Facebook Blames 'Technical Issues" for Its Broken Promise to the US Congress (themarkup.org) 37
Facebook is blaming "technical issues" for its broken promise to the U.S. Congress to stop recommending political groups to its users, reports The Markup:
Facebook made the pledge once in October, in the run-up to the presidential election, and then falsely reiterated it had taken the step after rioters overtook the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, a deadly event partially coordinated by users on the platform.
The Markup first revealed that Facebook was still recommending groups...in an investigation published on Jan. 19. Examining the top 100 groups recommended to roughly 1,900 users on our Citizen Browser panel, we identified 12 as political — including groups with posts calling for violence against lawmakers, spreading election-related conspiracy theories, and coordinating logistics for attending the rally that led to the Capitol riot.
Citizen Browser is a data-driven project examining the choices Facebook makes about what content to amplify.
A week after our report, U.S. senator Ed Markey sent a letter to the company, demanding an explanation, and on Feb. 10, Facebook replied in a letter to Markey. "The issue stemmed from technical issues in the designation and filtering process that allowed some Groups to remain in the recommendation pool when they should not have been," Facebook said in its response. "Since becoming aware of this issue, we have worked quickly to update our processes, and we continue this work to improve our designation and filtering processes to make them as accurate and effective as possible...." Following publication of our story, recommendations for political groups dropped precipitously, as our Citizen Browser panelist data shows...
The "technical issues" meant that, from Election Day on Nov. 3 to the Jan. 6 Capitol Hill riots to President Biden's inauguration on Jan. 20, Facebook was still recommending political groups to its users. Our analysis found that Facebook particularly pushed political groups to more conservative users... Facebook's own internal research has consistently pointed to the danger posed by political groups on its platform. Researchers warned Facebook in a 2016 internal report that 64 percent of new members of extremist groups joined because of the social network's recommendations, according to The Wall Street Journal.
The Markup first revealed that Facebook was still recommending groups...in an investigation published on Jan. 19. Examining the top 100 groups recommended to roughly 1,900 users on our Citizen Browser panel, we identified 12 as political — including groups with posts calling for violence against lawmakers, spreading election-related conspiracy theories, and coordinating logistics for attending the rally that led to the Capitol riot.
Citizen Browser is a data-driven project examining the choices Facebook makes about what content to amplify.
A week after our report, U.S. senator Ed Markey sent a letter to the company, demanding an explanation, and on Feb. 10, Facebook replied in a letter to Markey. "The issue stemmed from technical issues in the designation and filtering process that allowed some Groups to remain in the recommendation pool when they should not have been," Facebook said in its response. "Since becoming aware of this issue, we have worked quickly to update our processes, and we continue this work to improve our designation and filtering processes to make them as accurate and effective as possible...." Following publication of our story, recommendations for political groups dropped precipitously, as our Citizen Browser panelist data shows...
The "technical issues" meant that, from Election Day on Nov. 3 to the Jan. 6 Capitol Hill riots to President Biden's inauguration on Jan. 20, Facebook was still recommending political groups to its users. Our analysis found that Facebook particularly pushed political groups to more conservative users... Facebook's own internal research has consistently pointed to the danger posed by political groups on its platform. Researchers warned Facebook in a 2016 internal report that 64 percent of new members of extremist groups joined because of the social network's recommendations, according to The Wall Street Journal.
Isn't this the same tune every time? (Score:5, Insightful)
If there aren't any repercussions, any excuse will do.
Re: (Score:2)
There's always "technical issues". Otherwise everyone would be a software engineer.
Re: (Score:3)
If there aren't any repercussions, any excuse will do.
What repercussions? The problem is that any actual repercussion from the government would breach the first amendment. It's one thing for Facebook to offer to remove something that isn't actually illegal, and quite another for the government to punish them for not removing it. The former is a a private company doing what they want with their platform. The latter is the government attempting do control speech.
Facebook and Zuckerberg can go eat and entire truckload of pre-bagged dicks, but likewise I don't wan
Re: (Score:1)
They are enjoying protections issued by the government.
Unfortunately, it is just a blanket protection and it doesn't matter if it is abused.
Re: (Score:2)
And they should enjoy it. Fundamentally they aren't the ones creating the content. If I don't like a football team I don't go and burn down the stadium they played in.
Re: (Score:2)
If someone were using a stadium to launch attacks on other people, I would absolutely burn down the stadium.
Facebook is deliberately a safe haven for people who spew vitriol, hatred, misinformation, lies, and idiocy, simply because it makes money.
