Facebook slow to address political manipulation outside wealthy, western nations(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
Facebook slow to address political manipulation outside wealthy, western nations
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/apr/12/facebook-loophole-state-backed-manipulation
149 comments
> It's interesting how Guy Rosen, a co-founder of the spyware company Onavo, is now Facebook's "vice-president of integrity"
Sounds like a bad joke.
Sounds like a bad joke.
Sounds like a perfect fit for Facebook.
Imagine Radiohead's Creep playing on the background and it fits perfectly.
I thought that song was originally written by Nine Inch Nails, or am I misremembering?
Edit: fellas I asked a question downvotes aren’t necessary
Edit: fellas I asked a question downvotes aren’t necessary
You are, it's a Radiohead tune. Though it sounds similar to "The Air That I Breathe" By The Hollies, but that song is from the 70s. NIN broke out a few years before Radiohead (Pretty Hate Machine was released in 1989 while Pablo Honey was released in 1993).
>Though it sounds similar to "The Air That I Breathe" By The Hollies
Wow you are right[1][2]. Very similar tone progressions.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7duPNQCp-w4 [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFkzRNyygfk
Wow you are right[1][2]. Very similar tone progressions.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7duPNQCp-w4 [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFkzRNyygfk
> Edit: fellas I asked a question downvotes aren’t necessary
Hacker News has by far the weirdest downvote patterns of any forum I've used. I wouldn't pay much mind.
Hacker News has by far the weirdest downvote patterns of any forum I've used. I wouldn't pay much mind.
You are misremembering
> Guy Rosen, a co-founder of the spyware company Onavo, is now Facebook's "vice-president of integrity"
Isn't that just the perfect match, based on how Facebook defines "integrity"?
Isn't that just the perfect match, based on how Facebook defines "integrity"?
Strategically placed someone that would align with their values and goals while making appearances that they care about "integrity". This strategic placements of persons happens everywhere.
Wow this could be a lot more serious than I thuoght. People in the West need to realize that, in countries without free press, facebook is much more important for people, and probably the major source of news. And this girl appears to have been super-productive , which makes her firing suspicious imho. And not only that, i suspect many of the 'delays' will be found to be inside operations.
I think there will be more to this story as it unfolds. And this doesnt even cover twitter , which afaik does not even try to weed out trolls.
I think there will be more to this story as it unfolds. And this doesnt even cover twitter , which afaik does not even try to weed out trolls.
> It’s a bummer that it’s back and I’m excited to learn from this and better understand what we need to do systematically...
Corporate speak for, "Meh, whatevs".
Corporate speak for, "Meh, whatevs".
From the Guardian article https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/apr/12/facebook-...:
> "But it quickly became clear that no one was interested in taking responsibility for policing the abuses of the president of a poor nation with just 4.5m Facebook users. The message she received from all corners – including from threat intelligence, the small and elite team of investigators responsible for uncovering CIB campaigns – was that the abuses were bad, but resources were tight, and, absent any external pressure, Honduras was simply not a priority."
We can assume that hostile nations have known this for awhile, and they have also been exploiting this. This is tragic but true.
Sophie Zhang is a hero.
> "But it quickly became clear that no one was interested in taking responsibility for policing the abuses of the president of a poor nation with just 4.5m Facebook users. The message she received from all corners – including from threat intelligence, the small and elite team of investigators responsible for uncovering CIB campaigns – was that the abuses were bad, but resources were tight, and, absent any external pressure, Honduras was simply not a priority."
We can assume that hostile nations have known this for awhile, and they have also been exploiting this. This is tragic but true.
Sophie Zhang is a hero.
The quick summary here is that while a person is supposed to have only one Facebook account, that account can have an unlimited number of Facebook pages, which can all be set up to look like individual users, and can all comment, like, and post just like an individual user.
The article gives examples of these pages making hundreds of pro-government comments on various political posts.
The article gives examples of these pages making hundreds of pro-government comments on various political posts.
There was never any point in facebook being any "force for good" or "revolution" as people might have hoped for. If you read investors reflections on early FB days strategic meetings, you see the picture much more clearly. Tech gets cheap, people are dumb, surveillance pays, what's not to like about this business?
It's happened: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook_Revolution
Facebook is the de facto social network and lets people connect and spread information on an unprecedented scale, for good or bad.
Facebook is the de facto social network and lets people connect and spread information on an unprecedented scale, for good or bad.
This would have not be a problem if there was no algorithm to show you the top stories.
Just show the stories in chronological order - let the users think before subscribing to 1000 pages and having 800 friends.
Just show the stories in chronological order - let the users think before subscribing to 1000 pages and having 800 friends.
But users want the most interesting or important or relevant content to be highlighted.
It seems like Facebook users don’t have a choice in which content gets highlighted. I would much prefer a simple chronological feed of only posts from my friends and followed list.
yeah. it's like we don't get an honest say in what we get to see. Like advertising, heheh.
What about more clearly identifying when a comment, like, etc is made by a page instead of an account, and include the account(s) managing the page in its transparency report?
Off topic.
Last week wife got an email that her Facebook was logged into. Told her to open app and change password immediately.
Too late. Account email and phone number already changed. No way to use old ones to get control back.
15 year old account with a huge amount of memories gone.
Best possible was to indicate a problem, so account is disabled. But no way to use it anymore.
Apparently this has happened to around half of her cohorts. It’s now part of life to just make new accounts periodically.
