Whistleblower Revels Facebook Misleading The Public

[lewisnotmiller]

My comment was not based on the problems teenage girls may have. It was on the effects of misinformation on things like COVID, vaccines, the Big election lie, Pizzagate, QAnon, etc.

These issues exist on social media as well the Foxs and OANs.

Different arguments.
Facebook has consistently argued that they are not content creators, and what you see is simply the result of individuals all over the world creating content.

However, the way they promote this content is a major consideration.

 

[F1fan]

Sure, but why single out one company? Fox and OAN are as bad and worse. Talking heads like Alex Jones are the bottom of the snake pit.

Agreed. All these companies exploit the fear and insecurities of their audience. And then profit greatly from it. Evil.

 

[exchemist]

My comment was not based on the problems teenage girls may have. It was on the effects of misinformation on things like COVID, vaccines, the Big election lie, Pizzagate, QAnon, etc.

These issues exist on social media as well the Foxs and OANs.

True. My understanding though is that this whistleblower was concerned about the covering up of internal research relating to the kind of ill effects I mentioned, rather than about Faecebook being a vehicle for simple disinformatiion.

 

[ecco]

Because of reach and impact.
90% of Facebook users aren't in the US, and measures of how Facebook algorithms impact on content and perception are actually worse in non-US countries due to the relatively lower levels of content checking which occurs.

OAN suggest their viewership is a couple of hundred thousand (which seems ridiculously overstated, but whatever).

Facebook has 2.89 billion active users.

If Facebook sneezes, the world gets a cold.

Since the hearings are being held in this country (USA) let's keep numbers to USA users ` 240,000,000.

Even if they are overwhelmingly the biggest, does it make sense to hold them to standards that other companies are not held to?

 

[ecco]

Yeah...so...I'm not sure where this weird idea came from that we shouldn't disapprove of anything that's not illegal.
I'm quite capable of disapproving of something, even if it is legal.

I never said I approved of what Facebook does or does not do. To me, it is alarming that people can lie about the pandemic and the election with no checks or balances. However, Tucker Carlson reaches far more people than crazy aunt Jenny from Pensacola.

Their style of argument is reminiscent of Phillip Morris.

OK. But would it have done any good to tie the hands of Philip Morris and give free rides to other tobacco companies?

Then let's just give up?

If that's what you want to do - OK.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Since the hearings are being held in this country (USA) let's keep numbers to USA users ` 240,000,000.

Let's not. Why would I simply pretend literally billions of people aren't impacted by this simply because they speak with a different accent?

Even if they are overwhelmingly the biggest, does it make sense to hold them to standards that other companies are not held to?

Of course. This is effectively what things like monopoly laws do. This isn't (or shouldn't be) about targeting Facebook because they are Facebook, and giving everyone else a free pass.
But a law targeted at multi-national companies of larger than USD$50b annually would have the same effect. I'm not, incidentally, suggesting that's how a law should be written. I'm merely suggesting that we have all sorts of laws that differentiate groups based on standards. Tax law is the simplest example.

In Australia recently, there was a spat due to new Australian media laws.
Facebook's Australian news ban is a fight the whole world should watch | New Scientist
The laws didn't only impact on Facebook, but because of their model they were the largest impacted company (Google was similarly majorly impacted).
This wasn't a law aimed only at Facebook, but it was aimed at companies with content sharing models.

Whilst I have opinions about other media...and suffice to say I am not a fan of Rupert Murdoch...those are different discussions. The law cannot treat Fox News and Facebook as if they are the same businesses. They are fundamentally different in relation to content creation.
I have no issue with discussions on traditional media standards, and the American First Amendment has been used previously by Fox (as well as NBC, it should be noted, and quite possibly a whole raft of other content creators) to defend themselves against accusations of lying or spreading falsehoods. Whilst there are policies in place, the laws are pretty inadequate in my opinion.
That doesn't defend Facebook, nor suggest that there should be one law to rule them all, though. These are different businesses, and both have a level of responsibility in separating fact from opinion, I believe, or in promoting some content over others.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I never said I approved of what Facebook does or does not do. To me, it is alarming that people can lie about the pandemic and the election with no checks or balances. However, Tucker Carlson reaches far more people than crazy aunt Jenny from Pensacola.

