
Google and Facebook should be regulated for news content, UK government report - pseudolus
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/12/google-facebook-apple-news-should-be-regulated-uk-government-report.html
======
bad_user
Just today I noticed " _The Most Popular Health Articles of 2018, a Scientific
Credibility Review_ ":

[http://healthfeedback.org/the-most-popular-health-
articles-o...](http://healthfeedback.org/the-most-popular-health-articles-
of-2018-a-scientific-credibility-review/)

Many articles from otherwise reputable sources are not credible, or accurate
or are simply false. Journalists no longer do any fact checking.
Sensationalism is more important than reputation.

So on to the idea that Google and Facebook should be regulated, I think it's
an absolutely horrible idea. We are talking of censorship conducted by the
government, the worst kind there is. And thinking of our own government, I
can't think of people that are more corrupt or incompetent.

Just fucking educate people on fact checking and elementary logic. Push for
some lessons in high-school or whatever.

~~~
kartan
> We are talking of censorship conducted by the government, the worst kind
> there is.

Why the censorship is done by a corporation is so much better than the one
done by an elected government? I think that censorship is the wrong thing not
who does it.

> So on to the idea that Google and Facebook should be regulated, I think it's
> an absolutely horrible idea.

For what it seems the USA election was deeply impacted by a foreign hostile
government using Facebook ads. There are countries where sectarian violence is
on the rise thanks to how Facebook prioritises stories for engagement.

Facebook or Google need to be regulated because they are radicalizing people
in search of more engagement to sell more ads. That is not a good situation,
and there is no incentive for them to stop doing it. As it is the best way to
get more money.

Should these companies be allowed to run what accounts as psychological
experiments on big portions of the population without any supervision? For me,
the answer is no. It is unethical and it will impact negatively the people
affected.

> Just fucking educate people on fact checking and elementary logic.

This supposes that the fault is in the individuals not in the system. And that
it is easier to change all the population than to regulate a handful of
companies. I am all for better education, but to solve the problem with the
big tech companies regulation is needed.

~~~
Kaveren
> Why the censorship is done by a corporation is so much better than the one
> done by an elected government? I think that censorship is the wrong thing
> not who does it.

Because a company can censor whatever they want, and you don't have to use
Facebook if you don't want to. With the government, there is an inherent
threat of violence if you don't comply. Very simple.

~~~
anoncake
> and you don't have to use Facebook if you don't want to.

That must be a nice fantasy land you're living in.

------
pjc50
The fake news is coming from inside the media.

[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/08/wikipedia...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/08/wikipedia-
bans-daily-mail-as-unreliable-source-for-website) /
[http://www.adnews.com.au/news/microsoft-flags-daily-mail-
uk-...](http://www.adnews.com.au/news/microsoft-flags-daily-mail-uk-content-
as-untrustworthy-in-fake-news-filter)

There was a big push to regulate the UK media's endemic lack of ethics after
the phone hacking scandal, but apart from collapsing "News of the World" no
real change was achieved.

(On the other hand, the Hutton Inquiry censured the BBC for reporting that
turned out to be accurate, so ...)

~~~
civilitty
Anyone who thought Daily Mail was a reputable outlet for journalism instead of
a tabloid rag hasn't got their "fake news" barometer screwed on straight
anyway.

Might as well point out that the newscasters from the Marvel cinematic
universe are also fake news.

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
Now also applies to the BBC, whose reputation for journalistic distance has
been absolutely trashed over the last few years.

So - much as I have limited respect for Facebook etc, the idea that the
Internet should be regulated while the sewer press is allowed to run riot is
just a little bit of a reach.

------
chrisseaton
Of course the problem is how are Google and Facebook supposed to determine
what 'trustworthy, reliable news' is. If you read the Government report behind
this article you'll find that the Government's only suggestion seems to be
literally 'you know it when you see it.' Seems very open to abuse and
'knowing' that news you don't like is untrustworthy 'when you see it'.

I think society in general is nearly at the point of basically declaring
bankruptcy on trustworthiness of journalism and are treating everything as
having an agenda. But then how can you fund news with an agenda from public
funds?

~~~
kerng
Do make ad publishing more difficult- eg. Maybe large scale targeted
individual ads to manipulate people (with targeted precision) should be
illegal? Or ads that combine more then 1 selection criteria or whatever- the
status quo is not defendable.

