People on the right often don't even want the fact-check system to exist in the first place. It was pushed by left-wing people who hoped they could use it to kick out the right.
Talking about people like Bolsonaro, Modi, Duterte or for that matter Boris Johnson.
The thing is, on some level I think a lot of the cheerleaders of fact checking as a weapon against right-wing information must know this and want it. There's been quite a bit of outrage over organisations fact-checking left-wing claims as false, especially when it's a fact checker affiliated with a decidedly non-left wing and non-Democrat supporting site that does it, including claims that it's destroying democracy, dubious arguments about false equivalence, and using the possibility of Facebook penalties to imply it's suppressing left-wing speech.
(There was also a really revealing incident where, after a state Democrat party got caught really blatently violating Facebook's rules against voter suppression ads in a tight election, nearly all publications just didn't cover it despite thorougly covering the announcement of those rules. I don't think they got penalized beyond having the offending ads pulled, so the victim narrative would probably have been hard to pull off.)
The answer to the problem is simple. Facebook should not exist. This is a service that handles a significant percentage of the information flow in the world, and yet it's fundamental goal is to optimize for ad spending. Which means it needs to keep people using it as much as possible and as engaged as possible. Your text messaging service doesn't care if you use it or not, and it doesn't care what information to send or receive from other people. Facebook uses everything at it's disposal to keep you addicted to it, and that comes at the cost of being a balanced, thoughtful way of communicating. The model is broken and it is not going to be fixed.
It was okay when we could just see our friends activities now it's just a hate wagon
While true that it may not be a source per se, Facebook enables those ideas whereas they would normally (at least, in the past) be relegated to the darkest corners of the web.
Take QAnon for example. The source is 8kun, which is accessible only through Tor and consisting of incel and white supremacist communities. Do you think the majority of people posting this material are getting it from the source in this case?
Might slow them down (won't have FB's built-in audience), but not nearly as much as only being available on the dark web. Hate campaigns worked pre-internet, and they'll still work post-FB. Maybe not as efficient, but I don't think efficiency is the limiting problem there.
And with regards to groupthink, there is surely some basic level of personal burden arising from the freedom of association.
you assume the cause is facebook, when in fact facebook is the effect of a sick society.
but, facebook does help in bringing to light our abysmal failure in building society.
In essence you can look at facebook as a platform for information warfare. It tends to amplify lies, and some forces are more able to exploit that.
Ultimately though i agree with your point which means even if i am right in thinking Facebook accelerates and encourages bad practices - it doesn’t matter because responsibility lives with each user, each individual.
My suspicion is that we had built up guard rails that were somewhat effective in mitigating against the vulnerable falling completely into the cracks. We should have been doing better, but they were somewhat effective.
I do think you’re spot on that one of its issues is that it encourages other vulnerable folks to join the path leading over the edge. And it makes it significantly easier for the predators to lure them.
While all of us would like to believe we’re special, a large part of who we are comes from our inputs, while a lot of us are careful to vet what inputs we allow to plug into us, many of our people are absolutely not careful whatsoever–many are absolutely and thoroughly addicted to outrage (picture how many people we see who are constantly outraged about something which will never impact their personal lives whatsoever), combine that outrage addiction with the ability to weaponize mis/disinformation, and then combine this with the fact that everyone now has a megaphone, and then combine this with the fact that platforms like fb want to amp up that outrage addiction in order to secure it’s place on these people’s input hierarchies—take all of that, add in a mess of other pressures such our society’s refusal to address very real problems, and we can start to get a small glimpse of the ways in which fb’s algorithms are causing major problems.
This was why I was so disappointed when Twitter switched the default page to the global algorithmically curated feed. The change from deliberate control by users saying “I want more of this” over to automatic and algorithmically driven control where the platform begins saying “we think you’ll like this, that, and a bunch of this extra thing because other people also like it” is the crossing of the rubicon. Once on the other side they are now undeniably responsible for the results.
The only solution I can think of is to somehow promote the use of non-profit providers, but I know of no good/usable ones in either case. For news, there are individual, independent bloggers, and for social media there are closed chat groups or something, but that's about it.
