
What Stays on Facebook and What Goes? The Social Network Cannot Answer - panarky
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/19/technology/facebook-misinformation.html
======
bjt2n3904
The problem that Facebook, Twitter, et. al have run into is this: curating,
moderating, (dare I say, policing?) our own feeds of information. This gives
them a share of the responsibility for what's posted on their platform, which
is something they can't take on -- both practically, and logistically.

Back in the day, if you ran an IRC server, you generally ran the service
laissez faire. Your chief concern was providing the service. If someone was
sharing illegal content, that wasn't your responsibility any more than state
governments sharing culpability for roads that facilitate robberies. And
behavior? Who cares what you do, unless you're attacking the service?

Channels themselves could come up with their own set of rules, if they wanted.
You want to restrict swearing? No problem. Only registered accounts? Fine. No
discussion of politics? Who cares? If you came crying to the server
administrators, because you were unfairly banned from #atheism/religion/linux
for walking in and trying to have an honest debate, they'd shrug their
shoulders. Not their problem!

What a ridiculous state of affairs to have the service administrators make a
network wide rule: "No saying untrue things", or "Don't be mean, but only to
certain groups of people". It isn't their job to decide what is true, or what
is hurtful.

"Oooh, but bjt2n3904, the First Amendment doesn't apply to Facebook! There's
this great XKCD comic where he shows mean people the door, and..." \-- Yes. I
get it. But the fact remains, the 1A is a good principle to adhere to, even if
you aren't the government. Policing your own little channel of the internet is
feasible, if you so choose. Policing the entire internet is madness --
especially when it comes to subjective things like "hate".

Everyone has a different level of tolerance for putting up with jerks on the
internet. One person might feel they're being targeted with harassment,
another might just call that "Monday". The solution isn't to have Twitter
declare how everyone should behave, the solution is for Twitter to push that
decision to the user, and provide them with effective tools for filtering and
blocking people.

~~~
bena
That and trying to get people to understand that "free speech" as a concept is
separate from the First Amendment.

Facebook is trying to abide by the principles of free speech. Yes, they could
try to censor their platform, but they choose not to in most cases.

And make no mistake, it _is_ censorship. Censorship is not limited to
government intervention.

~~~
cirgue
Censorship isn’t a bad thing if it isn’t a government doing it. Facebook has
no power to tell you what is or isn’t appropriate to write on your blog, they
can’t stop you from writing a book or from publishing an article via any other
medium that isn’t their platform. You have a right to say whatever the hell
you want to, you don’t have any right to other people’s help in disseminating
that point of view.

~~~
ravenstine
It's bad for society if the media the people need to effectively express their
first amendment rights is preventing them from doing so. In which case freedom
of speech loses its meaning. Why even have it if businesses can take over the
channels of communication and limit them for profit gains? What kind of
principle is that to stand for?

~~~
perl4ever
You're choosing to comment on HN, and compared to many forums, it has rather
heavy handed restrictions on what's acceptable. That's something I (and
presumably others) find appealing much of the time. Doesn't mean it's perfect,
but that doesn't mean what it needs is more laissez faire.

The thing I don't like about Facebook is not that it may _restrict_ people
acting badly, but that it shows you all the worst posts of people you know, in
order to create engagement. What I would like is for all non-objectionable
posts from my friends to appear in chronological order. Facebook's algorithms
seem to have an emergent behavior in which they synthesize a toxic persona by
selecting the posts which get the most reaction from everything a friend
posts. Except when you go to a friend's page to see everything they posted
recently, you get a very distorted view on your own feed. I don't think
Facebook has come to terms with the monster they've created.

~~~
ravenstine
If HN was the equivalent of Facebook, or Google, or the phone company, I would
agree with you. But it's nothing close to a de facto communication channel for
personal and business use; it's an industry forum.

Your expectation of Facebook is very unrealistic, at least for now, because
who is to say what is and isn't objectionable? Although I can't really make
much more of a comment than that since I just don't see that many toxic posts
from friends on Facebook. If my friends were really that toxic, I'd probably
not be friends with them or at least just block them.

Facebook already supports a chronological feed. It just has to be turned on by
the user, and it seems to untoggle itself after a while. But it's there, and
that's what I tend to use. I otherwise just don't befriend toxic people,
although I've blocked a few people who just post repetitive crap I don't agree
with. Everyone has the tools to control their feed right in front of them, but
they're not using them either because they don't know they're there or because
they're afraid they'll miss that one meme post from their otherwise toxic
friends.

