Too Little, Too Late: Facebook's Oversight Board Won't Launch Until 'Late Fall' (techcrunch.com) 104
Facebook has announced that the limp "Oversight Board" intended to help make difficult content and policy decisions will not launch until "late fall," which is to say, almost certainly after the election. You know, the election everyone is worried Facebook's inability to police itself will serious affect. From a report: On Twitter, the board explained that as much as it would like to "officially begin our task of providing independent oversight of Facebook's content decisions," it regrets that it will be unable to do so for some time. "Our focus is on building a strong institution that will deliver concrete results over the long term." That sounds well enough, but for many, the entire point of creating the oversight board -- which has been in the offing since late 2018 -- was to equip Facebook for the coming presidential election, which promises to be something of a hot one.
Too little, too late! (Score:1, Flamebait)
What's the dirt? (Score:1, Troll)
Re: Too little, too late! (Score:2)
Wanna bet it will all fall into place on Wednesday, right after the election on Tuesday?
I suspect Zuckerberg is concerned about missteps in 'oversight' that can be used to claim election interference... I suspect the risk is too great.
Boohooo (Score:1)
The woke mob's demands have not been met! Facebook must be destroyed!
Thought police (Score:5, Insightful)
It is very disappointing that Facebook won't have their oversight in place until fall.
How will Americans know who to vote for without corporations telling us what to think?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How will Americans know who to vote for without corporations telling us what to think?
Idk, their pastors?
Re: (Score:2)
The idea is to police fraud. Why are you pro-fraud?
Re: (Score:2)
Sure.
Sure it is.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The idea is to police fraud.
How much money/property did they cheat you of? None? Then it's not fraud. It's political speech. The most highly protected type. It doesn't have to be right or wrong, true or false. It is only intended to sway your opinion.
Re:Thought police (Score:4, Interesting)
It's fraudulent if they're microtargeting their messages - and sending different, contradictory messages to different groups. All Facebook needs to do to be on the level is to disallow targeting of political ads. Keep running them, but only allow targeting based on broad demographic bases.
Re: (Score:2)
Disclosure: I despise zuck and facebook. but i think they're in the right here.
This fake news/propaganda stuff is the ultimate shit-test for a democracy. If people are so easily manipulated and gullible that corporations are now responsible for curating content to protect people from having to employ critical thinking and forming their own opinions; then we're well and truly fucked.
Further, why should political ads/speech be singled out as different from advertising or anything else? It's a very fine line
Re: (Score:2)
Further, why should political ads/speech be singled out as different from advertising or anything else?
But it is. Political speech vs commercial speech. The former is very highly protected. The latter, less so. And more regulated as well.
If anything things like Reddit's recent crackdown are far worse
Yeah. And an argument (albeit a weak one) might be made that Reddit's curation of comments and groups steps over the line into commercial speech. Since they are capturing eyeballs and preparing markets for their banner ads.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not what fraud means.
define:colloquial (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
colloquial:
Even colloquial speech differentiates between lying and fraud. Most people understand the difference.
Fraud is a crime. Microtargeting is not a crime. It is not illegal to say different things to different people.
If you don't like liars and micro-targeters then don't vote for them. Feel free to convince others to do the same. But you have no right to silence them, and corporations should not be in the business of arbitrating what is "true".
Stop expecting Facebook to do your thinking for you.
As Trump suppo
Re: (Score:1)
Why is this bad? If there is a party that does this, perhaps it should be exposed. Provide proof and I'll vote for the other party - oh wait, both parties do it.
Or a nice, bright red flashing message that says (Score:2)
How would folks feel if they not only knew this was happening, but knew it was happening to them?
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone who thinks realized that they're targeted. It doesn't occur to the rest.
Re: (Score:2)
It's fraudulent if they're microtargeting their messages - and sending different, contradictory messages to different groups.
No, it's not. They are allowed to tell you anything they want in order to sway your opinion. Fraud is about making misrepresentations to deprive you of money or property.
