Facebook Says It Was 'Not Our Role' To Remove Fake News During Australian Election (theguardian.com) 138
Facebook has declared it is not "our role to remove content that one side of a political debate considers to be false" in a final, positive, self-assessment of its actions in response to the death tax misinformation circulating on the platform during the May federal election. From a report: In correspondence seen by Guardian Australia, Simon Milner, the Singapore-based vice-president of the social media giant in the Asia-Pacific, tells Labor's outgoing national secretary, Noah Carroll: "I understand that your preference would be for Facebook to remove all content that you believe constitutes misinformation -- which in this instance mean all content that discussed whether or not Labor intends to introduce a death tax -- rather than demote it; however Facebook only removes content that violates our community standards. "We do not agree that is is our role to remove content that one side of a political debate considers to be false," Milner says in the letter sent a month after election day.
They don't seem bothered editorializing in the US (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: They don't seem bothered editorializing in the (Score:2, Insightful)
This. They only care about censoring it if it is an American conservative view point.
Re: (Score:1)
WTF? When is the last time anyone had a conservative viewpoint? When the Republicans completely abandoned conservativism in 2016 to create a new alternative left, that was that. Nearly the entire population abandoned ship with them. The only viewpoints I see now are liberals (Republicans) vs progressives (Democrats). Even libertarians, both big-L and small-l have kept a damn low profile thanks to Gary Johnson not even getting second place in the one election where he really should have.
Show me a person wit
Re: (Score:1)
This. They only care about censoring it if it is an American conservative view point.
lol. The only reason you have Vlad's puppet cheeto benito as president is because of the GRU's fake news campaign on facebook. Dumbass dickhead.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
I'm a Democrat. I have never supported or defended Hillary. You're just a lying faggot running distraction to FUD away from the conversation. Nobody was banned for being reasonably critical of HRC - nobody. Stop lying, faggot.
Until you stop constantly crying/lying wolf, we can't really be upset about you being eaten by wolves, dumbass.
Re: (Score:1)
Let me guess. They are a faggot.
Everybody is a faggot. Or a traitor.
Blows my mind how readily slashdot editors accept and even upvote trolls when they are of the correct political leaning.
Re: (Score:2)
Seth Rich?
Re: (Score:2)
Who cares about the platforms? The problem is the audience...
Re: (Score:1)
Which is why they will be regulated one way or another, eventually. The power is not being used responsibly, it's in furtherance of fraud. This inevitably will come to a head.
Re: (Score:1)
FWIW, I don't think they're actually "controlled by the left" per se, because they still piss off the left for not being censored enough as this campaign proves and both sides actually seem to hate them. But even Google wasn't very effective at getting Hillary elected, because she was just that bad. Frankly a dead fish would've had more appeal than her.
Don't know why you're trying to get people to read the Mueller report when even most of Congress didn't bother. And I see why--it doesn't matter one bit.
Re: (Score:1)
Facebook was not only not helping Clinton, they were actively helping Trump but taking political ads with no questions asked from anyone who would pay. They were loving the fake news too, lots of ad impressions from that.
I'm sure they were not interested in throwing the election, merely motivated by greed. They built the ultimate platform for manipulating elections and monetized it in every way they could.
By the way, the second sentence of the Mueller report reads "The Russian government interfered in the 2
Re: (Score:1)
Or maybe the "Facebook is controlled by the Left and tries to throw elections" stuff is complete BS.
Drink! Amimojo brings up a position the person he's replying to never said!
Second drink for this position he's brought in to bash is basically strawman (it's a leap to go from the OP saying FB seems to be fine editorializing in the US to saying FB is outright owned by the left), a caricature of a position. Maybe some troll and radicals hold them, but focusing on them does not lead to productive conversations with like... everyone else (side drink for Ami once again demonstrating himself to be part of the pr
Re: (Score:1)
According to OUR guidelines.
We made the rules, deal with it.
- Zuck
We will in future start blocking Facebook country wide one month before elections, deal with it.
- Australia
Re: Hmm (Score:1)
Have you ever considered the possibility that theyay have a point?
Re: (Score:2)
For example, I am not convinced that the definition and enforcement of "fake news" impartial if it is done by someone who gloated with glee in public watching people "of the wrong political persuasion" burn alive https://mobile.twitter.com/yas... [twitter.com] . The nice lady who tweeted that is the policy director for Facebook Eastern Europe now: https://mob [twitter.com]
Re:So the world asks.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Whose job fucking is it to fact-check what you're enabling? NOBODY? ANYTHING GOES?
