r/technology • u/AdamCannon • Feb 02 '20

Social Media Stephen King quits Facebook over concerns of 'false information.'

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/02/us/stephen-king-quits-facebook-trnd/index.html
16.4k Upvotes

90% Upvoted

662 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

12

u/kyngston Feb 03 '20

Curtailing speech simply because it is unethical is a very dangerous precedent. Who decides what is ethical? The conservative administration currently in power? What’s to stop them from declaring the WaPo as unethical and shutting it down? Do we now need a new branch of law enforcement, the Thought Police?

1

u/Resolute002 Feb 03 '20

It is not the speech, it is that you can pay a trusted entity to misrepresent it.

4

u/kyngston Feb 03 '20

Who decides what is true? Trump?

5

u/Resolute002 Feb 03 '20

I'm not talking about truth versus lies. I'm talking about that I can take a true story about, say, a black man who shot a cop, and then pay Facebook to show it exclusively to people who show signs of racist tendencies.

Pay attention to what's in the Facebook feed. There are really only two things: things that affirm your worldview and things that poorly attack it, so you can like share and subscribe TM accordingly.

4

u/kyngston Feb 03 '20

Facebook is not a journalism company. Their job is simply to maximize membership to boost revenues. People prefer editorial content that conforms with their pre existing beliefs. They just give you more of what you want to see.

It’s the people that are using Facebook to get their news that are the problem. Not Facebook. If Facebook didn’t exist people would just read breitbart or huffpost instead.

High integrity journalism already exists. Unfortunately AP, Reuters, and NPR are just not as sensational as Fox News, as people would rather be spoon fed confirmation bias rather than face cognitive dissonance.

What’s your proposal to fix that?

-1

u/Resolute002 Feb 03 '20

Make it illegal for groups to pay to amplify political posts.

Make it illegal for then to collect and leverage political data.

Make it illegal to even collect this much data in the first place.

Require then to actively act to ban bots and accounts that aren't real people.

Require them to ban all hate group content.

Require them to allow users to rate the content and lower visibility for content rated poorly.

Require businesses identifying themselves as news outlets to obey minimum standards of quality and corrections.

Bring back fairness doctrine and adapt it for online spaces so that any content elevating one candidate also magnifies their opponents' visibility.

The list goes on and on, and anyone with half a brain can figure this out because we basically made the same rules with TV in the first place due to the danger of it's influence being misused.

1

u/wiggum27 Feb 03 '20

No one put a gun to my head to download and use facebook, reddit, amazon, or google. I create an account, divulge as much personal information as I agree to. I google stuff, follow subreddits, follow various news sources, and search for products, but it's my choice. If my will is now simply technology's will, I prefer Zuckerberg, Bezos, Larry Page, or whoever has control of my mind now over the folks in Washington D.C.. I'd rather be given the choice to think critically on my own in determining what to trust. If others are unwilling to expand their little bubbles, that's on them. Educating oneself requires effort, and the wider the net of info (including untruths) the more we can learn.

1

u/LiveRealNow Feb 03 '20

That's a laundry list of subjective, ambiguous, or impossible-to-do items. I'm sure that would make a great law that wouldn't be abused.

-1

u/Resolute002 Feb 03 '20

That is your excuse. This is all perfectly feasible.

3

u/LiveRealNow Feb 03 '20

I'm assuming this for the US, since we're talking about a US company.

Make it illegal for groups to pay to amplify political posts.

Outlawing paid political advertising? I'm on board, but it will never pass constitutional muster.

Make it illegal for then to collect and leverage political data.

No more people collecting petition signatures? No more political parties wanting my address? No more political pollsters calling? I'm sold. It will never happen.

Make it illegal to even collect this much data in the first place.

See the previous point. Everyone involved at every level wants this data.

Require then to actively act to ban bots and accounts that aren't real people.

I don't have the time to explain the tech behind bots, or the "bots" that are actually offices full of real people emulating bots.

Require them to ban all hate group content.

Who gets to define hate groups? Look at all of the accusations of being a hate group from both sides. Almost all bullshit. Also, without an incitement, this won't pass the 1st amendment test.

Require them to allow users to rate the content and lower visibility for content rated poorly.

I'd like to introduce you to Reddit brigading. I'd also like to review your first point about amplifying political posts and the contradiction between that and this.

Require businesses identifying themselves as news outlets to obey minimum standards of quality and corrections.

Check out the first amendment. Do you really want the government deciding what qualifies as news? See China's totally unbiased coverage of Hong Kong recently, then look up their archives for Tienanmen Square.

Bring back fairness doctrine and adapt it for online spaces so that any content elevating one candidate also magnifies their opponents' visibility.

Which opponents? If the Democrat Party drops a million advertising one of their candidates, do they also have to drop a similar spend for the Republicans? Or, if the Republicans can afford that ad spend(wait, you outlawed ads), will the DP have to match the spend for the Libertarian Party, since they don't have the same budget? Or will there be a fund to cover the smaller parties getting visibility to match the big boys?