Is it fraud if a party conducts a public opinion survey but does so through a polling group that specializes in targeting surveys at certain demographic groups? And then presents the results of those surveys as an accurate representation of public sentiment? No. It's bullshit ethics, but not a chargeable offense.
Re: (Score:1)
There are degrees. Push polling - disguised as general interest polls - is fraudulent. They're telling you they want your opinion, but they're actually trying to feed you what they want your opinion to be.
Yes, they're allowed to tell you anything they want, but Facebook doesn't have to make it easy for them. And in a pre-microtargeting world, it was possible to see what they were telling people. In 2016, we didn't find out until way too late that Russian operatives pretending to be Black Lives Matter ac
Re: (Score:2)
n 2016, we didn't find out until way too late that Russian operatives pretending to be Black Lives Matter activists were telling black voters to sit out the election. Masquerading as BLM groups was fraudulent.
So? Any black voter that actually sat out the election because someone claiming to be from BLM said to do so is an idiot. That's basically the entire modus operandi of Marketing in general, to claim some affiliation that isn't accurate and use it to push an idea on you that isn't true. "Hi. Your [neighbor/best friend/respected authority figure] here. Have you gotten your own iShiny 2020 yet? Everyone else has."
Any white teen in their mom's basement can claim to be a BLM activist. It's unethical, but not ill
Re: (Score:2)
I'll grant you the "push an idea on you that isn't true" part. But fraudulently impersonating someone you'd trust to do it is not "Marketing in general". Not that they wouldn't like to do that - it's just that most legitimate outlets won't let them do it. But Facebook will. So, is your argument that, because marketing wants to manipulate you by any means possible, it's okay for Facebook to make that easy for them?
We, the Facebook users, actually have some power to affect their behavior. And apparently,
Re: (Score:2)
If you really believe that I have a bridge to sell you.
If you don't actually believe that I hear the Ministry of Truth is still hiring.
Re: Thought police (Score:1)
Oh, the IDEA! Wonder what the reality will look like when, oh, let's just say Biden is called a liar for claiming Obama administration didn't put children in cages at the border? Think the Democrats will just accept that indictment?
Re: (Score:1)
Blah blah Biden blah blah
I give two shits about Biden. I've said before I don't think he can beat Trump. I hope I'm wrong, though. As bad as he would be, he'd be preferable to his orangeness.
Re:Thought police (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That's what political parties are for.
Re: Thought police (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Content Generators (Score:2)
Maybe someone can help me understand the hysteria around Facebook and the election. I know, "people are stupid" will be the popular answer. However, what's the difference between Facebook and CNN, NBC, FOX, etc? It's all content generated by someone. Whether that content is liberal, conservative, opinion or any other type of composition makes no difference. People will consume what they want and any attempt to try to squelch that, by Facebook or anyone else, is troubling.
Re: (Score:1)
Militant optimism. The categorical and extremely belligerent inability to admit that maybe the average person isn't wonderful. That voters get the candidates they ask for. That Douglas Adams was correct about what having a universal translator would do. That "never again" has happened again many, many times.
Have you seen the ads for the anti-depressant booster with people putting smiley face plates in front of themselves? These are paid commercials, on television, unashamedly saying that expressing sadness
Re:Content Generators (Score:5, Insightful)
Facebook ads can be 'hidden' from the media - or others who would fact check or place them in context. Targeted ads can be seen by only the selected groups - and I suppose, people masquerading as a member of a different group in order to attempt to monitor them.
In any case, this is utterly unlike CNN, NBC, FOX, etc., who do not simply turn over their platforms to display phony ads disguised to look like news articles, etc. And people don't consume 'what they want' on Facebook. They consume what they want out of a pre-selected (by Facebook) list of items - that either thir advertisers pay for you to see - or their algorithm chooses in order to keep you 'engaged' - which too often translates as 'outraged'.
This shit is not healthy for a functioning democracy - and just because the tech makes it possible, and we have chosen not to regulate it pretty much at all, doesn't make it a good thing.
