Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Facebook Social Networks

Mark Zuckerberg Says Fake News on Facebook Affecting the Election Is a 'Crazy Idea' (fortune.com) 232

Posted by msmash from the hoaxes-on-facebook dept.
A lot of questions are emerging about Facebook's role in this year's election cycle, especially given the proliferation of sensationalistic and even outright fake news stories, and CEO Mark Zuckerberg has responded. From a report on Fortune: "I think the idea that fake news on Facebook -- of which it's a very small amount of the content -- influenced the election in any way is a pretty crazy idea," he said on Thursday at the Techonomy conference in Half Moon Bay, Calif., just two days after Donald Trump was elected president, according to media reports. "There have been hoaxes on the Internet, there were hoaxes before," he said. "We do our best to make it so that people can report that, and as I said before, we can show people the most meaningful content we can."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Mark Zuckerberg Says Fake News on Facebook Affecting the Election Is a 'Crazy Idea' More

Mark Zuckerberg Says Fake News on Facebook Affecting the Election Is a 'Crazy Idea'

Comments Filter:

  • Show us the data (Score:5, Insightful)

    by petes_PoV ( 912422 ) on Friday November 11, 2016 @11:18AM (#53265153)
    To be blunt, what Zuckerberg "thinks" is irrelevant.

    He is in a position to obtain and have analysed the data - not just about whether the fake stories and lies are a "small proportion" of FB's content, but just how much that "small proportion" gets liked, reposted and commented on. Being a small proportion is meaningless if it is influential. And it is the influence that these fake stories have, not the quantity of them, which is important.

    One could also say that The Washington Post reaches only a small proportion of the world. But Zuckerberg considered it worth buying.

    • Re:Show us the data (Score:5, Informative)

      by pushing-robot ( 1037830 ) on Friday November 11, 2016 @11:23AM (#53265215)

      Not to detract from the rest of your post, but it was Jeff Bezos who bought The Washington Post.

    • Re:Show us the data (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Rockoon ( 1252108 ) on Friday November 11, 2016 @11:24AM (#53265225)

      To be blunt, what Zuckerberg "thinks" is irrelevant.

      He knows its irrelevant because they tried to bias the content against trump and for hillary, and it still didnt work.

      • Re:Show us the data (Score:5, Informative)

        by Rockoon ( 1252108 ) on Friday November 11, 2016 @11:31AM (#53265269)
        Before someone lazily asks for a citation:

        Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conservative News [gizmodo.com]

        Facebook Unblocks DNC Email Leak After WikiLeaks Accuses Them of Censorship [mediaite.com]

        just two that I quickly found

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by fubarrr ( 884157 )

        Yes, because you can't beat industrial scale clickbait networks and clickfarms. For every buck made by Google and FB on ads, Russians exploiting the internet advertising networks can make two, and only a small amount of profit for arbitrage goes to the 3rd tier players and guys with captive marketplaces.

        This is "The King is Naked" fact of the online ads industry. Ad industry really dislikes people digging in their rigged audit reports. I myself once worked for a private ad marketplace and was made to sign a

      • It did work. It created an information bubble in which Liberals had such high expectations that they would win they broke down in tears. Not just a few who always happens but a good chunk of Hillary HQ were in tatters by 9. Conservatives, on the other hand, fell into two bucks. Bucket one: this is wrong it's not representing to at all, and we're going to turn out a lot more than they expect and bucket two: there is a path a small path but a path. Had the information not been so heavily tainted Democrats wou

    • Re:Show us the data (Score:5, Interesting)

      by paulpach ( 798828 ) on Friday November 11, 2016 @11:27AM (#53265239)

      The burden of proof is on the person doing the accusation.

      It is not up to Zuckerberg to show that facebook did not influence the elections.
      It is up to the people accusing facebook to show that the fake news influenced the elections.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by rickb928 ( 945187 )

        Since the same fake news in the rest of social and conventional media were visible, then you are saying "It is up to the people accusing the 'media' to show that the fake news influenced the elections."