Utterly shocking that account email and phone can be changed in 20 minutes and no way to change them back.
Last week wife got an email that her Facebook was logged into. Told her to open app and change password immediately.
Too late. Account email and phone number already changed. No way to use old ones to get control back.
15 year old account with a huge amount of memories gone.
Best possible was to indicate a problem, so account is disabled. But no way to use it anymore.
Apparently this has happened to around half of her cohorts. It’s now part of life to just make new accounts periodically.
Utterly shocking that account email and phone can be changed in 20 minutes and no way to change them back.
A teaching moment for using strong passwords.
That’s missing the point. And frankly victim blaming.
Allowing all the security info to be changed moments after logging on with no way to put them back is absurd.
Allowing all the security info to be changed moments after logging on with no way to put them back is absurd.
The reverse compromise, where the email is hacked would require exactly that though. It's not a problem with one solution. It's many problems that require a human point of contact.
It's actually a moment for 2FA.
Also the other commenter is right about victim blaming. The notification about a suspicious login should give appropriate options to safeguard one's account from a takeover.
Also the other commenter is right about victim blaming. The notification about a suspicious login should give appropriate options to safeguard one's account from a takeover.
It's not a loophole if you can drive a truck through it.
That's like claiming that abusing slaves was a 'loophole'
That's like claiming that abusing slaves was a 'loophole'
I think we need a new journalism. One that can avoid the last 20 years of structured news. Though I think this is impossible now. Not without an outsized reaction by the population that doesn't even care.
Facebook exists because most people can accept those crimes committed against them. They really don't even understand them all. Shit Zuckerburg uses Signal. Nothing surprises me anymore
Facebook exists because most people can accept those crimes committed against them. They really don't even understand them all. Shit Zuckerburg uses Signal. Nothing surprises me anymore
We don't need a new journalism, we need a new economic model to support the old old journalism (pre-1990s).
The three foundational planks that we've since lost are (1) strong newsroom editorial control of content, independent of revenue, (2) long form & investigative journalism as a stable, viable profession, & (3) journalists and journalism outlets with reputation (able to counter-balance the weight of those they report on).
The greatest tragedy of Google and Facebook has been that they appropriated advertising money that used to support actual journalism, and in return offered us free social and utility apps, but definitely not journalism.
IMHO, we should just say the hell with it, tax advertising revenue, and fund journalism as a public good.
The three foundational planks that we've since lost are (1) strong newsroom editorial control of content, independent of revenue, (2) long form & investigative journalism as a stable, viable profession, & (3) journalists and journalism outlets with reputation (able to counter-balance the weight of those they report on).
The greatest tragedy of Google and Facebook has been that they appropriated advertising money that used to support actual journalism, and in return offered us free social and utility apps, but definitely not journalism.
IMHO, we should just say the hell with it, tax advertising revenue, and fund journalism as a public good.
While I agree, this reads as "faster horses."
Though I would be for it, half of the US will vehemently oppose funding "fake news" with tax dollars.
That leaves "ditching the horse altogether" as the only option.
What does that look like?
Though I would be for it, half of the US will vehemently oppose funding "fake news" with tax dollars.
That leaves "ditching the horse altogether" as the only option.
What does that look like?
It's easy for people to look at the highlights of journalism and think we must go back. It's more challenging to remember that yellow journalism and worse came from that old old journalism. Perhaps it's only the best results of the old way we want, rather than all of them?
The greatest tragedy of modern journalism has been its inability to adapt business models to a changing world. The old old assumption was that newspapers and TV had a near monopoly on user attention, with a tragic unwillingness to consider that maybe this wouldn't always be the case. Outlets more focused on subscriptions and less on advertising seem to have come through better.
Perhaps the alignment between advertising and journalism was coincidental, rather than some iron law?
> IMHO, we should just say the hell with it, tax advertising revenue, and fund journalism as a public good.
Don't we already have outlets like that? How do you feel about Voice of America or People's Daily? IMHO, a lot of people distrust them as rather less than independent.
The greatest tragedy of modern journalism has been its inability to adapt business models to a changing world. The old old assumption was that newspapers and TV had a near monopoly on user attention, with a tragic unwillingness to consider that maybe this wouldn't always be the case. Outlets more focused on subscriptions and less on advertising seem to have come through better.
Perhaps the alignment between advertising and journalism was coincidental, rather than some iron law?
> IMHO, we should just say the hell with it, tax advertising revenue, and fund journalism as a public good.
Don't we already have outlets like that? How do you feel about Voice of America or People's Daily? IMHO, a lot of people distrust them as rather less than independent.
Substack is that new economic model for a limited number of investigative journalists who have strong name recognition like Glenn Greenwald and Matt Taibbi. But it probably won't scale to the levels were need.
Substack is currently awesome but it isn't going to be able to pay for journalism on any significant scale, as you mentioned. Journalism needs to be paid for by philanthropy. Absolute independence from market forces and political pressures. There are enough billionaires that could fund endless journalism off a fraction of their interest earnings.
How much do you trust the independence of the Washington Post, now that it's owned and backed by Jeff Bezos? They clearly have freedom from market forces and political pressures now.
It is traditional for-profit journalism.
> IMHO, we should just say the hell with it, tax advertising revenue, and fund journalism as a public good.
What about the independent journalists and outlets that rely on said advertising revenue? Or the more mainstream ones that do likewise?
Seems like this may make it worse for those, unless you've got a way this can only affect ad network providers rather than those utilising their services.