Re: (Score:2)
I tend to agree with what you are saying but let me play devil's advocate. You say "this is utterly unlike CNN, NBC, FOX, etc., who do not simply turn over their platforms to display phony ads disguised to look like news articles, etc." First, targeted ads are on nearly every website, including the big news organization sites. Some of the ads also look like news articles but they are click bait. The website owner typically does not control the ads I see nor would they know if they are fake or not. Next, in
Re: (Score:1)
The (in) tolerant left is not our mommy nor do we want it to be.
Re: (Score:2)
And your posts make you sound like someone with no stake in the game, who's fine with the results of all this manipulation - possibly because you believe money ought to rule... From a practical standpoint, deciding what's important or correct becomes nearly impossible in a media environment that makes no such distinctions - and hence has no trusted sources.
And whether it makes me sound like a "nanny" (ignoring your attempt to tar me as effeminiate or whatever you think "nanny" implies), what I am is tired
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook is an advertising platform that uses social interaction as the reason to get eyeballs to view the ads sold.
CNN is an advertising platform that uses journalism with a strong politically-left tilt as the reason to get eyeballs to view the ads sold.
Fox News is an advertising platform that uses journalism with a politically-right tilt as the reason to get eyeballs to view the ads sold.
All are ad platforms, they are simply using different content to harness eyeballs to sell ads.
Re: (Score:1)
CNN is in no way a legitimate news organization. It's a purely leftist propaganda mill staffed by leftist shills who call themselves journalists.
The last time CNN was main-stream was when Bobbie Batista was an anchor there.
Re: (Score:3)
So what you're saying is that CNN is NOT about selling advertisement? They hire and broadcast news out of the goodness of their heart?
You are so naive. CNN, Fox, ABC, MSNBC, CBS, MTV, NBC, HGTV - pretty much every channel or network survives by selling advertisement. They have different things to catch eyeballs, but they all survive the same way Facebook does - by selling ads.
And as far as the main product goes? It's stated here all the time. If you're getting it "for free" - then YOU are the product.
Too much money to be made (Score:5, Funny)
Is basically what they are telling us. "Once we have swept up all that sweet sweet electioneering cash over the next 4 months we'll start to think about it."
Anyone who thinks Facebook is "acquiescing to the woke mob" really is missing their intentions, it's pure profit off of conflict. Zuckerberg certainly has his beliefs but the moral viewpoints of a billionaire is as good a barometer of anything as what my cat thinks, and I would probably trust my cat more.
Re: (Score:2)
If there's money to be made, Facebook can roll out the changes in a single sprint if they wanted to. We see all sorts of stuff changing in Facebook every week that most certainly took less than 4 years to implement.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Simpler explanation. By starting later in the election cycle they can do whatever they want and there isn't enough time to appeal their blatant election interference to a real court of law before the election. Facebook and the other big tech companies like to implement their major changes for a market with enough time to impact the election and not enough time before the election to appeal it through the local court system. They've been using this court tactic to manipulate elections worldwide over the last
Wielding Tomato Shield (Score:3)
OK, confused moderate here, and yeah, maybe this should be in the Poll section, but remind me which side Facebook will deliver the win for?
Re:Wielding Tomato Shield (Score:5, Insightful)
Whichever side is paying more.
Re: (Score:3)
The same as the voting machine manufacturers.
In this case I suspect that the Democrats will pay more to *lose* this election, because they don't want to be handed this clusterfuck and have to do the work to attempt to fix it.
Re: (Score:2)
They sure picked the right candidate for that.
Then again, so did the GOP.
Re: (Score:2)
4 years ago the 'theory' was that Democrats were trying to lose so they could be seen as heroes after Trump screwed everything up.
It seems every 4 years there's theories of Democrats, a political entity that's been around for well over a century, are purposefully trying to make themselves useless, every single election, for some reason or another.
You'd think someone would investigate that tendency eventually.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't really think they intend to lose. It just seems like after Obama they don't have the chutzpah to try and put a winning candidate on the main stage. It's like tossing the first vaguely African American looking dude at the podium took the wind out of their sales on risk and now they're ready to just hold the line and put the most boring, bland, useless person they can find out there just so they don't get accused of trying to rabble rouse.