And Facebook reaches far more people than Tucker Carlson, for all he might dream differently. In any case, you're moving away from the point here.
The issue isn't what Jenny from Pensacola says. That is just content, and you can argue about censorship, etc, if you like. The issue is the deliberate promotion of content based on how likely it is to generate outrage and argument (ie. get clicks) based on algorithms.
If Jenny from Pensacola talks a pile of dross, that's bad. If the service she posts it on let's it air, and everyone can see it? I mean...there's a discussion to be had, I guess. But if that company takes her pile of dross and deliberately promotes that over other posts, because they have cleverly designed a system that can predict the level of outrage and clicks it's likely to get? That seems more problematic again.

And the fact that their reach extends across borders. Like...almost ALL the borders...adds to this problem, as does their sheer number of users.
That was one of the issues when Facebook blocked Australian 'media' content. Overnight, and without warning our fire service (for example) lost their most effective way to communicate fire safety information.

OK. But would it have done any good to tie the hands of Philip Morris and give free rides to other tobacco companies?

I'm not talking about giving anyone a free ride, although I get that Zuckerman regularly argues ANY regulation of Facebook is doing that. Phillip Morris was just one of a number of large tobacco companies who funded research in a highly targeted fashion, and then selectively released results to deliberately skew public opinion.
I wouldn't be tying their hands, and allowing the other major players (say...British American Tobacco) off the hook. Instead, any rules, regulations or...as this is...DISCUSSIONS about the topic would include all sizeable companies who can impact in terms of the type of scale required to be part of the discussion.

So...it would be of interest and worth to discuss Google SEO modelling. But sticking to one company based on a current whistleblower story seems a reasonable gambit for a conversation.

If that's what you want to do - OK.

Yeah, because that's what I meant.

 

[ecco]

Let's not. Why would I simply pretend literally billions of people aren't impacted by this simply because they speak with a different accent?

Any American laws would carry no weight in the rest of the world.

Of course. This is effectively what things like monopoly laws do. This isn't (or shouldn't be) about targeting Facebook because they are Facebook, and giving everyone else a free pass.
But a law targeted at multi-national companies of larger than USD$50b annually would have the same effect. I'm not, incidentally, suggesting that's how a law should be written. I'm merely suggesting that we have all sorts of laws that differentiate groups based on standards. Tax law is the simplest example.

Tax law gives vast breaks to the wealthy and to large corporations. Are you sure you want to use that example?

How about some suggestions that could actually be implemented?

 

[ecco]

And Facebook reaches far more people than Tucker Carlson,

Yeah, Facebook does. That's all the recipes and all the puppy pics and all the knitting circles, etc, etc.

Each aunt Jenny's comments reaches a few dozen people. Tucker Carlson's comments reach Millions. Tucker Carlson has more "standing" than aunt Jenny's. What he says is more compelling to more people.

The issue is the deliberate promotion of content based on how likely it is to generate outrage and argument (ie. get clicks) based on algorithms.

Tucker Carlson and Alex Jones's content is far more likely to generate outrage than thousands of aunt Jennys.

In any case, your comments regarding the algorithms are based on what? One woman's testimony? Do you have any insight into the actual workings of facebook algorithms?

But if that company takes her pile of dross and deliberately promotes that over other posts, because they have cleverly designed a system that can predict the level of outrage and clicks it's likely to get? That seems more problematic again.

If true. Which you have not demonstrated.

 

[ecco]

I wouldn't be tying their hands, and allowing the other major players (say...British American Tobacco) off the hook. Instead, any rules, regulations or...as this is...DISCUSSIONS about the topic would include all sizeable companies who can impact in terms of the type of scale required to be part of the discussion.

So then any legislation should impact networks like CBS, FOX, OAN and bloggers/posters like Alex Jones equally. How would you do that? Would you limit Alex Jones to one ten-minute segment daily?

So...it would be of interest and worth to discuss Google SEO modelling. But sticking to one company based on a current whistleblower story seems a reasonable gambit for a conversation.

A gambit for a conversation...OK. That's about all this is doing. I'd be very surprised if Congress can pass anything that could withstand Constitutional scrutiny.

 

[ecco]

Yeah, because that's what I meant.

Give up! OK.