Something tells me that they aren't putting much effort into this. Hopefully it's because FB knows that a war on lying is about as winnable as a war on drugs.
> Since its 2008 incursion into Georgia (if not before), there has been a remarkable evolution in Russia's approach to propaganda. The country has effectively employed new dissemination channels and messages in support of its 2014 annexation of the Crimean peninsula, its ongoing involvement in the conflicts in Ukraine and Syria, and its antagonism of NATO allies. The Russian propaganda model is high-volume and multichannel, and it disseminates messages without regard for the truth. It is also rapid, continuous, and repetitive, and it lacks commitment to consistency. Although these techniques would seem to run counter to the received wisdom for successful information campaigns, research in psychology supports many of the most successful aspects of the model. Furthermore, the very factors that make the firehose of falsehood effective also make it difficult to counter. Traditional counterpropaganda approaches will likely be inadequate in this context. More effective solutions can be found in the same psychology literature that explains the surprising success of the Russian propaganda model and its messages.
And it’s not false equivalence in my mind, just worth noting the difference in magnitude and considering the difference that might make.
It is hard to see the equivalence between a traditional media company such as Sinclair that produce content for distribution and a social platform for individuals to share their thoughts such as Facebook.
When we are talking about potential effects on personal communication it does not make sense to compare the magnitude between a traditional mass media platform product and a social media platform, because the latter focus is entirely on personal communication and the former is a mass media company.
As someone unfamiliar with Australian politics, is The Guardian AU a reputable source for this story? I don't generally consider that domain, granted a .uk, very useful to provide information.
Facebook is an essential service and "the internet" for most people, who assume it's a common carrier of sorts - and Facebook has done very little to dissuade anyone of that perception.
So, no. Not even remotely the same thing.
Hollywood is a notorious mouthpiece for politics. (They are also very heavy-handed in controlling the message through use of carrot-and-stick.)
Big media is of course totally lopsided, one way or the other. Fox is as bad as CNN is as bad as MSNBC. Take your pick.
For my tastes, the best way to get a central view is to look at a site like 'Real Clear Politics', which shows the most outrageous headlines from both sides of the aisle. The reader is left to triangulate a position, after having seen the most persuasive arguments from both sides of the aisle.
Putting 20 people behind it?
Also, it would be difficult and maybe a waste of effort to try to scale a team faster than that, with midterms so close. For sure they can increase headcount if it’s successful.