What about the independent journalists and outlets that rely on said advertising revenue? Or the more mainstream ones that do likewise?
Seems like this may make it worse for those, unless you've got a way this can only affect ad network providers rather than those utilising their services.
I think journalistic work in gathering and checking facts and statements is fundamentally the same. Delivery sucks though. There is to much news generated each day, but feeds like in Fb or Twitter are not cut out to track issues. So we just endlessly consume information without achieving understanding.
> Shit Zuckerburg uses Signal. Nothing surprises me anymore
Why would that surprise anyone? He had Moxie implement the Signal protocol in WhatsApp.
Why would that surprise anyone? He had Moxie implement the Signal protocol in WhatsApp.
Nah we don't. Journalism was never for interest of the people. Those get shutdown as 'foreign actors' and we can't have foreign actors messing with our thoughts unless vetted by our ICs. We need less gullible brains, but that would make us realize how far the corruption goes, so far that no one can currently dare call it corruption.
This goes against anyone who currently runs 'a journalism'. We need to stop giving them our attention. We won't
This goes against anyone who currently runs 'a journalism'. We need to stop giving them our attention. We won't
I', so tired of explaining to people that journalism is about making money, period. The "news" is the click bait and the ads and opinions are the product. Always has been this way, since the dawn of printing for the public.
Why anyone is still on Facebook amazes me. You all know the corporations is one of the more evil presences in our society. Smoke up boys!
Why anyone is still on Facebook amazes me. You all know the corporations is one of the more evil presences in our society. Smoke up boys!
[deleted]
[deleted]
> Shit Zuckerburg uses Signal
Was this ever confirmed?
Is it possible Zuckerberg just installed it to check out the competition? Is it possible he has it installed as a WhatsApp backup, if FB/WhatsApp is down (exactly the sort of thing the CEO of FB/WhatsApp needs to be prepared for)?
And we've concluded "Zuckerberg uses Signal"?
Was this ever confirmed?
Is it possible Zuckerberg just installed it to check out the competition? Is it possible he has it installed as a WhatsApp backup, if FB/WhatsApp is down (exactly the sort of thing the CEO of FB/WhatsApp needs to be prepared for)?
And we've concluded "Zuckerberg uses Signal"?
If he installed it for 5mins to 'test the competition'.... then.... he did it on his "main" phone? Don't they have throwaway phones for that? Would he allow his full contact list to be uploaded?
"Media is not spreading free opinion; It's generating opinion" --Oswald (b. 1918) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Decline_of_the_West
Facebook shouldn't moderate anything;
Facebook content should drop in value to where it belongs: personal updates from friends and funny videos;
People need to start voting on actual policies each politician/party proposes, not based on Facebook information from unknown accounts.
Will that be enough?
Facebook content should drop in value to where it belongs: personal updates from friends and funny videos;
People need to start voting on actual policies each politician/party proposes, not based on Facebook information from unknown accounts.
Will that be enough?
Facebook is power and control over several billion people and countries across the world. That is superpower level power.
Mark Zuckerberg will never give up that level of power because either he wields that power or someone else will.
Weak countries don’t matter in matters of power and this is an example of it.
Also, Facebook has no issues at all when it comes to manipulation when it is to its benefit. It has done so before.
If you believe that Facebook doesn’t have that power then you must also believe that people aren’t easily manipulated. Advertising is proof against that belief.
Mark Zuckerberg will never give up that level of power because either he wields that power or someone else will.
Weak countries don’t matter in matters of power and this is an example of it.
Also, Facebook has no issues at all when it comes to manipulation when it is to its benefit. It has done so before.
If you believe that Facebook doesn’t have that power then you must also believe that people aren’t easily manipulated. Advertising is proof against that belief.
> Mark Zuckerberg will never give up that level of power because either he wields that power or someone else will.
I'm leaning towards this is the most misunderstood aspect of Zuckerberg. The Google founders also lamented how difficult it was to steer morally straight when so many internal company issues arose when the stock price was flat: their most talented employees leaving and morale dropping. Zuckerberg is a smart cookie and is probably quite aware what's been created with Facebook. But it's absolutely worse under a bean-counter "money at all cost" corporation. Long term, federating and allowing people to retain their social graph across any client platform, breaking up the network effect, seems to be the only way forward.
I'm leaning towards this is the most misunderstood aspect of Zuckerberg. The Google founders also lamented how difficult it was to steer morally straight when so many internal company issues arose when the stock price was flat: their most talented employees leaving and morale dropping. Zuckerberg is a smart cookie and is probably quite aware what's been created with Facebook. But it's absolutely worse under a bean-counter "money at all cost" corporation. Long term, federating and allowing people to retain their social graph across any client platform, breaking up the network effect, seems to be the only way forward.
What's up with this articles that jump into "facebook is evil" so fast? Its obvious that a huge, worldwide company is slow to address manipulative ads in small communities.