        And frankly, despite the horror and pain this will cause, if the media had been honest (and the DNC not been complicit in primary vote and convention rigging), Hillary would not have been nominated. And Trump would not have been nominated either. Part of a pretty big influence.

        But, fortunately, this has worke

        • And frankly, despite the horror and pain this will cause, if the media had been honest (and the DNC not been complicit in primary vote and convention rigging), Hillary would not have been nominated.

          Please explain how the media were not honest here. You realize, don't you, that it was the media, the New York Times as a matter of fact, [nytimes.com] which first broke the story on Secratary Clinton's use of a private email server. And it was that very same media which went on and on about Clinton's email issues, right up until the very end of the campaign. According to Media Matters, using data from the Tyndall Report, reporting of Hillary Clinton's email issues eclipsed all other reporting combined on any other is [mediamatters.org]

          • A third of the minutes spent on Trump (and those largely neither neutral nor positive) were spent on the email issue.

            Not that volume is the proper measure. None of the MSM presented the issue as a criminal act, though that is an obvious conclusion when the statements of the FBI director are considered, nor did they present it as a reasonable issue to be investigated, but at every opportunity chose to describe it as either a minimal problem or a partisan attack.

            Reasonable people may argue for last point, b

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by elrous0 ( 869638 )

        Liberals want something convenient to blame because they can't accept the fact that there is a huge core of this country between NYC and LA that's not on-board with their SJW agenda. These are the states that got left out of the economic boom, populated by people who the Democrats don't seem to give a shit about anymore (unless they're minorities or women). And people in those "flyover" states are sick of smug liberals calling them stupid and racist when they complain about how free trade and immigration ar

    • And it is the influence that these fake stories have, not the quantity of them, which is important.

      Democrats lost this election because the DNC screwed it up at every step.

      Anointing the most unpopular candidate they could find instead of letting voters select one.
      Encouraging people to vote for Trump in the primary.
      Organizing protests against Trump that backlashed by motivating his supporters.
      Ignoring states that would decide the election.
      Spending too much time talking about issues that aren't relevant to most voters (e.g. Hillary's glass ceiling instead of the economy)

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Boronx ( 228853 )

        What they didn't do is yell "Trump's going to take away your Medicare". That's the surest way to win any election.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Sloppy ( 14984 )

      And it is the influence that these fake stories have, not the quantity of them, which is important.

      No, it's why the stories have influence, which is important. I give zero fucks about anyone's measurements of the influence itself.

      You can frame it as a problem with a particular website, or you can frame it as people-enjoy-lying-and-being-lied-to. IMHO the former is worthless way of looking at things, and the latter gets us closer to diagnosis.

  • No, not fake news (Score:4, Insightful)

    by bickerdyke ( 670000 ) on Friday November 11, 2016 @11:18AM (#53265163)

    Fake news on facebook did not effect the election. It was the people stupid enough to believe them.

    • Re:No, not fake news (Score:5, Insightful)

      by XxtraLarGe ( 551297 ) on Friday November 11, 2016 @11:26AM (#53265235) Journal

      Fake news on facebook did not effect the election. It was the people stupid enough to believe them.

      I have several friends who are Trump supporters, and a lot of them posted some of the most ridiculous stuff from non-credible news sources (think "less credible than InfoWars"). I wouldn't call any of them geniuses, but I wouldn't call them stupid either. Were they gullible and guilty of wishful thinking? Sure, but definitely not stupid.

      • OK. People don't need to be actually stupid and you put it into much better words, but it's still not something you can blame facebook for.

        And I would prefer if ou could (technically fake also) satire stories on fb without having to nerf dem down with the infamous sarcasm tag

        • OK. People don't need to be actually stupid and you put it into much better words, but it's still not something you can blame facebook for.

          The problem is with the blame Facebook theory is even if they didn't believe these types of stories, the people I know who were Trump supporters NEVER would have voted for Clinton.