Re: (Score:1)
which side Facebook will deliver the win for?
The DNC/GOP side. They'll still get their 95%, so it's all good.
Re: (Score:1)
OK, confused moderate here, and yeah, maybe this should be in the Poll section, but remind me which side Facebook will deliver the win for?
You're missing the point.
Facebook and social media of a similar persuasion provide a cultural echo-chamber for users whereby misinformation and disinformation are both ampflified and spread rapidly to ignorant audiences around the globe.
Malevolent state actors can and will take advantage of this situation to make dumb gullible people believe crazy bullshit that is actively harmful to everyone's social welfare. That is the bottom line. Anyone in favor of that as our status quo is decidedly an extremist.
Re: Wielding Tomato Shield (Score:2)
Facebook and social media of a similar persuasion provide a cultural echo-chamber for users whereby misinformation and disinformation are both ampflified and spread rapidly to ignorant audiences around the globe.
One, you can't stop this. It's the price to pay for open communication between people. You can't have one without the other.
Two, the curating by the tech companies that do it is politically (heavily) biased. Truth is being silenced regularly.
Three, every censorship tool will be abused, sooner than l
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Then you don't know how Doubleclick and Google place ads on the cable news web sites. You and I can go to CNN.com and we'll see dramatically different political ads depending on our browsing and commenting history (and no, you're not really anonymous when you post as AC).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Facebook may not 'deliver a win', but they allow themselves be used by those willing to lie to deliver the lie. Whether that translates into a win or not, it certainly does not translate into an informed electorate. Just ask the Black Lives Matter activists that were told "'we're all gonna sit out 2016 - you should too" by their fellow Russian BLM compatriots.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Practice What U Preach (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone who has an issue with FB and is trying to get them to change, need to stop using as well.
That would be stupid. I like my nose where it is, thanks.
No sign ins, delete from your mobile devices, and get your family & friends to abstain.
I'd rather get my friends and family to use ad blockers so that I can stay in touch with them via Fb and yet not have them exposed to paid adverliements.
Don't just rely on advertisers when YOU are the actual commodiy being sold.
I am? Facebook is engaging in human trafficking? Someone should alert the FBI.
Re: (Score:2)
As we used to say about Hotmail, "When the service is free you're not the customer, you're the product."
Re: (Score:2)
As we used to say about Hotmail, "When the service is free you're not the customer, you're the product."
They're not selling you. They're selling information about you, which if you are motivated and clever is false anyway. If they sold you, you'd know, because you'd be a slave (or lion chow or whatever.)
Re: (Score:2)
if you are motivated and clever
Which describes an extreme minority of people . . .
Re: (Score:2)
So does "slashdotter"
Re: Practice What U Preach (Score:2)
As blockers block sponsored content inside Facebook? Fascinating, do explain how that works...
Re: (Score:2)
What are you, new? Sponsored content on Facebook is marked. It's easy to filter. I bought an Android app for a dollar that blocks ads and lets me use messenger. I have free stuff that does it installed on my desktop box, but I forget what it is (and it's in storage.) The app is not very good, but aside from the early days when it would occasionally miss one, it has long been 100% accurate at blocking sponsored content.
I do see some unpaid sponsored content occasionally, but due to the nature of the groups I
Air attack (Score:1)
Are there any advertisers left on BookFace? (Score:3, Insightful)
FB's lack of ability to actually control/moderate/do any kind of oversight seems to be the final push on the toilet handle, just before enough water to start the flush.
PAC payments to FB for whatever evil they're about to commit for the 2020 elections seems to be the only incoming cash...
Re:Are there any advertisers left on BookFace? (Score:5, Informative)
You don't seem to have a very strong handle on reality. FB gets most of their revenue from small businesses with hyper local advertising. My wife uses it for her business, and gets most of her new clients from it. The big guys are a drop in the ocean for FB.
