I’m Sorry Mr. Zuckerberg, but You Are Wrong

I think facebook (or better its users) is more responsible for the misinformation of both candidates which is causing this deep hate between fractions.

We can't agree on everything and that is actually a very good thing but we need dialog not outright dismissal of the 'other' side. You can not label an entire group crazy, you need to understand why they have a certain opinion or view. Only then we can find common ground and solve problems. In fact you may be surprised how similar people from opposed sides actually are when you remove this pile of garbage blocking everyones view.

Fake news is just a nicer word for propaganda. Maybe what we saw happen on Facebook was a reflection of our society and the US political system? Even if Facebook changes something, 4 years from now we are still facing a 2-party oligarchy with a strong grip on control. I had hopes for a better 3rd party showing with all of the negative campaigning, but it turns out that America can't get enough of the major party candidates. It's like a reality TV show played out on social media. Life imitating art?

I deleted (vs deactivated) my personal facebook account in the run-up to the election. The cost/benefit math wasn't worth it anymore. Too much wasted time and energy with little room for critical thinking or diversity of opinions. I doubt I'll rejoin anytime in the foreseeable future. No judgement to folks who are still on it, it's just not for me.

I feel much less anxious and more at peace without facebook than I ever did with it. I'm encouraged to make more time for face-to-face and phone conversations.

If someday I am responsible for marketing or customer service, I would consider using facebook for business purposes to communicate with customers. But I'd let someone else manage it who enjoys social media.

I am left wondering if facebook just had its myspace moment? Was that peak facebook? If so, what's next in line?

Hilarious. The "wrong" candidate gets elected and suddenly half of the Internet is involved in a debate about media and news sources and apparently huge amount of them are "fake news sites".

What happened to the "vouch" button? This seems like an interesting, non-spam, somewhat tech related (well and politics, but something about the role or perceived role of tech companies in politics) article. Not sure if I agree with it, but it doesn't seem deserving of a flag.

I've been sick for weeks and done nothing but read news stories when able most of the day.

One of them said 170 million Americans read Facebook every single day.

How does that not have a massive influence?

Under any circumstance I really don't like the idea of a huge corporation like facebook to begin censoring private conversations and beginning to shadow ban people based on their naivity in regards to what they share etc.

Facebook is not a company that should indulge in what is truthful and what is not. It should preferably be a medium to keep in contact and discuss links with friends and not much more. I already think that there is too much filtering of what ends up in my facebook feed.

Technology does amplify problems, yes. But it also amplifies the solutions. If your problem didn't have a decent solution in the first place, then yes, you will just have a bigger problem.

I'm not sure how this is something directly related to Facebook. I think misinformation spread has been a problem that was amplified with the easier access to the information in general.

Maybe this is like the problem of modern warfare. Modern bombs tend to affect people en masse (citation needed, yes, please bear with me) and with nuclear weapons, the problem of civilians getting hurt/killed got amplified. The problem was (hopefully) solved by understanding the consequences of using extreme force over time, especially the chain reaction that can be triggered.

What I'm trying to say is, maybe, we need to create a solution which we can "amplify" with the technology, and that is not just Facebook's responsibility. However, them being the "nuclear weapon" of the social media, yes, they do share the burden.

When you look at the numbers Trump got same number of votes that previous republican candidate got. Hilary got significantly less votes than Obama. So if there's any role of social media it's not about giving Trump supporters a voice. It's about poisoning Hilary and election in general for people who would otherwise go and vote against Trump.

If i understand correctly, Trump became president because of the Dunning-Kruger effect? Apparently the people responsible for these false stories first tried anti-Trump stories and they weren't shared that much. Then they tried Anti-Hilary stories which were shared more so became more popular.

Facebook can't win here. When they have humans more in the loop of selecting news stories, they get blamed for bias. When they remove the humans, they are blamed for AI which isn't perfect. Yes, Facebook can improve how it selects news stories, and they are working to do that.

I take a fundamental issue with the core thinking behind this post. It seems to be: "the voters should not be allowed free communication between themselves - it needs to be policed and curated for them. They should preferably get most/all of their information and political opinion from big media.

Some telling parts from the post:

"Facebook’s viral and social mechanisms allow the amplification of content well beyond its original media budget, thus exacerbating the issue."

"A thousand “Hillary Clinton is a crook” “opinion pieces” probably don’t fall into your count of fake news per se (even though, it’s worth pointing out that their very title would constitute libel and is a lie). And opinion pieces are much, much harder to police. "

Fb makes all if its money by separating people into neat little echo chambers and making them feel warm and cozy and in possession of the Truth. Basically driving a number of wedges into the society. A _little_ blame would be in order, I'd think.

Mark Zuckerberg built the worth of Facebook convincing advertisers it can influence people to buy their brand, yet why all the sudden does Facebook's influence not apply to deceptive news?

Remember Upworthy? It had misleading clickbait headlines and within one week it was gone from the Newsfeed. Facebook has the skills to fix this.

It has been said the media has a liberal bias. Conservative media denies that global warming exists. Liberals and the overwhelming majority of scientists accept it does. Can you name one issue where conservatives and scientists refute liberals?

Zuckerberg also addressed some of these criticisms in responses to comments on his original post https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10103253901916271

"Sorry Mr. Zuckerberg, you didn't collude enough with the government and main stream media to get Hillary elected."

Seems easy to blame Facebook for this. I don't like how he called out their algorithms, probably not even knowing how they work. Meanwhile Twitter is just banning alt-right accounts openly, and no one gives a shit.