          • The true Trump supporters wouldn't vote for Clinton, but fake news was able to propagate really quickly on Facebook and it's reasonable to assume that the volume of those fake stories could have negatively influenced support and turnout for Clinton among people who weren't die-hard Trump supporters but were "friends" with those Trump supporters on Facebook.

          • Not even that would have been neccessary. They could have changed the outcome also by staying home.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by tsqr ( 808554 )

        The one election-related Facebook post that sticks in my memory was from OccupyDemocrats. Can't remember it well enough to quote it verbatim, but it was roughly, "If Hillary were found in the parking lot of a 7-11 in the Middle East trading blowjobs and state secrets for crack cocaine, I would still vote for her over Cheeto Hitler." I guess that sums up "the lesser of two evils" for some people. Personally, I didn't see it as a choice between two evils, but as a choice between two unacceptable alternatives.

    • so, statistically, half of facebooks millions (billions?) of users?

      That couldn't possibly influence a majority opinion... /s

  • Facebook affected the election. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by 0100010001010011 ( 652467 ) on Friday November 11, 2016 @11:21AM (#53265193)

    As did E-mail, Twitter, Reddit, Instagram, Snapchat, IRC and I bet a Usenet server somewhere too.

    Welcome to the Internet where people can share any information, real or not.

    As it always has been, as it will be going forward.

    The DNC had the opportunity to control online discussion but decided to correct the record against Sanders supporters. [imgur.com].

    • Where are those mod points when ya need them...?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by hey! ( 33014 )

      So you're saying the problem with people getting false information off the Internet is that social media is a source of information.

      Thank you, Sherlock.

    • As did E-mail, Twitter, Reddit, Instagram, Snapchat, IRC and I bet a Usenet server somewhere too.

      Welcome to the Internet where people can share any information, real or not.

      As it always has been, as it will be going forward.

      The DNC had the opportunity to control online discussion but decided to correct the record against Sanders supporters. [imgur.com].

      And I'm pretty sure one or two votes were also impacted by television and printed material. Also, let me correct this for you slightly... "Welcome to Earth where people can share any information, real or not."

    • The DNC had the opportunity to control online discussion but decided to correct the record against Sanders supporters. [imgur.com]

      You know, this is the second or third time I recall seeing that very same JPEG linked, but with the names and images blacked-out, it's impossible to tell who said what. Are you claiming a staffer from the Democratic National Committee made those comments? How do I know those comments weren't originally from, say, a group of cross-dressing rodeo clowns?

      If you're going to use online comments to make a point, you might want to choose comments you can attribute to someone we actually care to hear about. Onli

  • Facebook is a social media site. If people think that the content presented on it is "news" or "newsworthy" then it is up to them to fact check. Because people are too stupid or lazy to fact check doesnt make facebook any more reliable or untrustworthy than the talking heads on CNN, MSNBC, FoxNews , etc. All of them spread "news" believe what you want.
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by tsqr ( 808554 )

        I wish more people had the time and/or inclination to fact-check what they believe and pass onto others.

        No kidding. Maybe then I wouldn't receive so many texts, emails, and FB posts warning me about the latest faux virus that will destroy my phone.

        "Caveat emptor" doesn't only apply to things you purchase.

  • Zucks is crazy (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Oswald McWeany ( 2428506 ) on Friday November 11, 2016 @11:32AM (#53265287)

    Zucks is crazy if he thinks fake news couldn't have impacted the election.

    Maybe it didn't change who got elected, but it probably did affect a handful of voters. There are some stupid people out there, and some intelligent people who get fooled, and some average people out there who might be impressionable.

    Nonetheless, I guarantee you some people voted differently based on fake news they read. It might not have been a large %, it might not have impacted any state or federal level elections; however, some small local elections on a knife edge where just a handful of votes make a difference... maybe it did.

    Even if someone recognizes a fake news story as fake when they read it, if it is pillorying someone, it might make that person subconsciously think slightly less of that candidate, and less likely to show up to vote. (even if it didn't do enough to make them change who they would vote for).

