ws [1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Ws
[+] [-] spiderfarmer|9 years ago|reply
Just like fake science is damaging to scientists. Fake scientific articles are read, quoted and shared through the scientific community and it can take a long time to weed out.
How many people still believe Obama is a muslim because they read it (repeatedly) on Facebook? I'm guessing millions.
[+] [-] wakkaflokka|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] soyiuz|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pdubbs90|9 years ago|reply
Now that it's more purely algorithmic it's "Facebook isn't policing content enough and making it too easy for fake outlets to manipulate the public."
I'm certain that when they follow up by cranking up machine learning to censor fake content it will be "algorithms don't stop everything fake and sometimes block real things, thus manipulating the public."
[+] [-] owly|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vinay427|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] arthurtsang|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] untog|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jbmorgado|9 years ago|reply
An example, is the foto of thousands of Albanian immigrants on a boat going to Italy in the 80's, being shared as being the foto of thousands of European refugees running away from the Nazis and going to North Africa in the 40's, that keeps resurfacing all the time.
Articles like this one from NyTimes, implying that this kind of stuff only favours the right are a big part of the problem. It passes a message that censorship is good, but only if it's applied solely to the right wing.
[+] [-] mikebay|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chinese_donald|9 years ago|reply
...including links and comments on HN. Maybe HN needs to filter out the fake stuff too?
[+] [-] Terretta|9 years ago|reply
Sounds like you didn't read the whole article, as it mentions anti-Trump fake news and then answers your question:
After the election, Mr. Zuckerberg claimed that the fake news was a problem on “both sides” of the race. There are, of course, viral fake anti-Trump memes, but reporters have found that the spread of false news is far more common on the right than it is on the left.
The Macedonian teenagers found this, too. They had experimented with left-leaning or pro-Bernie Sanders content, but gave up when they found it wasn’t as reliable a source of income as pro-Trump content. But even if Mr. Zuckerberg were right and fake news were equally popular on both sides, it would still be a profound problem.
[+] [-] ComteDeLaFere|9 years ago|reply
Nuclear War Alert: US Prepares For North Korea Missile Launch
http://www.morningnewsusa.com/nuclear-war-alert-us-prepares-...
I have no idea what this "news" site is, but I'm pretty sure that the US is not currently rushing to prepare for a North Korean nuclear missile launch.
[+] [-] echlebek|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AndrewUnmuted|9 years ago|reply
See Ms. Tufekci's previous hard-hitting, facts-be-damned op-ed contribution to the NYT, "WikiLeaks Isn't Whistleblowing" to get your answer.
[+] [-] arthurtsang|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] spiderfarmer|9 years ago|reply
There are however a lot of votes that decide last minute. There are also voters that have decided, but can't be bothered to vote. In that case it might change and opinion.
You can't say that it's impossible for fake news to influence anyone. How many people believe that Obama is a muslim because they read it (repeatedly) on Facebook? I'm guessing millions.