Facebook on PBS Frontline

[Zen Traveler]

On ‎11‎/‎4‎/‎2018 at 10:50 AM, Zen Traveler said:

One of the things from Episode 1 that blew my mind was that not only did Facebook have all the information users provided, even deleted material was kept by the company...To add on to the things I didn't know and would guess most didn't, Facebook actually bought information on it's users from data collectors and sold this information (as well as gave access) to third party advertisers  and data manipulators and this all adds to what came across people's feeds---This is where *stuff* gets sinister...

What's bolded above is what I find really eye-opening.....We haven't even started talking about Episode 2 and that's where it even gets more interesting--Even if you aren't on Facebook realize it is influencing crap all over the world and they are NOT a media outlet as some folks thought prior to them stopping their Newsfeed feature.  Evidently 44% of Americans claimed they got their news from there before it was discontinued. 😳 

[Jeff Matthews]

On 11/4/2018 at 10:50 AM, Zen Traveler said:

Facebook actually bought information on it's users from data collectors and sold this information (as well as gave access) to third party advertisers  and data manipulators and this all adds to what came across people's feeds---This is where *stuff* gets sinister...

Targeted advertising.  You might not like what they are selling.  I might not like what they are selling.  But who are we to tell people they can't have their Alex Jones (or whatever floats their boats)?

[Jeff Matthews]

On 11/4/2018 at 12:40 PM, Zen Traveler said:

I realize that the Klipsch Speaker Forum may not be the place to talk politics but Facebook should be the EXACT place to be able to--If not,  Trolls and Bots win over Humanity...

Trophy quote!  That's the whole point of free speech.  Except I would go one step further than you.  I don't think it is perfectly okay if Facebook allows the proliferation of "fake" news.  If they don't want to allow it, that's okay, too.  Where we differ is that I think you prefer Facebook to decide for its users which news is creditworthy and which is not.

[Zen Traveler]

1 hour ago, Jeff Matthews said:

Targeted advertising.  You might not like what they are selling.  I might not like what they are selling.  But who are we to tell people they can't have their Alex Jones (or whatever floats their boats)?

I agree, but I gather you didn't watch the Documentary? If you aren't interested that is cool and you asked me if Government should do something about this and I said no and that the industry would evolve to do that. The problem with Facebook back then is that more than one entity had their keys to the kingdom and they all were anti-One candidate...In episode 2 they went on to show that these same groups were floating fake news and gaming the system by targeting that material to an exact group of folks along with spreading discontent among others--This was targeted, malicious, and didn't all come from the USA as the investigation explained in the documentary.

1 hour ago, Jeff Matthews said:

Trophy quote!  That's the whole point of free speech.  Except I would go one step further than you.  I don't think it is perfectly okay if Facebook allows the proliferation of "fake" news.  If they don't want to allow it, that's okay, too.  Where we differ is that I think you prefer Facebook to decide for its users which news is creditworthy and which is not.

I gather you meant to say "it was perfectly okay if Facebook allows the proliferation of "fake new." Sure, but that didn't happen. They thought their feature "Newsfeed" was doing exactly that only to find out internally a year later that it was manipulated. There has been a lot of news about that and in the Documentary you can actually see how Zuckerburg reacted on several occasions concluding with him admitting it and trying to rectify his mistakes.

On ‎11‎/‎3‎/‎2018 at 12:12 PM, Jeff Matthews said:

Propaganda is protected speech, subject only to defamation laws which are pretty relaxed when it comes to speech concerning public figures.

Sure. I posted a question earlier along these lines dealing with the Communication and Decency Act and the difference between a media company and others disguising themselves as such and posting on the internet. Evidently those people are protected because of that law and not just "free speech" that NBC couldn't get away with.

 

[Zen Traveler]

On ‎11‎/‎4‎/‎2018 at 10:46 AM, Zen Traveler said:

@Jeff Matthews 13 min 20 seconds in they are discussing The Communications Decency Act section 230 which gave Social Internet companies immunity from being sued for liable and made it different than traditional broadcasters and networks--This lead to the discussion  on the algorithm that directed what Facebook users got in their Newsfeed and it wasn't random and ONLY targeted news/stuff they wanted to hear--THIS is how Fake News got so prevalent and made it seem many outlandish and fake stories had merit because they were being reported from several sources (that later proved to be made up entities).

