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.
Anyway I can't understand what the use case would even be here. You need FB to publish their rankings publicly which doesn't need to be decentralized, or you want each person to have their own rankings which don't need to be distributed?
I don't think publishing their rankings will help.
The use case that I think is: A competitive marketplace to compete for the best use of encrypted data. Where each data point and evaluation has a 'cost' to the system and each algorithm competes and entirely based on pseudonyms. Since how we perceive 'trust' is etherial/intangible/ever-changing.
I don't think the solution is an easy one to create but I do think the building blocks to them are (no pun intended).
One must think differently if you wanted to use a DLT/Bitcoin solution.
It's not simply just a ledger.
I'm talking about every data point that facebook has, to be hashed and competitively manipulated in a global market place.
Trust is very relative but using a bitcoin-like solution would allow for the market to compete for the better solution, each and every day. Facebook's authoritarian solution won't last forever, nor should it; allowing competition through FB's data could be a way that FB stays in the limelight.
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.
It's a shame you only regurgitate information instead of looking up things yourself.
Based on the 'total consumption chart' [1] you are incorrect.
Even though many, including Digiconomist, only look at the current value. They are distorting the narrative of scientific inquiry. As, in another 10 years, in hindsight, the value of mining Bitcoin today is significantly more efficient than mining gold was today.
Gold, when it was used as a global standard, produced multitude more in CO2 pollution than it produces. Economies of scale and as people use the 'digital gold', value increases.
An apt comparison would be during the various gold rushes (hundreds of years ago). I don't believe I've seen a true apples to apples comparison. But now you know how to compare a mature asset like gold, to a new asset like Bitcoin. It's not in today's measure. It's in the relative situational circumstances that are equivalent. Also, if Elon Musk were to obtain one astroid with sizable portions of gold on it. Well, then gold's value will be debased and it will be difficult to easily compare the two. Every factor matters. Please don't act like it's a huge waste of energy, it's actually not even close to many other forms of money that humanity has used.
Yes gold mining causes environmental damage. That's one of many reasons why it's a good thing we moved away from the gold standard to fiat currencies. Neither Bitcoin or precious metals are a sound basis for a complex international financial system.