~~~
strictnein
All ads are designed to manipulate people. It's literally the purpose of
advertising.

~~~
kerng
Correct, but not all ads can be customized for individuals at scale - that's
the difference and that's the problem.

~~~
strictnein
There's been customized mass mailings for a long time. Google and FB weren't
the first to collect lots of information about consumers and sell it to
advertisers.

------
amriksohata
This made me chuckle, just a few years ago we were up in arms against Chinas
great firewall, I know this is not on the same scale but its still a
restriction on what people can report on and now who is to say whether there
will be political bias in shutting down certain posts?

~~~
dajohnson89
There's a pretty alarming trend of mass surveillance and censorship in the UK.

~~~
pjc50
Not so much a trend as something that has always been there, for those of us
old enough to remember when an MP was legally barred from having his voice
heard on television. The security state has a heavy hand, and was only really
restrained by ECHR in the late 90s.

------
AndrewKemendo
Increasingly I think the answer is to regulate the public relations &
advertising industry. I'm not sure what exactly that looks like in a free
society, but it's the root cause of seemingly all of our problems and I can't
seem to come up with any benefits it really has on society.

What we need to do is eliminate the incentive to build these influence
networks - and the primary incentive is that politicians, companies etc...
want to pay to push some kind of agenda.

~~~
2019ideas
Warning,

When Medical got regulated in the U.S. the prices skyrocketed, and customer
care stagnated. The regulators were incentivized to create a monopoly by the
entrenched medical professionals.

Now people are asking for more regulations. Is that the solution?

------
lanerobertlane
Regarding what is and isn't fake news, could they not lean on existing
organisations.

For example: Legitimate news are members of the Independent Press Standards
Organisation, or have a licence to broadcast from Ofcom, or something similar.
Media on social platforms will be subject to the same standards as those
broadcast on television, or written in print. If videos online are 'fake news'
then ofcom deal with that the same as they would on television, or ISPO the
same as they would in print.

For foreign news, they could rely on similar organisations in host countries,
or an affiliation with a member.

In that regulation, Facebook & Google would agree to revoke the account of the
outlet in line with the regulatory organisations guidelines.

Any news outlet that is not a member of the independent organisation, or a
licencee of Ofcom is considered fake news.

In my internal "how reliable is this source", that's pretty much the first
check I do in my head.

~~~
pjc50
The trouble with IPSO is that it's toothless; you can take a look down
[https://www.ipso.co.uk/rulings-and-resolution-
statements/](https://www.ipso.co.uk/rulings-and-resolution-statements/) and
see how often the Mail, Express and Sun get ruled against on accuracy.

~~~
lanerobertlane
But if Fake News institutions like Infowars-types were required to be members,
the IPSO would have to revoke their membership or face ridicule and undermine
the trustworthiness of the rest of the members. And if Infowars wanted to be
published on Facebook and Google, they'd have to abide by the IPSO rules.

------
herghost
And yet no comment on the reliability or trustworthiness of existing UK news
content?

Seems like this is a half-baked, populist attempt to looking like they're
doing _something_, when in reality the UK has demonstrated that it has
insufficient political spine to stand up to big media.

I guess it's just easier to lash-out at tech companies than it is to address
the elephant in the room.

------
equalunique
By now, who would expect the UK government to ever not say something should be
regulated?

------
C1sc0cat
Like the Sun and the other newspapers then :-)

------
adriveatrain
Read the actual report.

CNBC's version is an example of what some people call "Fake News"

[https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...](https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/778021/021119_THE_CAIRNCROSS_REVIEW_A_sustainable_future_for_journalism.pdf)

~~~
JoeSmithson
If people call this article "fake news" they are using a grossly distorted
meaning.

------
ousta
to think that we are one of the last generation to live under a somehow "free"
WWW is something that we will all feel nostalgic about soon enough. we just
wouldn't be able to express our regret later on as we will all be tracked and
sued for expressing opinions that medias and governments deem as conspiracy or
fake news.

------
patrickg_zill
A government that has laws that require ID and a minimum age to purchase
plastic knives? Same government?