It is not Facebook's job to fact-check your speech.
Facebook is a platform, not a gatekeeper. They are no more responsible for what you post than your phone company is responsible for what you say.
you want to throw up your hands and pretend it's all the user's fault
It's all the user's fault.
Re: So the world asks.... (Score:1)
No dude, FB can either be a platform or a publisher. They can't be both. They're censoring content for the sake of a better user experience but their rules are highly warped to favor liberal viewpoints straight out of the feminist and socialist handbook. It's all designed to oppress right wing viewpoints and defeat Trump in 2020. That's why they spent billions to move content moderation back to the U.S. It's a hell of a lot more expensive than India but they have an election to win in 2020 no matter what t
Re: (Score:2)
They are no more responsible for what you post than your phone company is responsible for what you say.
That ceases to apply when people pay them to promote posts, which is what the discussion is about.
Re: (Score:2)
They're a website, not a "platform." Their role is not that of an ISP. They're no different than other websites in what they do or what type of business they run. And the ads are ads, of course they're responsible for the content, they run the ads on their own site and have total control.
Re: (Score:2)
According to US law, they are a platform. The definition is part of the Communications Decency Act of 1996(47 United States Code Section 230 Part C [cornell.edu])
According to this law, they are not responsible for anything that users post.
(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
Also, according to this law, they can censor posts if they find them to be "offensive", or for violating their terms of service.
(2) Civil liabilityNo provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected;
Note: Other laws may apply in other countries...
Re: (Score:2)
You're lying. The words you quoted, and the rest of that link, are totally consistent with what I said.
I don't blame you for being an ID10T, but when I said they're not a "platform" they're a "website," that's the same as saying they're not a platform, they're an "interactive computer service."
It makes no sense to insist that being an "interactive computer service" means they're a "platform." If that was true they would have used the word "platform."
Are you sure you know how to computer?
Fake vs Fact (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
De minimis non curat lex (the law does not concern itself with trifles) is generally held to be a good principle, so outlawing any false statement of fact probably isn't a good idea, and how would you calculate the monetary damages for the loss of an election?
It's an interesting concept, but it has practical problems (and then some). I do however believe that we'll see more and more false statements being subject to civil damages. Alex Jones denying the Sandy Hook massacre seems like a stretch of what until
Re: (Score:2)
If there's one thing this demonstrates, it's that there is no such clear-cut line. The Guardian insists that because their preferred political party's PR department claimed they weren't going to introduce an unpopular tax, anyone claiming otherwise is "fake news" and those claims must be suppressed by Facebook - but politicians introduce laws that they said they wouldn't all the fucking time. Arguing that a politician is going to do something that fits with their goals but is too unpopular to publicly suppo
Re: (Score:2)
Pizzagate was fiction, and lasted a few moments on the radar.
Russiagate is ongoing, nearly three years later, the Democrats are still holding hearings related to it.
See the difference? One is passing fake news, dropped as soon as it was clear. The other is the bedrock of the Democrat Presidential Hopes and Dreams. ongoing.
Re: (Score:2)
Scrutinizing the rulers is every citizens patriotic duty and although public figures have to suffer more, defamation is still a civil tort. However, that's not likely to happen, not because Trump will let it pass, but because what you imply happened did in fact not happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless the leader is BHO and then you're a "Racist!!!!!!"
I think filtering should work for the consumer (Score:2)
In other words, there should be enabling of a free market of third party filter organizations/services/companies that offer content filtering between "raw facebook", "raw youtube" etc and the consumer of the content.
People could then choose how they want their input filtered.
With that available, and as long as easy to use, then the governments can stick their regulatory noses somewhere else.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
With that available, and as long as easy to use, then the governments can stick their regulatory noses somewhere else.
Nope. The advocates of censorship aren't concerned about what they see. They want to control what you see. So individually controlled filtering solves nothing.
Re: (Score:3)
The theory sounds nice; freedom, personal choice, etc.. There's a terrible trouble with it though. I'm not sure what an appropriate answer is but if it's left unanswered, the conditions that have lead to the mass exploitations, great wars, societal collapse, etc. of history come to the stage. This trouble stems from the reality that people are willing to believe a fiction when it aligns with their world view. The more they consume and accept these fictions as truth the greater these distortions of their
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: I think filtering should work for the consumer (Score:2)
The theory sounds nice; freedom, personal choice, etc.. There's a terrible trouble with it though.
