
Mark Zuckerberg Is in Denial - tucif
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/15/opinion/mark-zuckerberg-is-in-denial.html
======
detaro
previous:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12958661](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12958661)

------
zigzigzag
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.

~~~
amelius
> 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.

~~~
zigzigzag
Echo chambers? Would you lump existing media outlets into that bucket? I think
if there's one thing that 2016 revealed very clearly it's the extent to which
journalists tend to line up behind whatever the political elite groupthink is,
regardless of how well it matches what the overall population thinks. The
Guardian has become something of a joke paper - on the rare occasions these
days that they open the comments the top rated comments are mostly giving them
flak over the wildly extreme positions their journalists take.

~~~
anentropic
you're speaking as someone who takes a wildly extreme position

so the mild liberal/left views in The Guardian seem like "wildly extreme"
positions to you

probably you live in a right-wing social media echo chamber

~~~
zigzigzag
How would we resolve this dispute? I don't think my views are extreme, nor
does opinion polling indicate that they are.

I regularly read papers across the political spectrum: The Guardian, the
Financial Times, the Economist, the Daily Mail, the Express, the Telegraph,
and often stories from the New York Times and the Washington Post (I like
news). That seems like a pretty broad reach. I don't think it's an echo
chamber.

I also use Google News a lot. That throws up a pretty random selection of
sources on whatever the topics of the day are.

The Guardian regularly runs articles by authors like these:

[https://www.theguardian.com/profile/jessicavalenti](https://www.theguardian.com/profile/jessicavalenti)

[https://www.theguardian.com/profile/joris-
luyendijk](https://www.theguardian.com/profile/joris-luyendijk)

Example articles:

 _In Brexit Britain, being a foreigner marks me out as evil_

 _Why the mediocre male 's days may be numbered_

 _After Brexit, a game plan for the EU: unleash Project Pain: Nobody wants to
be vindictive, but maximum political and economic damage would stop other
arsonists._

 _Hey, misogynist killjoys: stop denying that Hillary has made history_

 _Why we need to lose biased words like 'mistress' for good_

and from others there:

 _The far right tell us kindness is weakness. We can’t give in to that: Urging
people to be something as squishy as ‘kind’ may seem childish. But compassion
is a revolutionary tool that can steer people away from bigotry_

 _The US will no longer feel like a haven for Jews under Trump_

 _A win for Trump was a win for bigotry. Here’s how we resist him_

I have no hesitation at all in describing these as extreme views, but these
were just a random selection of headlines I pulled from their website in 90
seconds.

~~~
Chris2048
Look at this mild piece of liberalism:

[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/09/electi...](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/09/election-
analysis-trump-clinton-terrifying-moment-for-america)

"This is a terrifying moment for America. Hold your loved ones close"

 _of course_ , this is an "Opinion" piece, that's where Guardian airs it's
worst bias, The feminism section if full of them.

------
eggy
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].

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Ws](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Ws)

~~~
spiderfarmer
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.

~~~
wav-part
The "curated news" is not a solution, its a bigger problem.

When you request top 10 voted posts thats what you get. Not the truth. If
voters believe 1 like = 1 truth, then you have identified the problem with
democracy that have _always_ existed.

> 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.

No its not. Scientist = Sceptic.

------
soyiuz
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.

------
pdubbs90
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."

------
owly
Simply show your inner strength and delete your facebook account. Done.

~~~
vinay427
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.

------
jbmorgado
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.

------
mikebay
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.

------
chinese_donald
Why only mention pro-Trump fake news? I know plenty of people spreading fake
Propaganda about Trump based on hearsay and false information.

...including links and comments on HN. Maybe HN needs to filter out the fake
stuff too?

~~~
echlebek
Care to cite some instances? I'm not sure why you would need to create
propaganda about Trump. The truth is pretty damning already.