I don't know if there is any solution at all. I expect both sides to maximize spiced up news delivery for maximal attention and devotee base. At equilibrium, we may have these equally weighted strong groups which may randomly win election by small margin each time. This might not be too bad because over longer term all decisions and laws would be averaged out over two opposing philosophies resulting in overall centrist and balanced system.
1. Anti competitive behavior
2. Advertising fraud (incredible how frequently their view/click counters are found to have bugs which consistently benefit FB)
3. Privacy violations (shadow profiles esp for minors)
There are dozens of bases upon which Facebook can be punished for being a horrendous contribution to society.
What if we engineer an "information lockdown"? Three months of no internet, no TV, only word of mouth communication of official billboards at the local level.
Would we cope with that just fine? Would it help us learn somethings about us and learn to appreciate things, as the physical lock down has done for some things (like cooking, time with family, etc)
I don't disagree, but I've wondered why that doesn't lead to people using it less?
One thing I've noticed is people care a lot less about misinformation favorable to their point of view. I've only see people angry about it against their perspective.
Another observation is that people get upset about the most egregious & outrageous lies. I've actually wondered how dangerous those are. Someone willing to believe Obama wasn't born in the United States probably was going to vote against him no matter what. They've made up their mind & are just looking to now justify their decision.
I think the more dangerous points are things that are right on the line of truth/fiction.
I don't understand why you think the world was better before Facebook and you definitely don't have the proof
I'm legitimately concerned Americans don't realize how incredibly perfect Facebook is for hijacking the democratic process. It's actually frightening to watch how it's being used.
Yes it's affecting all countries and democracies but looking at where America was pre 2016 to now, it's really quite tragic.
Now with Facebook and social networks conservatives have their own information distribution system which cannot be controlled by the mainstream media, so the obvious criticism is "hijacking of the democratic process".
It’s social networks weaponised and it’s absolutely beautiful by design, convenient, free and here is the real kicker? It’s completely legal and largely unregulated !!!
By the way, I’m not on either political side here but are you trying to say I’m sticking up for republicans ?
(Likewise I hate it when socialism is labeled as liberalism in the US, or when cronyism and corruption are labeled as capitalism.)
John McWhorter discusses this as an inevitability with language.
(Indeed, he wrote a book with title / subtitle "Words on the Move: Why English Won't - and Can't - Sit Still (Like, Literally)").
He discusses various examples of this happening, both in political and non-political contexts. His suggestion is to just accept it, and to help communication remain clear by using new words once old words become too ambiguous to be useful.
* a political and social philosophy whose central tenets are tradition, organic society, hierarchy, authority, and property rights.
* a political and moral philosophy based on liberty, consent of the governed and equality before the law.
* an economic system characterised by private property and the recognition of property rights, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, a price system and competitive markets.
But at the same time it's the "no true scotsman" if we say that the moment some Conservative (or conservative?) says something dumb they stop being true Conservatives.
Bill Gates was Zuckerberg of 80s and 90s. Very unethical tactics, self admitted bully. Tried to screw his best friend of MS stocks. MS monnopoly strategy hindered innovation software development for a long time.
Now in the retirement he is perceived favourably and seen in positive light.
History, and how history views stuff is not a passive thing, but an active thing based on winners and losers.
I personally don't like the guy, but believe me, there are a ton of people that assume his success is a sign of him being good and righteous.
I blame most of Facebook’s missteps on the aggregate decisions of many FB employees that have less conviction on free speech than he does.
No company the size of Facebook could achieve a perfect response in real-time. Facebook’s greatest challenge is being headquartered in a place that is an ideological echo chamber chamber with not enough diversity of thought politically.
As soon as he was entering the political spotlight, the answer is almost always no-one.
It’s just so funny to see this.
"fact-checking partners" such as BuzzFeed (no, really!), partisan Politifact, hyper-partisan Vox and the Washington Post.
Are you mistaking daring to assert the existence of truth with partisanship - in "fact"-checking it doesn't matter if a democrat, republican, or banana declares something to be true as long as they are truthful. Vox, for example, do not aim to be a news site in the sense of equal reporting - they take positions and will say things are right or wrong. Sometimes I agree, sometimes I don't but I have never seen anything deliberately misleading or in bad faith from them.