You may have missed this but what is in bold was what was discussed on the show. {EDIT--This was all happening under Facebook's radar and several major players in FB said they weren't aware of it, even though whistleblowers on the show said they kept trying to get them to notice.}

[Jeff Matthews]

21 minutes ago, Zen Traveler said:

You may have missed this but what is in bold was what was discussed on the show.

I watched both parts of the documentary.

 

Here's the problem:  It can't be solved!

 

You know all the people who fear that since 60% of the people get their news from FB, great caution needs to be taken in allowing FB to control the flow of free speech?  The Communication Decency Act absolves distributors from liability for the conduct of the originators.  This is extremely important if the goal is unfettered access to information.  With unfettered access comes all kinds of "fake" news - from absurd on one extreme, to quite credible (yet false) on the other hand.  There are all points in between.

 

Did you see the expressions in the faces of all of the FB representatives when asked these hard questions?  They were literally bewildered to think that democracy is hanging in the balance of their hands.  Rightly so.  It's a dangerous path, either way you go.

 

 

[Jeff Matthews]

49 minutes ago, Zen Traveler said:

On 11/3/2018 at 12:12 PM, Jeff Matthews said:

Propaganda is protected speech, subject only to defamation laws which are pretty relaxed when it comes to speech concerning public figures.

Sure. I posted a question earlier along these lines dealing with the Communication and Decency Act and the difference between a media company and others disguising themselves as such and posting on the internet. Evidently those people are protected because of that law and not just "free speech" that NBC couldn't get away with.

I realize this FB issue sounds like a case of first impression, but really, it's not.  The internet has allowed cheaper, faster access to more information.  That is all.

 

What was the source before Facebook?  One major source was grocery stores.  The store managers had to decide which products to carry and which to exclude.  There is no doubt much of that decision-making had to be based on content.  The National Enquirer always made the cut.  Everyone was okay with that.  The store wasn't responsible for content; it was just selling products suited to their customers' tastes.

[JJkizak]

1 hour ago, Jeff Matthews said:

I realize this FB issue sounds like a case of first impression, but really, it's not.  The internet has allowed cheaper, faster access to more information.  That is all.

 

What was the source before Facebook?  One major source was grocery stores.  The store managers had to decide which products to carry and which to exclude.  There is no doubt much of that decision-making had to be based on content.  The National Enquirer always made the cut.  Everyone was okay with that.  The store wasn't responsible for content; it was just selling products suited to their customers' tastes.

 

There is an enormous time factor involved with that comparison, facebook news moves in microseconds and the National Enquirer moves in months.

[Jeff Matthews]

Just now, JJkizak said:

 

There is an enormous time factor involved with that comparison, facebook news moves in microseconds and the National Enquirer moves in months.

That is a good point.  However, if success is inversely proportional to how many people see the content, it makes you wonder what we think we are measuring.

[Zen Traveler]

2 hours ago, Jeff Matthews said:

Here's the problem:  It can't be solved!

Yes it can and possibly has given what we've and THEY learned from the documentary. 

Quote

 

You know all the people who fear that since 60% of the people get their news from FB, great caution needs to be taken in allowing FB to control the flow of free speech? 

The point you seem to be missing is that those 44% per documentary/60% your source thought they were getting actual news that other folks were getting and they weren't. What's more, a considerable number of those same people had their information and profile used to target propaganda at them. There were several things going on there and Facebook claims they didn't realize any of it--That was a problem in their business model and it was exploited to such a degree that the Intelligence Agencies looked into it and now there are a dozen Russians being charged with various internet crimes along with a couple of Americans (so far). 

Quote

 

The Communication Decency Act absolves distributors from liability for the conduct of the originators.  This is extremely important if the goal is unfettered access to information.  With unfettered access comes all kinds of "fake" news - from absurd on one extreme, to quite credible (yet false) on the other hand.  There are all points in between.

