Hacker News Reader

Comment by vlunkr | Hacker News Reader

I think there's an interesting question here that I haven't really seen discussed: Is it the responsibility of Google/Facebook to filter out "fake news"?

Obviously both of them already do some content filtering for illegal content etc. but where do we draw the line? Personally I think it's unfair to be blaming them, considering they never claimed to filter this type of content. Also, if it is decided that they should be responsible, how do you determine what is and isn't fake? Seems like a dangerous thing to be in charge of.

edit: since it took me so long to finish typing this, everyone is now asking similar questions. whatever

View on HN

> Is it the responsibility of Google/Facebook to filter out "fake news"?

Their employees certainly think it is.

The reason Google/Facebook/Twitter/Reddit/etc. are so obsessed with fake news at the moment is because their employees believe that their product, which was supposed to "change the world for the better!" inadvertently helped Trump be elected. I'm sure more than a few Valley employees have had nervous breakdowns over this.

Now, banning Trump from Facebook or Twitter would be a little bit too obvious, so they're doing the next best thing: making sure, under the guise of "keeping you safe from fake news", that Trump or Trump 2.0 can't leverage their offerings to help his cause.

This is most likely answer I've heard on the motivations behind news filtering. It really exposes the ethical dilemma of taking a supposedly neutral carrier type service and using it to promote a political agenda, regardless of how righteous that agenda is.

I find it more likely that their advertising partners don't want the brands and companies they represent to be associated with fake, possibly libellous and politically inflammatory content.

Yeah they _just_ figured out that this kind of stuff exists on the Internet...

It _just_ started reaching the mainstream and causing serious controversies.

I don't know if it is their responsibility or not, but I don't think it will be effective.

I see the only effective fight against fake news, biased news, sensational news, or whatever you want to call it is education. And I lumped all those different types of news together not because I believe they are the same or even believed true by the same group of people. I grouped them together because each of them poses a threat to our country and each can be treated by effective education.

Many people who know content is filtered by an institution will discredit any info coming from that institution (and for possibly good reasons). To get people to generate trust in our institutions and their reported info, they need to be the one to make the conscious choice to consume or not consume that info. Coddling the info before it gets to people doesn’t create an empowered or educated society.

>I see the only effective fight against fake news, biased news, sensational news, or whatever you want to call it is education.

Ah, but who will fix "fake education"?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com