Burn it to the fucking ground.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Here I sit in America, and Americans are upset the government isn't doing enough to punish free citizens for making political recommendations.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It promotes the rallies of who we claim to be the all-powerful opposition born to challenge the horrible "insert dictator name here" while in fact being some shithead on our payroll polling under 1%. It sabotages the rallies of the real opposition which does not fit our agenda. It complies with "horrible dictator takedown requests" for the opposition we do not approve of and it ALWAYS HAS TECHNICAL ISSUES regarding the material of the opposition we promote.
It even has s
Re: (Score:1)
where I live it seems race is issue, certain groups are given pass to loot and form criminal gangs while politicians say the criminal gangs are complex issue (no they're not) and that looting is a form of repatriation (yes the local BLM leaders affirmed that too)
I mean it's technically correct (Score:3)
The idea of being able to perfectly target these posts on a platform with the volume of Facebook is a fantasy. What they promised was a technical impossibility so technically they are correct when they blame it on "technical issues". :-)
Re: I mean it's technically correct (Score:1)
Patrick: Is PEBKAC a technical issue?
Re: (Score:2)
While a decent argument, it breaks against
Re: (Score:2)
It wasn't meant to be a serious argument, hence the smiley on the end of my post ;-)
technical issues (Score:2)
We had technical issues: technically, what we told you was a pack of lies.
Why not just say "reasons"? (Score:2)
If you're following this meme of not stating the actual issue, but only saying that there was an issue, in a way that implies you just stated the actual issue, without actually saying anything, ... just go all the way to its logical conclusion:
"Technical issues" was the day before yesterday. ;)
"Security reasons" was yesterday.
"Reasons" is today.
("Evidence [youtube.com]" is tomorow.
Excuses completely hollow. (Score:2, Insightful)
I can buy that their automated filters only catch 90 percent of FB groups titled “worship Trump attack congress fake news maga stop the ste
Re: (Score:2)
I'm perfectly happy to hear speech I disagree with, but plotting violent overthrow is beyond what I'm willing to tolerate, and my vote will be an expression of that. Trump just got acquitted by the senate republicans. I'm getting older and more conservative with each passing year. I was starting to vote more and more republican. They key word t
Re: (Score:2)
No I wasn't cheering for those white trash/hillbilly low life, I think the capitol polices were wusses and should have made clear boundaries, shooting the ones that crossed it.
If it were real violent overthrow though, the rioters in the building would have had guns. They didn't. So all the media hype about "overthrow" and "insurrection" is just that, sensationalist hype. Disorderly rioters who got carried away and out of control is all it was.
So calm your tits,
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, some of them did have guns, if I remember correctly. They just didn't fire them, which indicates that they had a shred of self-control and realized that they were right up at the edge of a true bloodbath. That doesn't excuse the whole sorry affair. And it doesn't excuse the leader that incited it. Oh, there were pipe bombs as well.
One party responded to this correctly, whil
Re: (Score:2)
No, none of the rioters in the building had guns. Zero. Hilarious you are fixated on my use of the term Fake News, when that's what you are making.
Matter is closed because your mind is.
Re: (Score:2)
They refused help from national guard
WHAT?
Re: (Score:2)
yes fact you can look up in mainstream news, capitol police refused help from national guard and fbi
Yeah, the technical issue is... (Score:2)
In other words - technically (Score:1)
I believe them (Score:2)
Unlike past supposed technical issues that had outcomes consistent with Californian politics, this instance seems like it could go the other way. This may actually be a genuine technical issue.
Newsflash - addicts lie (Score:2)
Believing Facebook when they say they're going to do something that costs them money while benefiting others, is like believing a hard-core junkie when he says he's going to flush his stash and quit cold turkey. FB is as addicted to giving these recommendations, as they hope their users will be to following them.
But unlike a heroin addict who should be given help and support and counseling, Facebook should just be taken out back and shot, or whatever the equivalent of that is in the case of a malevolent cor
Arew we really supposed to believe... (Score:2)
That Facebook doesn't have algorithms to promote content and groups that benefit it and its agenda? Isn't everyone currently being blasted with "content" saying that Section 230 should not be repealed? Are we supposed to assume that a company that runs psychological experiments on unknowing users will in any way abide by its promises?
How is this better? (Score:1)
Roast them slowly over the coals (Score:1)
They're going to stretch this out as long as you let them.
They're hoping it'll be long enough that people just forget about it.
HOLD THEM TO TASK!
Start a series of incremental fines, large ones, levied on a daily basis.