    We're all impacted by what we see, read, and hear. Even if one article doesn't change our mind, reading 20 (some of which might be fake) could. I'm sure both presidential candidates lost votes because of untrue stories.

  • ...Yes, freedom of speech which includes the freedom to say what may certainly be irrelevant, inaccurate or plain wrong to a particular situation.

    has anyone ever followed the State Department's press conferences? I am sure that for those who have, its provision of "nonanswers" to difficult questions exposed the hypocrisy and utter disregard for the ordinary American.

    One regime we support is "allowed" to humiliate some human beings, but if the regime isn't what we support, we condemn and sanction!

    The trouble

  • It's not so much a direct result of the viral news & posts that get passed around social media, but the echo chamber people find themselves in.

    Was it Facebook 'wot won it'? [bbc.com]

    Now you could say the same filtering has always applied - liberal people tended to read liberal newspapers, conservatives got their views reflected back in what they read.

    The difference was that most editors have tried to do two things - present at least some alternative views and make sure that the facts in any story stand up to scrutiny.

    Neither applies on Facebook. The News Feed algorithm serves you up whatever it thinks you and your friends want to believe and it certainly does not do any fact-checking.

    Stories that accused the Clintons of murder or maintained that Barack Obama was a Muslim will have cropped up in the feeds of millions of people inclined to support Mr Trump.

    This cuts both ways - a made-up quote from Mr Trump saying in 1998 that he might one day run as a Republican because "they're the dumbest group of voters in the country" is still being widely shared on social media by his opponents.

    Both the Democrats and Republicans have long made ample use of Facebook - indeed it was the Obama campaign of 2008 that pioneered the use of social media in elections.

    But for a Trump campaign that saw much of the mainstream media as hostile and biased, both Facebook and Twitter offered a powerful way of getting its message direct to voters unchallenged by any pesky journalists.

  • Were there more 'fake news' articles that were intended to benefit Trump than were intended to benefit Hillary? Was it more blatant than all the fake news that was reported constantly during the election through more traditional news channels? I have a feeling that both camps tried to get a whole bunch of fake news articles that either reported false positive news about their candidate or reported false negative news about their opponent. Now that Trump has won, those who dislike the outcome of the election
  • It was a lot of digging, but I finally found the quote they removed from most of the articles

    “Why would you think there would be fake news on one side and not on the other?”

    http://nypost.com/2016/11/11/z... [nypost.com]

  • If we accept that FaceBook is a social media site, then we also have to accept that it can influence the way people think.
  • ... then he doesn't have to fix it. It's a simple strategy to invoke when he hasn't a clue about how to fix the problem. I would offer a simple solution - stop calling facebook a news source.

  • If Facebook manipulates the news feeds, they are creating a bias. Zuckerberg's assessment is is biased as well. This isn't news.

  • What is he supposed to say? "Oh yeah, the fake news on our site swayed the election"?

  • So, Zuck... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fuzzyfuzzyfungus ( 1223518 ) on Friday November 11, 2016 @12:20PM (#53265685) Journal
    Dear Mr. Zuckerberg,

    I was considering purchasing a bunch of ad impressions and various social-media astroturf to promote my product on your 'Facebook'; but I hear that it is 'crazy' to believe that Facebook has any influence on audience beliefs or behaviors.

    Please clarify.

    Sincerely, Your Customers.

  • Crazy like a Fox ... News. :-)

  • its just crazy stuff people are focused on. Real questions are things like how is Trump going to disassociate himself with his commercial interests? Will executive branch meetings in washington be held at the new trump hotel, Mar-o-go? What happens if an occupy trump movement starts and picketeers block access to trump properties? Does the national guard come in to kick them out? What happens if say Irish people in Ireland picket the golf course and shut it down. Does US retaliate against Ireland because th

  • This is proof that Mark doesn't actually use Facebook. Otherwise he'd know better.