This WP title and article:
It proclaims, without a hint of a doubt: "A ‘mass invasion’ of polar bears is terrorizing an island town. Climate change is to blame."
The article is about a single episode of a population of polar bears feeding off a garbage dump in a remote Russian village. It's hard (or just simply wrong) to attribute a single episode to a global climate shift. And experts have pointed out that the bears appear well fed and that garbage can be attractive to them .
The article ends by linking the "heartbreaking video" of a sick, emaciated polar bear wandering somewhere in Canada. The video was widely spread as a proof of climate change harm to polar bears, but experts said it was probably just a sick individual. National Geographic itself had to publish a correction a year later .
Now imagine a conservative media making such quick connections between, say, a bump in immigration rates and a crime. Or even saying: "that crime spree? Immigration is to blame". That's obvious fake news, right?
> Now imagine a conservative media making such quick connections between, say, a bump in immigration rates and a crime. Or even saying: "that crime spree? Immigration is to blame". That's obvious fake news, right?
Both illegal and legal immigrant groups have lower incarceration rates than native born Americans. So, whenever a right-wing pundit says that immigration is to blame for crime rising, there likely is statistical fuckery or outright lies.
However, it is hilarious how, even while being treated with kid gloves, you are still whinging about there being a bias against the right wing.
I needed an example and honestly made up one- I had no idea of the situation in the US and I find these statistics very interesting, thanks!
The reason I chose this particular example is because in Italy- where I'm from- the statistics are the total opposite: more than 1/3 of all inmates are foreigners, with some ethnicities wildly over-represented in proportion to their share in the population. The connection between immigration and crime rates is one of the most used right-wing arguments and topic of contention between left and right in Italy.
According to this article that aims to prove that "immigrants committing more crimes than natives" is fake news,
"On the total of the extra-EU immigrants that are trialed for any crime, the illegal ones are 70% of the total for voluntary causing harm, 75% for homicides, and 85% for burglaries and robberies".
And illegal immigrants are just about 10% of the legal ones.
I believe that is the figure for prisoners, which includes people in pre-trial detention. The page is very unclear, because the text talks about 'condannati' (which google translate renders, maybe wrongly, as 'prisoners' rather than 'convicts'), but the graph is labelled with 'detenuti', which I think unambiguously includes people who are detained but not convicted.
The text says very clearly: "32.6% of people convicted, 36.7% of prisoners in jails".
The graph is about prisoners, with a break down by area. In my area, foreigners are almost 60% of the jails population!
Of course, at the same time I have a rather stubborn view on integration (that it's almost non-existent, just as a real social safety net is very thin), and until that gets sorted out I understand people's not so well funded, but still technically rational fears of migrants.
If you think about immigration that is a subset of the population that have high levels of poverty, low levels of access to welfare and so if things go wrong they get desperate quickly. And they also have more problems than locals at getting work due to discrimination and a host of other reasons.
Cutting poverty is a more effective measure.
Actually I'll go further if you were serious on cutting crime you would be advocating to cut poverty!!
The first mentions Politico contending that "one in third" is only 'partly true'. Yet the closest I can find to Politico fact checking that line, is merely a reference to the Doctors Without Borders report, without any mention of how true it is (besides, Politico doesn't really do fact checking either, nor claim to be impartial).
Edit: Looks like it happened on Twitter (see reply), so I stand corrected.
That being said, I am confident there are biases in fact checking, all humans are subjective. And even if every fact check a site did was impartial, their choice in which things they choose to fact check would surely be not, or at least be open for questioning. What makes one statement more worthy of a fact check than another?
 https://www.politico.com/interactives/2019/trump-state-of-th... and search for "one in three"
There's an entire website dedicated to their bias. 
Another obvious point of bias was Politifact labeling a statement by Trump that "CNN did a poll where Obama and I are tied" as "pants on fire" because it was "one poll" (he never stated otherwise). 
(Fwiw, I agree it's not a pants on fire situation. (Mostly) false, sure.)
« “CNN did a poll recently where President Obama and I are statistically tied,” Trump told reporters Wednesday morning upon arriving in New Hampshire. “If you would like, I can send it to you. Call up CNN.”
CNN didn’t conduct such a survey.»