We're suffering from this here as well (in Israel), we're already in the 4th consecutive election and it looks like there will be a fifth. Bibi's (and his family) use of social platforms has been in forms of - posts with blatant lies - fake profiles posting fake inciting content that is then used in their own campaigns to incite their base - fake likes - fake profiles that generate content It's got to the point that we just call any Bibi supporter as a "Bot" (once because they don't get our credit for critical thinking and second time because of the many fake profiles that generate content in his name)
I presume a firefox extension along the lines of Social Fixer would be able to filter all the likes/comments that come from pages rather than personal accounts. (But of course, a user needs to be aware of the issue in the first place, in order to want to install an extension to fix it)
Yeah, the problem is those that are seeing/potentially being manipulated by this are (I would imagine) highly unlikely to use a browser extension or (more likely, in developing nations where Facebook is forcing itself on users through the Internet.org project) on the mobile app anyway
Facebook is worse than state-controlled media in those countries, and they have a moral obligation to stop doing business in oppressive countries. People know that state-controlled media is biased, but oppressive leaders can demand censorship from facebook at whim and nobody knows about it.
And i would not be surprised if bribes inside facebook are involved , as some of those countries are known to run extensive bribery operations e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azerbaijani_laundromat
And i would not be surprised if bribes inside facebook are involved , as some of those countries are known to run extensive bribery operations e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azerbaijani_laundromat
I live in one of those countries (Poland), and certainly the state-controlled media/energy/industry conglomerate is worse, thank you.
But you know that it's state-controlled. Would you say that facebook in Turkey is not state-controlled, even though it s not branded as such?
Do you have a list of which countries are oppressive and which are not?
Many are listed in the article itself.
If we discovered any other type of product was this dangerous, it'd be pulled from the shelves. But in this case the ones that would do the pulling are probably benefiting the most from manipulation.
I think in the near future, working at Facebook will probably have same stigma as working for Philipp Morris or similar...
Leaders "deceiving their citizens" was never a problem until facebook came along! How unconscionable that they didnt anticipate and fix this problem!
People who want Facebook, or "someone" to be the arbiter of the One True Truth are doomed to fail, because nothing is true.
People who want Facebook, or "someone" to be the arbiter of the One True Truth are doomed to fail, because nothing is true.
I'm inclined to feel like the political landscape is already FUBAR in lots of these corrupt countries, so any negative from Facebook doesn't really make a difference, but the good that can come from Facebook ("Facebook revolutions"[0]) exists, so it's a net positive.
0: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook_Revolution
0: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook_Revolution
The Guardian, and a few other outfits in global media sold its readership very hard on the "Gadhafi killing his own people" fallacy to enable Islamist gangs to plunder and maim and kill and ruin the societal fabric of Libya (and a few southern neighbors). Since then, Libya is a wasteland, its inhabitants enslaved as a whole (as opposed to the few political (read Islamists) prisoners' under the Gadhafi dictatorship), deaths in the tens of thousands, prisoners are not accounted for under any authority.
Also the Guardian, just like most MSM holds a grudge against FB: how dare they eat their pie, all of it, and they let people escape from their 'single-eyed war-enabling worldview'?
Lay the FB 'hate' aside, will ya? For all its dehumanizing power (as much as the rest of 'social media' and technology in general) FB has not committed the 1/10000th of the harm these champions of virtue in the MSM have done for the last couple centuries (steamrolling their power on most wars, worldwide or not).
Also the Guardian, just like most MSM holds a grudge against FB: how dare they eat their pie, all of it, and they let people escape from their 'single-eyed war-enabling worldview'?
Lay the FB 'hate' aside, will ya? For all its dehumanizing power (as much as the rest of 'social media' and technology in general) FB has not committed the 1/10000th of the harm these champions of virtue in the MSM have done for the last couple centuries (steamrolling their power on most wars, worldwide or not).
So at any given moment, we're only allowed to criticize one thing - the worst thing in the entire world? After all, anything else is, you know, not that bad.
Yes. We need a hell of a lot less destructive criticism that leads to war.
That is why I'm anti-Facebook. Remember the role they played in the Myanmar genocide?
Which genocide are you referring to?
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebo...
I'm guessing this one. Although facebook didn't invite this violence directly, they were the primary tool of propaganda. Now I'm not saying it's easy to solve this problem but facebook seems to be actively overlooking these things as it has happened repeatedly.
I'm guessing this one. Although facebook didn't invite this violence directly, they were the primary tool of propaganda. Now I'm not saying it's easy to solve this problem but facebook seems to be actively overlooking these things as it has happened repeatedly.
The problem is the constant naïve pounding on FB prompted by MSM hacks (drill a little bit and you'll discover the motivation: some of it surfaces from time to time, like the obvious blackmailing of FB by mass media in Australia, Canada, most of European countries, and maybe soon coming to the USA).
What's your motivation with this account, that seemingly only exists to defend FB?
That's true, I barely ever contributed here (maybe never), although I enjoy reading and following the comments. I have always been annoyed by the naïve FB-hate, particularly because it forced FB to cave to the media powers. There came a once in a lifetime opportunity to free us from the 'one-eyed-propaganda' of media conglomerates, and us the victims, shot the only probable source of escape.
> "There came a once in a lifetime opportunity to free us from the 'one-eyed-propaganda' of media conglomerates, and us the victims, shot the only probable source of escape."
Have you seen the rampant propaganda and manipulation of facts from social-media-driven left wing and right wing groups? It is far more inaccurate and vile.
Have you seen the rampant propaganda and manipulation of facts from social-media-driven left wing and right wing groups? It is far more inaccurate and vile.
That's exactly why I think it could have saved us from the one-eyed worldview of media powers. Just weed through the forest and work your brain to collect 'information'.
He did not say “don’t criticize” he said to “lay off the hate” which to me means make sure your criticism is measured and reasonable.
Laying off the hate is likely just good advice all the time.
Laying off the hate is likely just good advice all the time.
