Facebook’s Fake News Experiment Backfires

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
A Facebook test that promoted comments containing the word "fake" to the top of news feeds has been criticized by users. The trial, which Facebook says has now concluded, aimed to prioritize "comments that indicate disbelief.” It meant that feeds from the BBC, the Economist, the New York Times, and the Guardian all began with a comment mentioning the word “fake.”

In a statement, Facebook told the BBC: "We're always working on ways to curb the spread of misinformation on our platform, and sometimes run tests to find new ways to do this. This was a small test which has now concluded. "We wanted to see if prioritizing comments that indicate disbelief would help. We're going to keep working to find new ways to help our community make more informed decisions about what they read and share."
 
Last edited:
Suggestion:

They could follow up when something is fake on the walls of people that shared the content.

If the people made a simple mistake they will be more likely to pay more attention next time. If they are intentionally posting and sharing false information then they should be labeled as such.
 
ThisIsJiffylush said:
Suggestion:

They could follow up when something is fake on the walls of people that shared the content.

If the people made a simple mistake they will be more likely to pay more attention next time. If they are intentionally posting and sharing false information then they should be labeled as such.
Click to expand...

False according to who? Who will be the arbiter of all things "true"?
 
ThisIsJiffylush said:
Suggestion:

They could follow up when something is fake on the walls of people that shared the content.

If the people made a simple mistake they will be more likely to pay more attention next time. If they are intentionally posting and sharing false information then they should be labeled as such.
Click to expand...

I saw this a lot during the election. People who clearly knew they were sharing fake news but did it anyways because they were obsessed with their candidate winning. On a positive note it helped me understand which of my family and friends were truly honest.
 
Regardless of which side of politics you are on, it should be concerning that major tech companies and media companies are trying to control information and are running these sort of 'trials'.

I hope most people don't actually think a multi-billion dollar social media site is doing this sort of thing because they legitimately care about people being informed, and not the bottom line for profit or influence...
 
John1701 said:
Regardless of which side of politics you are on, it should be concerning that major tech companies and media companies are trying to control information and are running these sort of 'trials'.

I hope most people don't actually think a multi-billion dollar social media site is doing this sort of thing because they legitimately care about people being informed, and not the bottom line for profit or influence...
Click to expand...
I agree with you. But I also think that allowing totally anonymous unfettered commenting on the internet is pretty much confirmed to be a terrible idea.

I have no idea what the solution is.
 
Cali3350 said:
I agree with you. But I also think that allowing totally anonymous unfettered commenting on the internet is pretty much confirmed to be a terrible idea.

I have no idea what the solution is.
Click to expand...
Why do you think the marketplace of ideas is terrible? Do you support Internet ID or social credit systems?
 
Whenlistening to Zuckerberg talk, it is apparent that the guy lives in a bubble and has little connection to the real world. His personality is like a fake thin veneer - except that I think that's the full package.

Anyone who could've thought thought that promoting comments that indicate disbelief would work is astoundingly naive and simple. Isn't the crux of fake news to be casting doubt upon real news? So, how would promoting the source of fake news be a tool to combat fake news?
 
I kinda feel like the "fake" comment test needed more thought.

Even something simple like:
- Count the amount of total comments for the article (including resharing of the same article)
- Count the amount of comments that mention disbelief. Compare.
- If above a threshold, move the higher rated comments that mention disbelief up in the comment feed.

Sure, it's easily gamed. But it's better than just willy-nilly prioritizing comments that mention disbelief.
 
Now we'll have clever people guessing Facebook's system. Instead of SEO it'll be FEO. Game the algorithm until Facebook 'fixes' it, then comes the next algorithm. Then after the cat and mouse game matures politicians and businesses will hire FEO guys as standard business practice. No room for thinking outside the box folks, for the algorithm favors "mainstream thinking" since that will be safe from misinformation right?
 
" It meant that feeds from the BBC, the Economist, the New York Times, and the Guardian all began with a comment mentioning the word “fake.”" Just needs some tweaks, replace BBC with CNN and then I think it would be pretty solid.
 
Armenius said:
Why do you think the marketplace of ideas is terrible? Do you support Internet ID or social credit systems?
Click to expand...
We have laws over hate speech and defamation. The internet strictly allows you to ignore those laws.

I am by no means saying I want it censored or tracked. II prefer how it is now to how some want it to be. m just saying "Everything is totally anonymous and you can do whatever you want!" is not a particularly good system in my mind.
 
Cali3350 said:
We have laws over hate speech and defamation. The internet strictly allows you to ignore those laws.
Click to expand...

The US does not. "Hate" speech is free speech and defamation is a tort that has to be pursued by the person who feels injured.
 
PantherBlitz said:
The US does not. "Hate" speech is free speech and defamation is a tort that has to be pursued by the person who feels injured.
Click to expand...

Good luck pursuing an anonymous person behind a proxie for defamation. Either way you try to slice it, he's 100% correct.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top