~~~
perl4ever
As far as I know, the chronological setting has to be reset every time.

As far as blaming people for the toxicity of what appears, I don't think
that's right. Salt is toxic in large quantities, essential in small amounts.
Systematically placing it in wounds adds a whole new dimension. Context has a
huge effect on the meaning of events. Suppose someone made a video of dozens
of brief instances where you were at your worst, and sent it to everyone you
know. That would not be the truth about who you are, or your fault. Selecting
one of 10 or 100 posts for how intense a reaction it gets, is creating a toxic
narrative, and the emergent result of the algorithms is not to be blamed on
the source of the data. Systematically manipulating the context of
interactions with people is an incredibly destructive, harmful thing to do -
traditionally, it's the bread and butter of tactical politics, but Facebook
has brought it to ordinary people.

------
Const-me
The issue is very challenging, but it needs to be solved regardless. IMO, the
key to do it right is transparency.

For example, reddit does that, and unlike FB they’re not afraid to talk to
journalists about their content policing, see e.g.
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16569778](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16569778)

A quote from that article:

Melissa Tidwell, Reddit’s general counsel, told me, “I am so tired of people
who repeat the mantra ‘Free speech!’ but then have nothing else to say. Look,
free speech is obviously a great ideal to strive toward. Who doesn’t love
freedom? Who doesn’t love speech? But then, in practice, every day, gray areas
come up.”

~~~
thomasmeeks
I am really impressed that Melissa is not only living in the gray, but
defending the wisdom of doing so.

------
dekhn
having worked for a large internet company, I have to say the challenges of
dealing with content like this is much more complicated than the NY Times
appreciates.

~~~
wbronitsky
I would be interested in what ways you think that silencing Nazis and
Holocaust deniers is complicated. Can you explain?

Edit: Thanks all. I'll know better than to kick the troll hive next time.

~~~
reuben_scratton
Who gets to define who a Nazi is?

If I say that 4 million died in the Holocaust rather than 6 million, is that
Holocaust denial?

~~~
wbronitsky
The issues raised by the article are not about morally grey areas, they are
about overt Holocaust denial and InfoWars. InfoWars caused a person to shoot
up a pizzeria. This is not a place where a slippery slope argument can be
made.

Edit: funny that people are downvoting me because they think I'm speaking
against free speech, thus silencing my opinion.

~~~
ng12
You think some guy who's willing to shoot up a pizzeria is going to reevaluate
his life choices because he can't post his conspiracy theories on Facebook?

------
lmm
This article actually made me more sympathetic to Facebook. These issues are
not as simple as the NYT thinks, and Facebook seems to be making every effort
to navigate them in a principled way.

~~~
atomical
Isn't it pretty simple when a corporation is posting fake news? Shouldn't
corporations know better and be held to higher standards than individuals?

~~~
lmm
> Isn't it pretty simple when a corporation is posting fake news?

By who's definition of "fake news"? Do you want anyone who contradicts the
current US administration thrown off the platform? Anyone who contradicts
current Facebook leadership?

> Shouldn't corporations know better and be held to higher standards than
> individuals?

Corporations aren't magic. I have a corporation, its HQ is my home and I pay
~$20 every year to stay registered, it's not like that corporation knows any
better than I do. One of my hometown churches publishes a newsletter that's
essentially whatever my dad wanted to write. I would expect a lot of niche or
local news sources are similar.

~~~
athenot
"Fake news" is often interpreted as "news I don't agree with". That is not the
definition.

News can be defined as genuine if it's truthful, in reporting facts, in
reporting uncertainties & limits of current knowledge, in reporting potential
conflicts of interests and finally in explicitely outlining when unproven
opinions are put forth, whether by the author or by an interviewee.