Sure. If you say so, but the point now is that Facebook did that (spread fake news) unintentionally  and is doing something to try and correct it now....Irony upon ironies is that if we still had access to the other forum I could show where folks, including you used these "fake news" stories to try and bolster your arguments. We spent more time arguing idiotic stuff from those sources instead of actual current events and news. It bothered me so much that before the election I started that "Russia and WikiLeaks" thread which I was able to retrieve prior to it shutting down. Of course some were claiming I was engaging in a conspiracy theory and you asked how did I know hackers didn't break into the other side's servers--Now we actually know the answer to that, but can't really discuss it because it would get political. Short version is there was a major targeted weaponized propaganda campaign by several entities. They figured out how to game the Facebook system and the company didn't realized it till it was too late--That weaponized campaign was to help one candidate over the other and there is no proof to the contrary....Stay tuned as charges are filed and more comes out.

 

Also keep in mind they are an American company and look at what has transpired in Egypt, Tunisia, and the Philippians--Zuckerberg says his mission is to clean up what transpired there and here so I think your contention of "Folks can spread fake news if they want," may be correct, but once it's exposed it shouldn't (and isn't on Facebook any longer) be considered "news." The new dynamic on Facebook is that: 1) There is no longer a Newsfeed. 2) political ads and news sources are confirmed and a disclaimer put on them. This wasn't so before the election so when folks got this kind of crap in their Newsfeed they didn't realize it came from an unreliable source.

 

For example, here is what it says on Face book when you post a link from Breitbart:  Breitbart News Network is a far-right syndicated American news, opinion and commentary website founded in mid-2007 by conservative commentator Andrew Breitbart, who conceived it as "the Huffington Post of the right." Its journalists are widely considered to be ideologically driven, and some of its... content has been called misogynistic, xenophobic, and racist by liberals and many traditional conservatives alike. The site has published a number of falsehoods, conspiracy theories, and intentionally misleading stories.

 

 Infowars was a big contributor before the election and they aren't even allowed on facebook because of this: 

InfoWars is a far-right American conspiracy theory and fake news website.^[14] It was founded in 1999, and is owned by Free Speech Systems LLC.

Talk shows and other content for the site are created primarily in studios at an undisclosed location in an industrial area outside Austin, Texas.^[15] The InfoWars website receives approximately 10 million monthly visits, making its reach greater than some mainstream news websites such as The Economist and Newsweek.^[16][17]

The site has regularly published fake stories which have been linked to harassment of victims.^[a] In February 2018, Alex Jones, the publisher, director and owner of InfoWars, was accused of discrimination and sexually harassing employees.^[24]InfoWars, and in particular Jones, advocate numerous conspiracy theories particularly around purported domestic false flag operations by the U.S. Government (which they allege include the 9/11 attacks and Sandy Hook shootings). InfoWars has issued retractions various times as a result of legal challenges.^[20][21] Jones has also had contentious material removed, or been suspended or banned from various social media websites, including Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Apple.^[25

 

[Jeff Matthews]

1 minute ago, Zen Traveler said:

The point you seem to be missing is that those 44% per documentary/60% your source thought they were getting actual news

Actually, if you want to quote correctly, I think Part 1 said 39%, and Part 2 said 62%.  You do continue to have to watch for these things, even with PBS.  PBS raises some interesting issues, but beware humans are still involved.

[Zen Traveler]

1 hour ago, Jeff Matthews said:

What was the source before Facebook?  One major source was grocery stores.  The store managers had to decide which products to carry and which to exclude.  There is no doubt much of that decision-making had to be based on content.  The National Enquirer always made the cut.  Everyone was okay with that.  The store wasn't responsible for content; it was just selling products suited to their customers' tastes.

You can't equate Facebook to the National Inquirer or Grocery stores. 

 

15 minutes ago, Jeff Matthews said:

17 minutes ago, JJkizak said:

 

There is an enormous time factor involved with that comparison, facebook news moves in microseconds and the National Enquirer moves in months.

That is a good point.  However, if success is inversely proportional to how many people see the content, it makes you wonder what we think we are measuring.

We are talking about measuring influence and power. Facebook does not want to be known for what that documentary exposed (spreading Fake News and having 3rd parties run wild with their algorithms to influence elections around the world) and that is a step in the correct direction. There are other Social Media companies out there trying to get market share including the one that the Synagogue shooter used. When they are exposed for what they are they will cease to exist and get financial support...Others will clean up their act and try to be there for the long haul. No Government interference and the people who use these services will become more informed.