~~~
solvedit
I can help with that. I, like you, also thought that there would be no reason
to, so why would they do it... But then I went and watched the actual Q&A
recording that all of the "Trump wants to put all the Muslims into a database"
claims came from and find that the claim is quite false. He never says it. He
says something that when taken entirely out of context can be interpreted by
someone with preconceived notions as meaning it, except that in context it is
actually very clear that he's talking about something else. I don't like
Trump, and I don't want him to be our President, but the amount of seemingly
fabricated stories about him are upsetting.

~~~
wahern
FWIW, [http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-
meter/article/2015/nov/24/...](http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-
meter/article/2015/nov/24/donald-trumps-comments-database-american-muslims/)

Trump's statements are usually non-specific and often contradictory. He's made
denials that go far beyond straining credulity.

Basically, I think it's fair to say that people aren't fabricating stories so
much as grasping at straws. Much like his supporters.

The only real way to understand Trump is as a textbook case of Narcissistic
Personality Disorder. Or maybe some surreal parody of NPD. Once you understand
that his primary and in many cases sole motivation is self-aggrandizement and
attention seeking[1], everything he says makes so much sense. Or rather, you
stop searching for the earnest, substantive policies and opinions. He's alot
like an adolescent in that regard--his opinions are based on an immature and
highly self-referential worldview. Sometimes his points and counter-points
seem well-grounded until you realize that he's literally parroting an argument
he's read or heard elsewhere, without any serious attempt at critical
assessment or application. The fact that they're all over the board (as
opposed to consistently preferring a particular narrative) is only more
evidence of this methodology. Again, it's basically the methodology of an
adolescent.

You cannot identify anything concrete about Trump's policies, and you cannot
predict what Trump will do, without understanding that. And once you do, you
realize that you _still_ cannot identify or predict anything. You can't even
predict whether he'll be a devastating president, become more popular than the
second-coming of Christ, or fit somewhere in-between. I mean, by most
definitions he's successful. That means something... I'm just not sure what.

The only thing you can say for certain is that people acting intelligently and
honestly would never vote such a man into the Presidency. That he's President-
elect is a devastating testament to a deep pathology in American politics and
culture.

[1] I don't even mean to use those terms derisively. They just seem so apt and
obvious and beyond dispute. And I'm not using them to imply he's good or bad
or right or wrong. The only way to come close to understanding the man and his
behavior is with an almost clinical detachment. A Trump presidency is like a
natural, cosmic phenomenon. Even the word cataclysmic doesn't work because it
implies some subjective value judgment. His eventual policy decisions can and
will be judged. But the man himself and his words... there's nothing you can
really say. Just like there's nothing you can really say when a small child
surprises you with some facially sophisticated argument that he's just
echoing. The statement and the thought process behind them are basically
immune from meaningful criticism. Put another way, in some sense both the
child and Trump lack capacity for the same kind or degree of culpability of a
typical adult. Yes, normally selfishness is frowned upon; but if it's the
product of an abnormal mind, there's no value judgment to be made.

~~~
chinese_donald
"The only thing you can say for certain is that people acting intelligently
and honestly would never vote such a man into the Presidency. That he's
President-elect is a devastating testament to a deep pathology in American
politics and culture."

I feel the same way about Hillary: She defended a rapist husband, used the
government as her personal piggy bank, used the mainstream media as her attack
dog, and conspired against all of her enemies, and tried to steal the white
house.

We also have PC culture run amok. Trump is a big 'Fuck You' many intelligent
Americans have been waiting for, for many years. It has nothing to do with
racism, sexism, or xenophobia.

The saddest thing? The fact that Wikileaks had to bring many of this to light.
Julian Assange still hasn't been heard from since his power was cut at the
embassy.

~~~
refulgentis
A vast majority of these claims are extraordinary and have no sourcing. Source
on using government as her personal piggy bank?