Who do you consider to be non-MSM?
Facebook has been around at scale for a short period of time so the total amount of harm it has done so far won’t compare to propaganda done by others but this should not detract from worry/blame/concern about Facebook. I won’t lay the FB hate aside as you put it because I see the great harm it can and does do. Humans are easily manipulated and Facebook can do this at an unprecedented scale.
Facebook has been around at scale for a short period of time so the total amount of harm it has done so far won’t compare to propaganda done by others but this should not detract from worry/blame/concern about Facebook. I won’t lay the FB hate aside as you put it because I see the great harm it can and does do. Humans are easily manipulated and Facebook can do this at an unprecedented scale.
Humans are easily manipulated, I agree with you. Contrast the multi-faced manipulation from an aggregator like FB with the power of the unified worldview given to you by the media conglomerates.
So who are the non-MSM in your opinion? Facebook is more than merely and aggregator. They know how to keep peoples' eyes glued to them. They know what stories/narratives will push your buttons so to speak.
I am sorry I can't answer your question: I read many many sources (from big name media to small time bloggers), contrast and apply common sense. I know my limitations to access the 'truth', and I live with that, always in doubt.
That said, regarding Facebook, I genuinely never used it really (I have a placeholder account), never used Instagram, never used Messenger, never installed any of these apps on my phone, never log into these web apps on my PC. I use WhatsApp constantly to communicate with friends and family across the world.
> "That said, regarding Facebook, I genuinely never used it really (I have a placeholder account), never used Instagram, never used Messenger"
Then you have a very limited understanding of the extreme issues with viral social media misinformation filter bubbles.
Then you have a very limited understanding of the extreme issues with viral social media misinformation filter bubbles.
You apply the term MSM and thus must have a notion of what constitutes the MSM, right? So which media sources don't count as MSM? If you can't name such sources then why use MSM instead of "mass media"?
We are completely gone off-subject, but here is my take: I don't believe the MSM/Non-MSM divide creates any magical trust or value. The national (or international) household names (say WaPo, NYT, CNN, Fox, Slate, BBC, The Guardian, The Times, The Independent, Le Monde, Le Figaro, El Pais, Al Jazeera, etc.: extrapolate worldwide...) just have the power to do more harm/control/propaganda. Non-MSM (or non household recognizable names) are not more trustful in my view, obviously. In short: read, contrast, doubt, apply common sense.
Then why use MSM instead of just “mass media” or instead of just saying, “verify sources to the extent possible”? My claim is that Facebook has far more power to do damage than the sources you’ve stated.
Hmmm, strange that you and other FB defenders aren't actually discussing the claims in the article. Instead, you want to turn everything into a vague, abstract "new tech vs old media" battle. Both can have their problems.
I've learnt those blaming the evil "MAINSTREAM MEDIA!!!!!!" are rarely worth listening to.
You know why it's mainstream? Because it's nuanced, and well-researched and run by actual real-life journalists.
You know what you're left with when the media is no longer mainstream? The extremes.
You know why it's mainstream? Because it's nuanced, and well-researched and run by actual real-life journalists.
You know what you're left with when the media is no longer mainstream? The extremes.
As a victim of war myself, I beg to disagree with you.
The Guardian is not nuanced or well-researching and it's ran by receiving funding from billionaires in order to push public opinion. They are also considered mainstream media by any rational person.
Which "Mainstream media" outlets do you consider to be nuanced and well-researched?
Which "Mainstream media" outlets do you consider to be nuanced and well-researched?
The Guardian claims to be, and is, a left-leaning media outlet that holds widely left-of-centre mainstream views.
I would put the opposite question, which non-mainstream media outlets would you consider to be nuanced and well-researched?
I would put the opposite question, which non-mainstream media outlets would you consider to be nuanced and well-researched?
This feels to me like a bit of a 1 dimensional appeal to authority. Consider the role of old guard media in selling the war in Iraq to the American public. Their pieces weren't well researched and turned out to have been fed to them by the administration. The Osama Bin Laden cave base diagrams also come to mind in the same vein. The NYT Daily's "Caliphate" podcast series is another great example.
Sure, I didn't suggest that they were unimpeachable but the "alternative" sources so often touted by self-proclaimed Facebook experts are orders of magnitude worse.
I depends what you mean by "alternative sources". Lot's of places still have local papers that are pretty good for local news. There are international papers that have a different point of view to the American corporate press, which is quite useful from time to time. There's also good bit of quality opinion and some reporting on substack. And then there are some select reporters that have a narrow beat who do great work in their niche, but may work for a place that is overall questionable.
American news consumers should be critical, and pay attention to times when major competing news outlets are running the same headline about a complicated story.
American news consumers should be critical, and pay attention to times when major competing news outlets are running the same headline about a complicated story.
> You know why it's mainstream? Because it's nuanced, and well-researched
Ahem.
“Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them.
"In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.”
― Michael Crichton
Ahem.
“Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them.
"In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.”
― Michael Crichton
This is really all there is to it. Yet the naïve would still want to ask why, as in what's the motivation of pushing baloney? The answer is in another question: is there an industry more entrenched at the intersection of power/control/money?
