Just to clarify, are they developing a universal trust ranking for all users or developing a per-user ranking of what sources that user trusts most? The first option is awesome because it'll hide propaganda outlets that are universally mistrusted but masquerade as legitimate news sources, while the second will entrench polarization deeper.
I wouldn't label any major news outlets as trustworthy. They all have sensationalist, often outright lying headlines. They all clip parts of conversations and stories to make something sound much worse or better than it actually is. It's not honest in any regards.
How will Facebook, a brand built on dishonesty choose honest sources correctly?
Disclaimer: haven't been on Facebook for years, mainly because I was pissed at all those stupid games and surveys at the time.
The problem with simply providing a trust appreciation is that you continue to encourage low-value social behaviour. If you want to solve the problem, I think you should try to promote critical thinking.
Why not simply de-advantage the news and concentrate on social aspects? Simply put more emphasis on Original Content created by your "friends", not re-shares (no social added value, as the cost for creation was low) or simple link sharing (same thing, if you don't integrate a small comment or analysis, it has no social added value).
> If you want to solve the problem, I think you should try to promote critical thinking.
I don't think Facebook wants to encourage too much critical thinking, as it's business is to sell an audience to advertisers. If the audience thinks too critically, it's harder to manipulate into doing what's in the interests of FB its advertisers.
> Why not simply de-advantage the news and concentrate on social aspects? Simply put more emphasis on Original Content created by your "friends", not re-shares (no social added value, as the cost for creation was low) or simple link sharing (same thing, if you don't integrate a small comment or analysis, it has no social added value).
This is exactly what countless people on Hacker News ("why can't Facebook have some sense of the trustworthiness of a news source") have been demanding for years.
I'm sure we will now hear complaints that Facebook shouldn't be choosing which sources are trustworthy.
Was that really the consensus? I got the impression it was the opposite. "Fake news" can be used as an excuse to censor certain stories or publications.
The problem was created in the first place by Facebook deciding which stories to rank higher, instead of giving people the stories and posts in chronological order. But it did that very poorly and in a way that could be easily manipulated.
Now they're trying to "fix" that by exerting even more control over the stories - in other words, doubling down on the thing that hasn't worked.
The article already makes me worried about their plans. I've seen some stories recently say that many Trump supporters, for instance, have a tendency to "trust" fake news sources. So according to Facebook's plans, those fake news sources may actually become "trusted" on the platform now, because many people trust them.
Alternatively, just like YouTube, Facebook may "curate" the landscape so much, that only "non-offensive" stories will ever be shown on the platform.
Well, opaque algorithmic censorship might be the worst one.
The algorithm will probably "nerf" small papers with insufficient data and boost big ones. Papers that are controversial in some political camp will get flags and instead people will get food articles and CNN/ABC/Fox etc.
I liked Facebook's old "show stuff in order" (pre 2011?) way more.
Pro-tip: If you unfollow all major and minor news sources on facebook you will encounter no fake news, no real news, and no political commentary that links to a media article.
Totally improved my newsfeed UX though it took a few days to get em all.
perhaps rather than suppressing everything, a "trustworthiness of this news source cannot be verified" tag could be applied to the posts that seem legitimate but have no ranking.
Bitcoin is rather bad for the Earth's ecosystem considering the carbon impact of building and operating mining hardware. I don't see anything wholesome about that.
[+] [-] jfasi|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dsfyu404ed|7 years ago|reply
See the problem?
[+] [-] mooneater|7 years ago|reply
Oh great, its a model based on consumer opinion. And we know loads of people trust Fox news.
[+] [-] dsfyu404ed|7 years ago|reply
What stories they cover (or ignore) and what details they include (or omit) are where the bias comes from. Every other news source is the same way.
[+] [-] CryoLogic|7 years ago|reply
How will Facebook, a brand built on dishonesty choose honest sources correctly?
[+] [-] craftyguy|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MrMember|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ericst|7 years ago|reply
The problem with simply providing a trust appreciation is that you continue to encourage low-value social behaviour. If you want to solve the problem, I think you should try to promote critical thinking.
Why not simply de-advantage the news and concentrate on social aspects? Simply put more emphasis on Original Content created by your "friends", not re-shares (no social added value, as the cost for creation was low) or simple link sharing (same thing, if you don't integrate a small comment or analysis, it has no social added value).
[+] [-] Lionsion|7 years ago|reply
I don't think Facebook wants to encourage too much critical thinking, as it's business is to sell an audience to advertisers. If the audience thinks too critically, it's harder to manipulate into doing what's in the interests of FB its advertisers.
> Why not simply de-advantage the news and concentrate on social aspects? Simply put more emphasis on Original Content created by your "friends", not re-shares (no social added value, as the cost for creation was low) or simple link sharing (same thing, if you don't integrate a small comment or analysis, it has no social added value).
They've already done that.
[+] [-] lazzlazzlazz|7 years ago|reply
I'm sure we will now hear complaints that Facebook shouldn't be choosing which sources are trustworthy.
[+] [-] thaumaturgy|7 years ago|reply
And Facebook doesn't need to do the choosing; they could use a mix of independent, non-partisan rankings of news sources (example: http://www.allgeneralizationsarefalse.com/the-chart-version-...).
To be clear, I don't think they'll do that, but they could.
[+] [-] na85|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] creaghpatr|7 years ago|reply
Naturally, this will lead to rating user trustworthiness, and filtering untrustworthy people and their untrustworthy views out of your newsfeed.
[+] [-] mtgx|7 years ago|reply
The problem was created in the first place by Facebook deciding which stories to rank higher, instead of giving people the stories and posts in chronological order. But it did that very poorly and in a way that could be easily manipulated.
Now they're trying to "fix" that by exerting even more control over the stories - in other words, doubling down on the thing that hasn't worked.
The article already makes me worried about their plans. I've seen some stories recently say that many Trump supporters, for instance, have a tendency to "trust" fake news sources. So according to Facebook's plans, those fake news sources may actually become "trusted" on the platform now, because many people trust them.
Alternatively, just like YouTube, Facebook may "curate" the landscape so much, that only "non-offensive" stories will ever be shown on the platform.
[+] [-] rightbyte|7 years ago|reply
The algorithm will probably "nerf" small papers with insufficient data and boost big ones. Papers that are controversial in some political camp will get flags and instead people will get food articles and CNN/ABC/Fox etc.
I liked Facebook's old "show stuff in order" (pre 2011?) way more.
[+] [-] scj|7 years ago|reply
That would likely include all news.
[+] [-] forgottenpass|7 years ago|reply
And plenty of us thought it was stupid back then, too.
[+] [-] courtneycouch0|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nradov|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] creaghpatr|7 years ago|reply
Totally improved my newsfeed UX though it took a few days to get em all.
[+] [-] mesozoic|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] reflect|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AstralStorm|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwaway84742|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] heimatau|7 years ago|reply
cough bitcoin cough
[+] [-] sp332|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nradov|7 years ago|reply