~~~
blusterXY
The Clinton Foundation is known to have directly misappropriated government
donations. Donors to the organization also seem to have received preferential
treatment from the State Department:

[http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/wikileaks-
chel...](http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/wikileaks-chelsea-
clinton-used-foundation-money-to-pay-for-wedding/2016/11/07/)

[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-
politics/114379...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-
politics/11437994/Clinton-Foundation-admits-breaking-ethical-rules-by-taking-
money-from-Algeria.html)

Other major conflicts of interest involved Russia and Haiti. If you need
direct evidence of Hillary's involvement, focus on the 33k emails she deleted
AFTER receiving a Congressional subpoena, emails that were originally sent
from a private server expressly to avoid public disclosure FOIA requirements.

~~~
refulgentis
I had to find the emails the first article references by myself because they
didn't link to them. I was drawn to because the pull quotes sounded out of
context, and they are. The emails referenced dont say nearly what the article
claims, it's extremely unclear how they came to their conclusion.

The second article you cite expressly avoids saying any preferential treatment
was received, and notes the donation was unsolicited.

What major conflicts of interest involved Russia and Haiti? Both of those are
a contradiction in terms - at what point would Clinton have multiple interests
in them?

The 33k emails are gone, so I can't read them. You note they show her direct
involvement. Direct involvement in what? How do you have access to the emails?
Have you considered leaking them?

~~~
blusterXY
This is hilarious. Bill Clinton's right-hand man accuses Chelsea of
misappropriating Clinton Foundation resources to pressure her into stopping
her investigation into the way he handled Foundation finances and you think
his accusation is "out of context" and "extremely unclear". It is precisely
the context of the emails that make it so clear.

> The second article ... notes the donation was unsolicited.

And you apparently can't distinguish between a journalist reporting a fact
("Clinton Foundation admits breaking ethical rules") and the same journalist
attributing a claim to a third party (yes, the "claim" that the donation was
unsolicited comes directly from the Clinton Foundation).

You can Google Uranium One for Russia and earthquake recovery contracts for
Haiti if you really want to dig into the patterns of criminal behavior, but I
wouldn't worry about it. The FBI is confirmed to have multiple ongoing
investigations into the Clinton Foundation. And we know for a fact that
Clinton intentionally deleted work-related emails after getting subpoenaed by
Congress, which is two felonies right there (obstruction of an investigation,
and destruction of evidence). So throw out the claims that these are
"extraordinary claims" with "no sourcing"... it's highly suggestive evidence
of corruption with documented attempts to obstruct investigative work that
continues to justify extensive Federal investigations.

If I find the emails Hillary put through the shredder I will let you know.
Fortunately, there is enough to put her in jail based on the materials that
have already been leaked.

~~~
refulgentis
You're iterating your talking points without explaining the previous state of
them, so it's very tiring, so I have no interest in participating. None of my
questions have been answered :( Your post reads as picking at my the wording
of my questions because you feel it betrays sympathy for people who disagree
with you, and it's bundled with even more extraordinary claims.

Before reading the following, please consider that I genuinely wish you well
and think you're making an honest effort at staying out of ideological swamps.
There's no need to feel that I'm judging you or your choice of sourcing, I'm
only curious about this subject and genuinely want to learn more, so I'm
trying to find more source material.

When no charges are bought after 4 years under a president and attorney
general who have been thirsting to try her for _anything_ , I hope you
reconsider the fever swamp of information we've been discussing.
These...news...sites contradict their own sources, and from the research I've
done and the form of your answers, it seems impossible to find justification
for their extraordinary claims.

~~~
blusterXY
> Your post reads as picking at my the wording of my questions

Nope, my complaint is that you write-off Hillary's destruction of federal
records, multiple active criminal investigations, and suspicious evidence of
pay-to-play (in direct violation of her ethics agreement) as nothing
warranting suspicion. And then accuse anyone who points out these flagrant
breaches of public trust of being mired in a "fever swamp" and making
"extraordinary claims" instead of factual observations.

It is certainly possible that Clinton is guilty of no further crimes than
those which have already been revealed, although I wouldn't be money on it.
With that said, I'm glad to hear you support the appointment of a special
prosecutor to look into HRC and the Clinton Foundation, and view it as an
exonerating step that will redeem Hillary's questionable political legacy.

------
arthurtsang
If Facebook only serves what I preferred, what I already liked, how could the
fake news change anyone's opinion?

~~~
spiderfarmer
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.