The problem with this quote is twofold:
1. It assumes that inexperience in reporting correlates well across disciplines (i.e. if you read one badly researched physics article, it means the sports pages are similarly bullshit)
2. It assumes the existence of better-informed alternative media
In the particular case Crichton cites, it's entirely reasonable to assume a news outfit might have better reporting on Palestine then on physics, if only because politicians have an incentive to talk to news outfits where scientists might not. In fact, much of journalistic ethics and process revolves around trying to determine political "truth", as much as something like that can exist. Conversely, there are plenty of scientists who can explain the details of the Standard Model or Quantum Field Theory; but don't have a single clue as to how trade negotiations work or why we sided with Saudi Arabia despite them not sharing our values one bit.
Michael Crichton assumes knowledge is an RPG stat and that if a newspaper fails a knowledge roll once we should discard the paper because it's writers didn't put enough points into INT.
Second, most alternative media I've encountered does no better on the "wet streets cause rain" problem. Actually, my experience is that they're more prone to shoddy reporting, because their goal isn't to try and find out something approaching the truth. It's to sell me a series of plausible lies that lead up to their particular political bias.
For example, let's talk about climate science. It's a demonstrable fact that the Earth is warming due to human activity, but there's multiple ways one can be wrong about that. The kind of inaccurate reporting I'd expect to see out of a mainstream outfit would be something like "CO2 causes ozone depletion". A right-wing alternative rag would instead try to deny the science altogether, either by casting FUD on the scientific process or worse. The former is something that might be technically incorrect, but the latter is deliberately trying to convince me that black is white, up is down, and short is long.
1. It assumes that inexperience in reporting correlates well across disciplines (i.e. if you read one badly researched physics article, it means the sports pages are similarly bullshit)
2. It assumes the existence of better-informed alternative media
In the particular case Crichton cites, it's entirely reasonable to assume a news outfit might have better reporting on Palestine then on physics, if only because politicians have an incentive to talk to news outfits where scientists might not. In fact, much of journalistic ethics and process revolves around trying to determine political "truth", as much as something like that can exist. Conversely, there are plenty of scientists who can explain the details of the Standard Model or Quantum Field Theory; but don't have a single clue as to how trade negotiations work or why we sided with Saudi Arabia despite them not sharing our values one bit.
Michael Crichton assumes knowledge is an RPG stat and that if a newspaper fails a knowledge roll once we should discard the paper because it's writers didn't put enough points into INT.
Second, most alternative media I've encountered does no better on the "wet streets cause rain" problem. Actually, my experience is that they're more prone to shoddy reporting, because their goal isn't to try and find out something approaching the truth. It's to sell me a series of plausible lies that lead up to their particular political bias.
For example, let's talk about climate science. It's a demonstrable fact that the Earth is warming due to human activity, but there's multiple ways one can be wrong about that. The kind of inaccurate reporting I'd expect to see out of a mainstream outfit would be something like "CO2 causes ozone depletion". A right-wing alternative rag would instead try to deny the science altogether, either by casting FUD on the scientific process or worse. The former is something that might be technically incorrect, but the latter is deliberately trying to convince me that black is white, up is down, and short is long.
It's mainstream because it's owned by wealthy people who can maintain circulation even if it is losing money, and because those people are willing to float administration and intelligence narratives uncritically and anonymously.
> Lay the FB 'hate' aside, will ya? For all its dehumanizing power (as much as the rest of 'social media' and technology in general) FB has not committed the 1/10000th of the harm these champions of virtue in the MSM have done for the last couple centuries
All the problems you list with legacy media are true but also have a clear expiration date as these outlets are usually money losers. Meanwhile Facebook looks like it's here to stay.
All the problems you list with legacy media are true but also have a clear expiration date as these outlets are usually money losers. Meanwhile Facebook looks like it's here to stay.
MSM of course has played a huge role in many negative things that have happened across the world, but to say we should hold off on any FB "hate" because of this seems weird? Also for most people FB has a bigger impact on their perception of the world than any MSM and their impact is only growing (while many MSM are struggling to survive).
But the Lybia revolution against Ghaddafi wasn't fought or financed only by the Guardian's readers. For instance, with unemployment at 30%, maybe the population just had nothing else to try than the removal of their dictator like neighbor Tunisia had just done.
I agree with you "western" (let's say democratic instead) medias are very biased. I live in Hong Kong and I couldn't believe what I was reading in british media about our "oppression" while kids were breaking the pavement down my road and doing V for vendetta graffiti under the cries of "Fuck the Popo".
But all in all, it's fine, to be honest. We don't ask media to be without bias, but to be clear about them. We know somewhat the editorial position of the Guardian, they're one opinion amongst many.
What turn countries into rubbles, is when people can't understand who's telling them what. Facebook is too blurry, you don't know if it's your sister, a CIA agent or a FSB one talking to you about a solution to a problem. People get angry in closed networks, that echo and echo until they feel the entire population think the same way. And you can't really calm them down with deep and complex analysis because while anger is easy to spread with a quick BS meme, calming down people requires focus, dual way communication and effort on every side.
That's what happened to HK at a small scale, a sort of irrational mass anger, but that's not what happened in Lybia. Simply because in Lybia, people weren't the richest most powerful people on the planet. They tried the last resort solution, they won somewhat, now after the destruction they have to rebuild and they're learning it's way harder. We've all been through these phases, no need to argue the Guardian caused it :) I'd be partial to Facebook though :D
I agree with you "western" (let's say democratic instead) medias are very biased. I live in Hong Kong and I couldn't believe what I was reading in british media about our "oppression" while kids were breaking the pavement down my road and doing V for vendetta graffiti under the cries of "Fuck the Popo".