That sounds like the opening to a short book titled "Deep Thoughts, by Stalin".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: I think filtering should work for the consume (Score:2)
I don't see why you would revile them; if you agree that freedom is "a terrible trouble" it seems that you should get along wonderfully.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But there is no market for that product and the current internet giants make every effort they can to prevent that from happening.
(Emphasis mine) I think the opposite is true; there is a good demand for that product, and it'll likely be so successful and deemed "superior" that it'll cannibalize the original product - even while profitability of this new product is deemed untested and questionable by the Execs.
Leaders from Tech Oligarchs (many of them self-important SJWs) probably also do not want to surrender the power they can exert on the populace.
Facebook, you got no class (Score:2)
Hey kid you got no class. Hit the bums, kid. Run like the devil. Get a tin can and take up mooching. Knock on back doors for a nickel.
A no. 1 : Tell them your story. Make 'em weep. You could have been a meat-eater, kid. But you didn't listen to me when I laid it down.
A no. 1 : Stay off the tracks. Forget it. Its a bum's world for a bum. You'll never be Emperor of the North Pole, kid. You had the juice, kid, but not the heart and they go together. You're all gas
Facebook needs to keep its hands off the content! (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact is, Facebook can never wind up the good guy with all of these efforts to police or combat "fake news".
As long as people have published things, there have been inaccurate stories, often exaggerated on purpose.
As a PUBLISHER, the public holds you to certain standards. If you only publish heavily biased/slanted content with an agenda, you quickly get known as that type of news source. If you only publish things you think will be entertaining or sensational, with little regard for how it might affect the people or places you're reporting about? Again, you'll be pigeonholed as a news source that's really only for the shock or entertainment value of reading the outlandish claims (National Enquirer, for example?).
But as a content distribution platform, your job is just to make the content of OTHERS available, and easy to determine which user(s) said what. Distribution platforms are not supposed to edit the content, and really shouldn't have any legal responsibility for the content either.
It seems to me we've lost that distinction in recent years, and it's caused everything from demands Facebook censor certain things to sites like Craigslist having to pull down its "Personals" sections.
Back in the late 1980's and 90's, when I was active in the computer bulletin board system community, those of us running BBS's wrestled with this same issue. Most concluded that from at least the legal standpoint, you were at much greater risk as soon as you made ANY effort to censor some content - because then you set an expectation. You put everyone on alert that you actually WERE reviewing what was posted and had the capability of selectively removing it. By just running the BBS and not touching the content, you had a great argument that you never looked at whatever was objectionable, and you were concentrating on just providing the service of allowing others to publish/share things. Each user was responsible for whatever he or she put there.
Re: (Score:2)
Should they be allowed to decide who gets to see which news articles and which advertisements?
Re: (Score:2)
I think you misunderstand the problem. Facebook is effectively paying people to produce fake or extremist content because it will keep the user "engaged". They also promote content based on how much it "engages" people with little or no regard for its factual basis or the mental health of the viewer. That strongly encourages third parties to pay for the creation of false and misleading material and make it fit the parameters of "engaging". This is so far to the other side of "censoring" that you don't s
Re: (Score:2)
If you only publish heavily biased/slanted content with an agenda, you quickly get known as that type of news source.
That's why the people using Facebook to spread their fake news avoid attributing it to themselves. A fake news story or image, with no attribution, spread virally so it's very difficult to trace back to the source. And they don't even care if a few people do, because by then most people have already seen it, had it imprinted in their brain and scrolled on.
Just making sure that fake news is properly attributed would be a huge improvement.
Facebook =/= news (Score:5, Insightful)
When you get news from Facebook, you're basically eating from a bucket that you found on the side of the road labeled "food inside: trust me". Maybe it's edible, maybe not, but you're probably an idiot for even considering it.
As a species, we've been through this before. The ENTIRE field of journalism evolved a clear set of rules, over several CENTURIES, as a way to vet and present high quality information to large numbers of people. Unless an internet sites adheres to journalistic standards, THEY ARE NOT SOURCES OF NEWS. Even if they call some part of their website a "news feed". Facebook isn't the only one guilty of this. But they're one of the big offenders.