The PACs to be truly worried about are the traditional news outlets that are actively lying to push the Democrats agenda. They were just denigrating Mount Rushmore, and then called our President a liar for saying they were denigrating Mount Rushmore. At least you can counter a misleading FB post with another FB post, or even a comment on the misleading one.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Pointing out that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were slaveowners is not 'denigrating Mount Rushmore'. It's rounding out a bit of history that most of us were never taught - and that is deeply meaningful to others of us - say, the ones whose forebears came here on slave ships. And just because I think that's not the end of the world doesn't mean I want Mount Rushmore or the Washington Monument taken down. I don't have a horse in that game, and if you want to teach your kids about the cherry tree
Re: (Score:3)
1 to attack the reputation of
2 to deny the importance or validity of
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't see the reporting in question, but it would be curious if this fact was mentioned in this context (Trump party at Mt. Rushmore). I would want to ask what the purpose of reporting that fact in this story was. If the answer was to "put the event in perspective", that raises further questions, like "for what purpose?" It may be a timely and clever remark, but it seems out of place until we (as a country, not just the loudest of us) conclude that the net value of Jefferson and Washington is not wort
Re: Are there any advertisers left on BookFace? (Score:3)
Pointing out that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were slaveowners is not 'denigrating Mount Rushmore'. It's rounding out a bit of history that most of us were never taught - and that is deeply meaningful to others of us - say, the ones whose forebears came here on slave ships.
WTF third-world school system did you go to? Every US History course/book that covers the revolution has mentioned that Jefferson, Washington owned slaves.
Who do you believe was unaware that Washington/Jefferson owned slaves before the CNN reporter pointed it out?
BTW, the land under the CNN hq in Atlanta was 'stolen' from Native Americans, only NYC was paid for, $24 and some blankets as I recall...
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, a lot of American history is built on shaky foundations. I'm all for a general understanding of that - but not for tearing it all down. If only because it plays right into the hands of those who would not see the forest for the politically correct trees.
In any case, I'm old, so my 'third world' school system was a fancy suburban public system on the Philadelphia Main Line that never mentioned the slaves. Maybe things are looking up. Still, I'd bet that your 'Every US History' book still mentions th
Re: (Score:1)
If you weren't taught these people owned slaves, and that at the time it wasn't considered abnormal, go back and slap your teachers.
Then slap your parents for not looking after your education.
By modern standards, it was horrible.
But so is 99.999% of history.
We evolve, we get better.
That's the fucking point.
Not Everybody (Score:2)
I don't give a fuck what is said on Facebook.
The "everybody" mentioned in the description is every Karen who hates President Trump and wants to talk to the FB manager.
Yes snowflake, you are the Karens of 2020.
If you don't want to see it, don't look.
Re: (Score:2)
Your grip on how social media can be manipulated is stunning.
Re: (Score:1)
Ohhh, let me be the one to say it! (Score:2)
They didn't make this an urgent thing? Must be an oversight.
FBs russian investors have spoken (Score:2)
FB and twitter have russian oligarch investors.
They have spoken.
Journalists are mad (Score:2)
Journalists are mad they won't get their censorship in time for the election.
How dare people get information from sources other than the very same journalists that demand everyone else get censored! No conflict of interest here at all.
Birth of Dictatorship in USA Coming late FALL! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
It's interesting on the left side of things, where most LGBTQ(?) live by the philosophy of their community being a spectrum of sexual orientation/identification actually practice the ideology of "if you're not completely with us, you're against us."
Trump (Score:3)
Okay then.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, are we still pretending that Russian bots are the reason Trump won rather than Hillary Clinton being an awful candidate?
Okay then.
No, we're still pretending that the election was decided by a single specific reason in isolation from everything else.
Don't allow an advertising agency... (Score:2)
Nuke facebook from orbit... (Score:1)
Fucking Sheep (Score:1)
It's the ELECTION. Don't blame facebook. Blame yourself. If you can't be bothered to educate yourself prior to voting YOU'RE the problem.
Don't BE THE PROBLEM.
E
Too much, too soon. (Score:1)