But all in all, it's fine, to be honest. We don't ask media to be without bias, but to be clear about them. We know somewhat the editorial position of the Guardian, they're one opinion amongst many.
What turn countries into rubbles, is when people can't understand who's telling them what. Facebook is too blurry, you don't know if it's your sister, a CIA agent or a FSB one talking to you about a solution to a problem. People get angry in closed networks, that echo and echo until they feel the entire population think the same way. And you can't really calm them down with deep and complex analysis because while anger is easy to spread with a quick BS meme, calming down people requires focus, dual way communication and effort on every side.
That's what happened to HK at a small scale, a sort of irrational mass anger, but that's not what happened in Lybia. Simply because in Lybia, people weren't the richest most powerful people on the planet. They tried the last resort solution, they won somewhat, now after the destruction they have to rebuild and they're learning it's way harder. We've all been through these phases, no need to argue the Guardian caused it :) I'd be partial to Facebook though :D
There was never a popular upheaval in Lybia, the Islamists were offered to dismember the country by a few European powers (mainly France and the UK) with Arab allies for good optics (Qatar). https://iai.tv/articles/why-they-killed-gaddafi-auid-1757
Your source makes reference to an email which is no longer available, thanks to a dead link.
Not to give credence to the overall article, but that part seems legit:
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/12659
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmfa... (p10#20)
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/12659
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmfa... (p10#20)
Stuff happens. I am sorry all over the place :roll_eyes:
People are capable of critizing the bad things that both FB and the Guardian have done
This is a terrible take, and it seems like you have a grudge audient Guardian. Following your own logic, lay off the guardian hate. Their reporting is solid, and much needed these days.
I have no grudge against The Guardian in particular, I have a grudge against ALL media (purporting to be 'left' leaning) that fed us lies (under the guise of R2P) to ease most wars and imperialist adventures. This post links to The Guardian, and The Guardian was most vociferous in the destruction of Libya (and Syria).
Do you have a source for the guardian editorial policy being pro the toppling of Gaddafi's regime in Libya? The Guardian is far from perfect but generally they were and are against military intervention by the UK.
...so who the hell DO you get your news from?
Azerbaijan is not poor or small, please change the submission title , it s insulting
Poor and Small are comparatives.
Compared to the UK, USA, France, Italy, Germany, China, Russia and on and on: Azerbaijan is poor and small.
It ranks 112th in the world for size, 99th for population, 86th for GDP.
When comparing things, especially when it's relevant to the subject (facebook doesn't care about comparatively small and poor countries) then it is not offensive.
Unless you want to take offence.
Compared to the UK, USA, France, Italy, Germany, China, Russia and on and on: Azerbaijan is poor and small.
It ranks 112th in the world for size, 99th for population, 86th for GDP.
When comparing things, especially when it's relevant to the subject (facebook doesn't care about comparatively small and poor countries) then it is not offensive.
Unless you want to take offence.
It's average, about the population size of Sweden, would anyone call sweden small? The problem is that the title deflects from the issue which is not that these countries are poor (Azb is rich enough to run an extensive laundering operation to whitewash their corruption). Facebook does the same in Turkey for example, and who knows how many other countries.
> would anyone call sweden small?
Yes. I think everyone calls Sweden small. Probably even Swedes themselves. Sweden is small and rich.
Yes. I think everyone calls Sweden small. Probably even Swedes themselves. Sweden is small and rich.
Yes, people definitely call Sweden small.
ITT: folks whose livelihood depends on that Facebook Ads campaign manager payout, vs. those of us who would rather live in a world free from this sort of manipulation.
DAE miss AOL?
DAE miss AOL?
A lot of people may also be supporting the regimes of those countries
Is it just me or are activist women in Bay Area tech disproportionately transgender? It seems like 20% or even more when you hear these “woman fighting corrupt behavior from the inside” stories.
Well San Francisco has the highest LGBT concentration of any metro in the US by a decent margin.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I wonder if writers of articles like this are aware of the complexity of a problem like this, algorithmically, legally and ethically.
All 3 are insanely difficult.
All 3 are insanely difficult.
I’m not sure if you actually read the article but it was written with the whistleblower who was literally a data scientist and kept pointing out how easy it was to clearly identify (and therefore stop) these cases in question. They weren’t sophisticated in any way. The problem here wasn’t that it was difficult, it’s because Facebook had no incentive to care
The quote “There is a lot of harm being done on Facebook that is not being responded to because it is not considered enough of a PR risk to Facebook,” kind of sums it up!
That's a textbook definition of institutional evil.
a data scientist fired for poor performance
Making an argument that even the person who was supposedly fired for poor performance was STILL able to find what she found with almost zero effort on her behalf isn’t the compelling argument you seem to imagine it to be.
Which can be used as an excuse to dismiss her without putting Facebook in trouble for discrimination or retribution.
A data scientist fired for poor performance because she didn't perform some perfunctory tasks while she dedicated herself to investigating and uncovering all these fake bots.
The incredible thing is Big Tech has convinced us the solution is "too expensive" when they are making hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue.
Here's the truth - if you own a social media platform and you allow for microtargeting and psychological profiling, you have responsibility for what's mass shared throughout.
Here's the truth - if you own a social media platform and you allow for microtargeting and psychological profiling, you have responsibility for what's mass shared throughout.
EXACTLY. Micro-Targeting must be regulated world-wide to not allow it for political ads etc.
Good governance tends to get into money. It needn't be too expensive, but it definitely costs something.