Here's a quick test: Your news source is probably good if is has the following properties:
1. charges a subscription
2. clearly and prominently lists biases, philosophical leanings and conflicts of interest
3. lists the real names of senior editors, journalists and authors
4. the professional qualifications of said individuals are available to see
With very, very few exceptions, any good news source will pass this short set of tests. Facebook fails every one of them.
Re: (Score:2)
"I'll bet you're great fun at parties."
Re: (Score:2)
You're looking at this in a very strange way. You shouldn't be evaluating whether Facebook is a good news source, because it's not really the source at all - it's just the messenger.
It'd be like saying you can't trust content you find at a supermarket, because the "NEWS" section at the supermarket doesn't have editors. Sure your conservative-run supermarket might only stock right-wing papers or something - so maybe you can't rely on getting all your news at the super market - but your evaluation of the re
Re: (Score:3)
The Toronto Star lists its philosophical leanings here: https://www.thestar.com/about/... [thestar.com]
Be sure to read all six subpages.
Re: (Score:2)
The Toronto Star is a major newspaper with a circulation level between the Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Afaik, the New York Times famously lacks such a statement, their slogan being "All the news that's fit to print".
But here is the one for the Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
Here is the one for the Wall Street Journal: https://www.wsj.com/articles/a... [wsj.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Problem is that the "not news" on Facebook is free to be far more clickbaity and compelling than real news. In comparison to the caricatures and fantasy worlds that fake news presents, real news is boring.
Look at how popular stories and videos with phrases like "X DESTROYS Y" or "A gets SCHOOLED by B" are.
People looking for news are often bored rather than hoping to be enlightened. Again, that's why celebrity gossip is so popular.
Seems reasonable (Score:2)
Why would anyone volunteer to adjudicate their users' posts? You'd either have to pay me to do that, or it would have to be about topics that I give enough fucks about to do it for free. Unless there are a lot of ads being sold targeted at Australian users, I wouldn't think Australian politics would be worth Facebook caring about.
I can't even always be bothered to use my Slashdot mod points, and I mostly like this website. But if I had to work here? Fuck that, I'm not working in my spare time. Put me on th
Easy solution: jail their execs (Score:2)
Start with six month terms for the first violation, one year for the second, and max it out at five years in jail for all FB execs after five violations.
They will suddenly care.
And don't give them bail during the trials.
Compromise (Score:3)
A compromise would be to add a heading note, something like:
"NOTICE: the following item contains false information related to [insert topic] according to [insert gov't agency]. Facebook is not confirming or denying this claim."
Marking is usually less controversial than outright removal.
Re: (Score:1)
Some countries are picky about. Regardless of the merit of the rules, when in Rome you have to cater to Rome's rules or be booted out.
Re: (Score:1)
My suggestion merely reports that a gov't agency claimed something is fake news, it doesn't verify nor back it. That's better than outright removal, which may be what happens if decent compromises cannot be found.
Re: (Score:1)
You've ably supported the side you oppose.
I'm not Australian (Score:3)
but it sounds like one political party is speculating what another party might do if they are elected, and the latter is complaining it's defacto fake news to speculate.
This is pretty much the normal order of things in elections, and everyday discourse for that matter, throughout the world. Social media can't fix that, there is nothing to fix.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Before social media such claims would have been relayed to the public by journalists and rightly questioned and debunked. The other side would usually be given right of reply too. So while lying was of course common it wasn't nearly as effective as it is now that there is no-one to challenge it.
The other problem is that we have reached a point where the assumption is that the journalists are lying too. Everyone is lying, everything is fake news. Just decide what you want to be true and believe it, at least
Re: (Score:2)
but it sounds like one political party is speculating what another party might do if they are elected
No. This was one political party saying something and another converting it to hyperbole and falsehoods while turning the rhetoric up to 11.
When the coalition was called out on it they changed their tune saying there's no guarantee that they won't tax inheritance and therefore we aren't lying, which is just fucking stupid.
So (Score:2)
Publishing user content other parts of the world?
Different messages for different nations?
Sensationalist headlines at their best! (Score:2)
"Facebook says it was 'not our role' to remove fake news during Australian election" is a completely different statement than "Facebook has declared it is not 'our role to remove content that one side of a political debate considers to be false'".
Please put down your pitchforks.