
Facebook’s fake news problem is dividing the company’s employees - SonicSoul
https://news.vice.com/story/facebooks-fake-news-problem-is-dividing-the-companys-employees
======
mc32
I'm all in on repressing fake or made up news (when represented as news). But
I can't help but think this sudden newfound religion has a lot to do with not
being satisfied with election results, primarily and not necessarily a
consequence of simply wanting unbiased news.

If the election had gone the other way, I'm somewhat confident this
introspection would not be happening so urgently with such dismay.

People would likely be reveling in the oppositions implosion.

My main issue, is this reaction simply dismisses the concern expressed by the
votes. People think his winning was an aberration and that his voters were
wrong and to some degree illegitimate (not my president, not my country, etc.)

They fail to see the other side to their own detriment.

~~~
the_gastropod
If the spread of misinformation was a significant contributor to the election
results, I think it's reasonable to feel the results are, to some degree
illegitimate.

~~~
mc32
Right because their candidate didn't win. Same for the winners, they don't see
an issue because they won.

Honestly, I don't think it affected the election. With all the anti Trump
rhetoric on most media, it's hard to see the argument people for Trump got the
better deal, from the media. [OMG his hand on the RED button, he's gonna grope
the nation, legal immigrants are in peril]

~~~
the_gastropod
Again, and with emphasis, GIVEN __the spread of misinformation was a
significant contributor to the election results __... In other words, assuming
Trump benefited from misinformation [more than Clinton], then the results are
justifiably frustrating.

I'm not claiming whether or not Trump did or did not benefit more from
misinformation. But if he did, I think my point is fair.

~~~
mc32
What do you mean by significant? 1-2% of articles had misinformation, of that
percentage a fraction (unknown, reportedly small) were politically related.
How do we go from "there were articles containing misinformation" to those
articles contributed to the outcome of the election? We simply dont know. We
know both sides enjoyed having articles denouncing the other side, but we
don't know if they had any effect.

In terms of persuasion, friends family likely had more influence than this
small percentage of made up news articles, should we get the pitchforks for
misinformed friends too?