News is deemed fake when it fails to be truthful. While there can be some grey
areas, or perhaps poor journalistic standards, there are plenty of cases where
articles fail to disclose conflict of interest, put forth unfounded opinions
and intentionally mislead the reader to draw an untruthful conclusion. That is
fake news.

~~~
lmm
> there are plenty of cases where articles fail to disclose conflict of
> interest, put forth unfounded opinions and intentionally mislead the reader
> to draw an untruthful conclusion. That is fake news.

"Untruthful" is begging the question. For the rest of it, virtually all news
articles fail to disclose the writer's personal biases, put forth unfounded
opinions, and intentionally lead the reader to draw particular conclusions.
Your proposed standard is hardly any better than "news I don't agree with" in
practice.

~~~
atomical
Could you give an example? For example, all news articles published by Reuters
have an unfounded opinion in them?

~~~
lmm
Sure. Let's look at the top article on Reuters as I write this, which happens
to be [https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-germany/new-
for...](https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-germany/new-foreign-
secretary-hunt-warns-of-no-deal-brexit-risk-idUKKBN1KD13J)

Second paragraph opens "With just over eight months left until Britain is due
to leave the EU, there is little clarity about how trade will flow" \- sounds
like unfounded opinion to me. Third paragraph talks about "a step that could
spook financial markets and dislocate trade flows across Europe and beyond."
which is either vacuously true (anything "could" anything else - but then why
say so?) or baseless speculation. "few diplomats expect the deal to be struck
until months later." is unsubstantiated opinion - even if it were possible to
verify who these "diplomats" were, having a news article report an opinion
second-hand doesn't make it any less an opinion. Likewise "some investors have
said such a chaotic scenario would seriously damage both the economies of
Britain and the EU over the short term.", and "they cast as a failing German-
dominated experiment in European integration.". I doubt the second half (below
"DISORDERLY BREXIT?") will be much different.

I'm not trying to attack Reuters here - they do better than many news sources
- but any kind of substantive reporting requires making judgements on
questions that are politicised or, often, inherently political. Even the most
skilled journalist will make calls that eventually turn out to be laughable in
hindsight. I want committed, engaged journalism - reducing reporting to a
bloodless "A said this, B said that, readers at home must make up their own
minds" would not be an improvement - but the price of that is that journalists
must have the freedom to make honest mistakes. And that in turn means
tolerating the dishonest kind, unless and until we can come up with some clear
bright lines that separate the one from the other.

------
extralego
Is the reason for the curated/managed feed related to what type of original
content advertisers want their ads beside?

Or is it merely that curating the feed allows for retaining a user’s
attention?

If truly the latter, that is just atrocious.

------
nabla9
The size and reach of FB poses new questions:

\- Is it (de facto) public utility.

\- Does it have a public service responsibility.

\- Should there be "program content regulation" equivalents for internet
social media?

\- Should FB stick to removing only illegal content, or should it start doing
social control. Misinformation is not generally illegal and what is not
socially acceptable is much larger set than what is illegal. Removing
Holocaust denials is a start, but what if all FoxNews content disappears too?

------
deegles
I saw it put succinctly like this: "Don't give a platform to people who
wouldn't give you one."

~~~
merpnderp
That certainly goes against the free speech traditions of Facebook's home
country. Why should Facebook lower itself to the least common denominator? Why
not act with integrity and principle and uphold dearly held values like free
speech?

~~~
maym86
If someone came into your house and shouted rasist lies you're within your
rights to kick them out. Free speech relates to protecting people from the
government punishing or silencing people for what they say. It doesn't apply
in the same way to private spaces or platforms. It's entirely reasonable to
not provide a platform for antisemitism or other hate speech especially if
it's reducing the quality of the platform for other users.

Edit: clarity

~~~
merpnderp
But this isn't someone's house. This is a public square where nearly everyone
is invited to speak, and also given tools to block people they don't want to
hear. And I never spoke about the 1st Amendment or any of the free speech
laws, but of governing principles of the United States - that Democracy only
works when all voices are heard. People who don't have a voice might decide
this whole Democracy thing isn't working for them and decide they should be
heard through violence. And we had 300,000 years of that shit. Democracy is
mind boggling special considering our history and every effort should be made
to make sure everyone has a seat at the table. And like it or not, Facebook is
one of the most important tables these days.