Facebook, Google et al. are trying to run a billion-sized community with extremely tight budgets, because they do not want to sacrifice their profits or make their services paid instead of free.
Of course it does not work.
Facebook, Google et al. are trying to run a billion-sized community with extremely tight budgets, because they do not want to sacrifice their profits or make their services paid instead of free.
Of course it does not work.
Despite the fact the article makes it clear this problem is way to detect, it doesn’t matter. Facebook created the problem, they don’t get to just say, “it’s too hard” and throw their hands up. If they can’t fix it then they should scale back their operations until it’s a manageable size.
Imagine I’m out in a park firing guns into the air and you come up to me and say, “don’t you know those bullets might come down somewhere and hurt someone?” And I say, “do you know how hard it would be for me to calculate exactly where each bullet would land and where I can aim it safely?” Would you just walk away and say, “oh yeah, that’s too hard of a problem to solve, carry on”?
Imagine I’m out in a park firing guns into the air and you come up to me and say, “don’t you know those bullets might come down somewhere and hurt someone?” And I say, “do you know how hard it would be for me to calculate exactly where each bullet would land and where I can aim it safely?” Would you just walk away and say, “oh yeah, that’s too hard of a problem to solve, carry on”?
> the complexity of a problem like this, algorithmically, legally and ethically.
I disagree with the framing of this as "complexity" when it's really "Facebook's profits would be reduced/Facebook's business model would be compromised".
The complexity comes from Facebook's goal of maximising profits within the permitted algorithmic and legal space.
I disagree with the framing of this as "complexity" when it's really "Facebook's profits would be reduced/Facebook's business model would be compromised".
The complexity comes from Facebook's goal of maximising profits within the permitted algorithmic and legal space.
Because of the sensational headline, I'm not even going to click on this. Is there even a real difference between The Guardian and the Daily Mail?
I suspected the headline was sensationalist but on reading the article, I would say it isn't, and the headline is correct.
It has examples of the campaigns of national political parties of different nations (hence world leaders) using a loophole that facebook pages can do certain things facebook accounts can't to boost their engagement and/or avoid the scrutiny an account would get.
It also has a really good non-techy breakdown explaining how it works. I think it's HTML5? Having read it, I would say it's a really good piece of journalism.
It has examples of the campaigns of national political parties of different nations (hence world leaders) using a loophole that facebook pages can do certain things facebook accounts can't to boost their engagement and/or avoid the scrutiny an account would get.
It also has a really good non-techy breakdown explaining how it works. I think it's HTML5? Having read it, I would say it's a really good piece of journalism.
It's an article about governments creating fake facebook pages posing as people to influence political debate on facebook.
Detailing how it works and as well as how slow facebook are to respond.
What is sensational about that? Unless you dislike reporting of propaganda efforts by governments.
Detailing how it works and as well as how slow facebook are to respond.
What is sensational about that? Unless you dislike reporting of propaganda efforts by governments.
hntroll666(1)
[deleted]
Better headline: ex employee thinks there are too many fake Facebook pages accounts
Let me give you some more context rather than this shitty throwaway cynicism. This is an issue that the employee thought was important enough to share that she had to give up almost $70k in severance. https://twitter.com/szhang_ds/status/1381518041737949185?s=2...
But you think that's not a problem?
That fake accounts that signal boost support for political figures is fine election campaigning?
That fake accounts that signal boost support for political figures is fine election campaigning?
It is and actions were taken:
“As a result, we’ve taken down more than 100 networks of coordinated inauthentic behavior. Around half of them were domestic networks that operated in countries around the world, including those in Latin America, the Middle East and North Africa, and in the Asia Pacific region.”
“As a result, we’ve taken down more than 100 networks of coordinated inauthentic behavior. Around half of them were domestic networks that operated in countries around the world, including those in Latin America, the Middle East and North Africa, and in the Asia Pacific region.”
It's only a problem if citizens are somehow influenced by the # of Facebook likes a politician gets.
Those who'd hold Facebook to account for not programmatically 'fixing' this would do well to also acknowledge the underlying human failings that make these shady strategies allegedly effective.
Maybe even a small attempt to improve voter literacy in Honduras?
Easier to just shift the entire moral blame to FB and implicitly hope every similar social media company acquiesces to your worldview forever.
Those who'd hold Facebook to account for not programmatically 'fixing' this would do well to also acknowledge the underlying human failings that make these shady strategies allegedly effective.
Maybe even a small attempt to improve voter literacy in Honduras?
Easier to just shift the entire moral blame to FB and implicitly hope every similar social media company acquiesces to your worldview forever.
"How Facebook let fake engagement distort global politics: a whistleblower's account" - https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/apr/12/facebook-...
It's interesting how Guy Rosen, a co-founder of the spyware company Onavo, is now Facebook's "vice-president of integrity":
> Facebook had “moved slower than we’d like because of prioritization” on the Honduras case, Rosen wrote. “It’s a bummer that it’s back and I’m excited to learn from this and better understand what we need to do systematically,” he added. But he also chastised her for making a public complaint, saying: “My concern is that threads like this can undermine the people that get up in the morning and do their absolute best to try to figure out how to spend the finite time and energy we all have and put their heart and soul into it.”
> Rosen had joined Facebook in 2013, when the company acquired his startup, Onavo, a mobile web analytics company that Facebook would go on to use to track usage of rival apps.
Details on Onavo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onavo