  • Is fake news anything beyond annoying? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve ( 949321 ) on Friday November 11, 2016 @01:07PM (#53266031)
    I live and grew up in a red state. Because of my background a significant number of my friends on Facebook are die hard Republicans. A small number of those spend way too much time worrying about politics and sharing fake news items and various anti-Democratic Party stories. Some of what I've seen is actually offensive. But is anybody actually convinced to change their minds because of this? All I see is other die hard Republicans comment about how true this stuff is. A rather large part of the US voting population is party locked and they are just not ever going to vote for the other party no matter what. Does it really matter if these stories are lies if all they do is preach to the already converted? Studies have shown that people deliberately seek out sources of information to reinforce already decided opinions and that if you confront people who hold a false belief with real proof that their belief is false, they will actually double down on the false belief and get even more adamant that it can't be wrong.

  • It's just an information channel.

    If people are stupid enough to believe it, it doesn't matter if it arrives by FB, telegram, or pigeon.

  • But in reviewing all of the folks I have in contact with that are in the Trump camp, and researching at least 5 of them in the last 24 hours they are misleading at BEST!

    Washington Post, republican leaning but that was the best of the bunch. The rest were outright distortion and lies.

    The one I backtracked about a white guy in Charlotte getting beaten at a protest back in September was barely covered by any other media outlet, except the right wing ones across the globe with no depth or context. I finally fou

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by moorley ( 69393 )

      Ack! Washington Times...

      Sorry!!!!

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Times#Political_stance

  • Just like Russia wasn't involved in any of the email hacks. Until they were,

    Just like Trump didn't have backroom dealings with Russia because of his business ventures there. Until he was.

    There's always an excuse why something isn't what it seems, until it is. Then even more stringent excuses come to the fore.

    Besides, Zuckerberg has to say this. His country will be getting billions more U.S. taxpayer money to continue its apartheid policies so he can't appear to be influencing the U.S. election through deli

  • Otherwise normal, functioning people post, like, and share lots of garbage to Facebook that can be refuted with 30 seconds worth of checking as long as it supports their position or candidate. When I linked contrary evidence, people were angry. They don't care that their quote was misattributed or that documents or videos contradict their assertions. "Hey, I just liked it. I don't even know who this person is. Why are you even commenting here?"

    I have always taken it as a given that people want to know

  • This coming from the asshole that said in the beginning that people using his service were fucking idiots due to how much info they put out. So it can't be anywhere unreasonable to assume to know his fucking effect on this election cycle given how many 'fucking idiots' are using his service.

  • I wasn't a huge fan of Trump, but seeing the ongoing deluge of whining, excuses and accusations from the mainstream media regarding the election results is wonderful entertainment. I like Trump a little more every day.

    The media has always been slightly biased toward the left, but the degree of anti-Trump bias in this election was absolutely jaw dropping. They shed every pretense of neutrality and objectivity, went all-in for Hillary Clinton and they still ended up on the losing side. This relentless delu

  • Mark Zuckerberg is a crazy idea. Fake news on Facebook is true as everybody knows, unless they are crazy.

  • Mark Zuckerberg is ether a fool or an idiot (or both). He seems to be out of touch with that is going on. I might suggest that his denial is so he won’t be forced (legally or morally) to enforce some kind of censorship (Slippery slope here what is satire vs what is false?)

    One thing that I did find out: when you discover the “hate/false” posters (usually through other friends posts) and try post a correction about the inaccuracy: They will block you; and you will not be able to see the
  • I have seen a great deal repeating, sharing and believing of these stories, I find it hard to believe that these weren't enough to sway quite a few people.

  • I found links to debunking sites in the Suggested links of a post. Those were very helpful.

  • If anything, the vast vast majority of information I've encountered online is extremely pro left, facebook, twitter, news articles. It is exceedingly difficult to not stumble across article upon article how ghastly Donald Trump is, be it lies, truth or 'opinion posted as news' which is all too common.

    I can't stand either of them, but the amount of misrepresentation I saw of Trump online was so intense and so vehement, frankly I'd have to agree with Zuckerberg, for different reasons. It's clear that whateve

Slashdot Top Deals

PURGE COMPLETE.

Close