Bad ideas should be discussed publicly so that all can see the arguments
against. Covering up/hiding such speech doesn't end that speech, it just makes
sure that those who believe it never hear a refutation.

~~~
maym86
It's not a public square. It's a private platform that already censors people
for other reasons, often to do with making profit. There are low hanging fruit
that have been discussed and we know the the answer, e.g. holocaust denial,
where the content is just designed to hurt others. Why bother having that
discussion over and over and trying to convince trolls and racists? Don't give
them a platform to waste everyone's time.

Do you think Facebook should allow paid antisemitic advertising on the
platform?

[https://boingboing.net/2015/11/06/facebook-is-censoring-
link...](https://boingboing.net/2015/11/06/facebook-is-censoring-links-
to.html)

[https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2...](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2016/10/12/13241486/facebook-
censorship-breast-cancer-nipple-mammogram)

[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/11/facebook-...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/11/facebook-
censorship-news-feed-trending-topics)

------
orev
I think Facebook is in a tough position. Making hard rules around what is
allowed and what is not is very difficult, as there’s a whole spectrum of
ideas that could or could not fall into them. It’s too easy to think that
everything should be clear-cut, but reality is messy.

I think Zuckerberg was also shaken by the Congressional hearing, and seems to
be cowtowing a bit to Conservatives after the raking he got from Cruz. He is
trying to avoid the appearance of being partisan, but also trying to uphold
ideals of reason and truth. That’s a no-win situation when one side has made
it their fundamental platform to oppose reason and truth.

~~~
mistermann
> That’s a no-win situation when one side has made it their fundamental
> platform to oppose reason and truth.

That's a fairly extraordinary claim, and you know what they say about
extraordinary claims.

Do you have any evidence of this? Care to share your most compelling piece?

~~~
iron0013
mistermann, I've noticed that a lot of your activity on HN seems to consist of
demanding that others do research for your own edification. I wonder if you'd
consider, please, recognizing that other people also value their own time and
energy, and actually expending some effort to educate yourself. It seems like
the polite and responsible thing to do. Thanks!

~~~
mistermann
If you reread, I think you will find that I'm not asking people to do
research, but rather to back up non-trivial claims of "fact" with actual
evidence.

Ideas _matter_.

Culture is not an imaginary concept. It is real, and it _matters_. You can
safely ignore it in the short run with few problems, but ignore it in the long
run and you will may suffer dire consequences.

Certain words have very precise meanings, that's why we have synonyms in our
language. Improper choice of words _matters_ , to varying degrees. As does
improper "choice" of "facts".

The degree to which an individual and overall collective society understands
and correctly interprets (to the best of our ability) reality, and honestly
_acknowledges_ the that which they know to be true, _matters_. Some lying may
be justified in an "the ends justifies the means" sense, sometimes, but be
careful that you don't get into a habit of it lest you lose the ability to
recognize when you're lying. This goes doubly, at least, for the media. Repeat
something enough times and people start to believe it whether it is true or
not. In practice, _perception is reality_ , and I think you can observe this
theory in action in any internet forum, including this one (on certain
topics), as well as the overall political discourse we're enjoying in the West
at the moment. And when I say this, I _am_ keeping in mind this:
[https://philosophy.lander.edu/oriental/charity.html](https://philosophy.lander.edu/oriental/charity.html)

Censoring (via outright deletion/banning, or via imperfect downvote-based
mechanisms) sincere and _legitimate_ opinions that may differ from the current
mainstream fashion can result in perception bubbles forming within social
media communities. In the long run, this can affect people's _perception_ of
reality, and it _matters_. The universe doesn't care whether you agree or not.

I hope you might reconsider the content of my past and future posts with these
ideas in mind.

EDIT (since I am currently censored):

> Great! Both you and the guy that you are originally challenging seem to
> agree that facts and truth matter. So what's the problem?

He is stating opinions as if they are facts, that's the problem.

> I think I'll do you the favor of not addressing most of the rest of your
> post, which seems a little... unfocused.

Consider _the possibility_ that it isn't me that is in need of a favor. See:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubris](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubris)

~~~
iron0013
Great! Both you and the guy that you are originally challenging seem to agree
that facts and truth matter. I also belong to the reality-based community. So
what's the problem?

I think I'll do you the favor of not addressing most of the rest of your post,
which seems a little... unfocused.

~~~
mistermann
See edit above.

------
pwned1
It's amusing to watch the old media pivot against free speech lately.