[Jeff Matthews]

6 minutes ago, Zen Traveler said:

For example, here is what it says on Face book when you post a link from Breitbart:  Breitbart News Network is a far-right syndicated American news, opinion and commentary website founded in mid-2007 by conservative commentator Andrew Breitbart, who conceived it as "the Huffington Post of the right." Its journalists are widely considered to be ideologically driven, and some of its... content has been called misogynistic, xenophobic, and racist by liberals and many traditional conservatives alike. The site has published a number of falsehoods, conspiracy theories, and intentionally misleading stories.

Isn't it interesting how FB has taken on an editorial role despite its prior mission to avoid engaging in editorialism for the sake of an open network to connect the world?  

 

Here's the thing:  I think the "like" button is like a morphine pump.  People will get what they like - over and over - as much as they want.  They don't care about disclaimers from the MSM.

[Zen Traveler]

8 minutes ago, Jeff Matthews said:

Actually, if you want to quote correctly, I think Part 1 said 39%, and Part 2 said 62%.  You do continue to have to watch for these things, even with PBS.  PBS raises some interesting issues, but beware humans are still involved.

I remember 44% but will go back and see if I can find your numbers. I could've missed it and they could be talking about several different things.,

[oldtimer]

11 minutes ago, Zen Traveler said:

Facebook did that (spread fake news) unintentionally 

No.  Not unintentionally.  They just didn't care.  For a dramatization of "they just didn't care" albeit on a different subject, see MST 3K "Attack of the Eye Creatures."

[oldtimer]

15 minutes ago, Zen Traveler said:

For example, here is what it says on Face book when you post a link from Breitbart:  Breitbart News Network is a far-right syndicated American news, opinion and commentary website founded in mid-2007 by conservative commentator Andrew Breitbart, who conceived it as "the Huffington Post of the right." Its journalists are widely considered to be ideologically driven, and some of its... content has been called misogynistic, xenophobic, and racist by liberals and many traditional conservatives alike. The site has published a number of falsehoods, conspiracy theories, and intentionally misleading stories.

 

 Infowars was a big contributor before the election and they aren't even allowed on facebook because of this: 

InfoWars is a far-right American conspiracy theory and fake news website.^[14] It was founded in 1999, and is owned by Free Speech Systems LLC.

Talk shows and other content for the site are created primarily in studios at an undisclosed location in an industrial area outside Austin, Texas.^[15] The InfoWars website receives approximately 10 million monthly visits, making its reach greater than some mainstream news websites such as The Economist and Newsweek.^[16][17]

The site has regularly published fake stories which have been linked to harassment of victims.^[a] In February 2018, Alex Jones, the publisher, director and owner of InfoWars, was accused of discrimination and sexually harassing employees.^[24]InfoWars, and in particular Jones, advocate numerous conspiracy theories particularly around purported domestic false flag operations by the U.S. Government (which they allege include the 9/11 attacks and Sandy Hook shootings). InfoWars has issued retractions various times as a result of legal challenges.^[20][21] Jones has also had contentious material removed, or been suspended or banned from various social media websites, including Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Apple.^[25

 

What do both of those have in common?  Research the money behind them.  Mercer ring a bell?

[oldtimer]

4 minutes ago, Jeff Matthews said:

Isn't it interesting how FB has taken on an editorial role despite its prior mission to avoid engaging in editorialism for the sake of an open network to connect the world?  

 

Here's the thing:  I think the "like" button is like a morphine pump.  People will get what they like - over and over - as much as they want.  They don't care about disclaimers from the MSM.

For the sake of profit is the correction needed here.  Now the editorial role is for what?  The same thing.  It isn't interesting, it is expected of any business.

[Jeff Matthews]

5 minutes ago, Zen Traveler said:

I remember 44% but will go back and see if I can find your numbers. I could've missed it and they could be talking about several different things.,

Well, if I'm wrong, I hope you don't feel you wasted your time.  I'm not going to go back and look, but I recall those numbers mentioned.

[Jeff Matthews]

1 minute ago, oldtimer said:

For the sake of profit is the correction needed here.  Now the editorial role is for what?  The same thing.  It isn't interesting, it is expected of any business.

I know, but it's a funny paradox.  The editorial role is to claim responsibility, while relying on a disclaimer.

[oldtimer]

Who is the left?