Facebook Has Begun to Rank News Organizations by Trust, Zuckerberg Says
buzzfeed.com
buzzfeed.com
See the problem?
Oh great, its a model based on consumer opinion. And we know loads of people trust Fox news.
What stories they cover (or ignore) and what details they include (or omit) are where the bias comes from. Every other news source is the same way.
I suspect there is an error here, as most people would equate those things since they are letter-for-letter identical phrases.
(Not that any of this is relevant, I guess, since the post I responded to was deleted?)
How will Facebook, a brand built on dishonesty choose honest sources correctly?
The problem with simply providing a trust appreciation is that you continue to encourage low-value social behaviour. If you want to solve the problem, I think you should try to promote critical thinking.
Why not simply de-advantage the news and concentrate on social aspects? Simply put more emphasis on Original Content created by your "friends", not re-shares (no social added value, as the cost for creation was low) or simple link sharing (same thing, if you don't integrate a small comment or analysis, it has no social added value).
I don't think Facebook wants to encourage too much critical thinking, as it's business is to sell an audience to advertisers. If the audience thinks too critically, it's harder to manipulate into doing what's in the interests of FB its advertisers.
> Why not simply de-advantage the news and concentrate on social aspects? Simply put more emphasis on Original Content created by your "friends", not re-shares (no social added value, as the cost for creation was low) or simple link sharing (same thing, if you don't integrate a small comment or analysis, it has no social added value).
They've already done that.
I'm sure we will now hear complaints that Facebook shouldn't be choosing which sources are trustworthy.
And Facebook doesn't need to do the choosing; they could use a mix of independent, non-partisan rankings of news sources (example: http://www.allgeneralizationsarefalse.com/the-chart-version-...).
To be clear, I don't think they'll do that, but they could.
Naturally, this will lead to rating user trustworthiness, and filtering untrustworthy people and their untrustworthy views out of your newsfeed.
The problem was created in the first place by Facebook deciding which stories to rank higher, instead of giving people the stories and posts in chronological order. But it did that very poorly and in a way that could be easily manipulated.
Now they're trying to "fix" that by exerting even more control over the stories - in other words, doubling down on the thing that hasn't worked.
The article already makes me worried about their plans. I've seen some stories recently say that many Trump supporters, for instance, have a tendency to "trust" fake news sources. So according to Facebook's plans, those fake news sources may actually become "trusted" on the platform now, because many people trust them.
Alternatively, just like YouTube, Facebook may "curate" the landscape so much, that only "non-offensive" stories will ever be shown on the platform.
The algorithm will probably "nerf" small papers with insufficient data and boost big ones. Papers that are controversial in some political camp will get flags and instead people will get food articles and CNN/ABC/Fox etc.
I liked Facebook's old "show stuff in order" (pre 2011?) way more.
That would likely include all news.
And plenty of us thought it was stupid back then, too.
Totally improved my newsfeed UX though it took a few days to get em all.
cough bitcoin cough
I think in numerous court cases (at least in the US) even email is considered public.
So, with that said, a DLT (dist. ledger tech; i.e. bitcoin) is a great solution for the problems facing a publicly facing company.
Anyway I can't understand what the use case would even be here. You need FB to publish their rankings publicly which doesn't need to be decentralized, or you want each person to have their own rankings which don't need to be distributed?
The use case that I think is: A competitive marketplace to compete for the best use of encrypted data. Where each data point and evaluation has a 'cost' to the system and each algorithm competes and entirely based on pseudonyms. Since how we perceive 'trust' is etherial/intangible/ever-changing.
I don't think the solution is an easy one to create but I do think the building blocks to them are (no pun intended).
It's not simply just a ledger.
I'm talking about every data point that facebook has, to be hashed and competitively manipulated in a global market place.
Trust is very relative but using a bitcoin-like solution would allow for the market to compete for the better solution, each and every day. Facebook's authoritarian solution won't last forever, nor should it; allowing competition through FB's data could be a way that FB stays in the limelight.
Based on the 'total consumption chart' [1] you are incorrect.
Even though many, including Digiconomist, only look at the current value. They are distorting the narrative of scientific inquiry. As, in another 10 years, in hindsight, the value of mining Bitcoin today is significantly more efficient than mining gold was today.
Gold, when it was used as a global standard, produced multitude more in CO2 pollution than it produces. Economies of scale and as people use the 'digital gold', value increases.
An apt comparison would be during the various gold rushes (hundreds of years ago). I don't believe I've seen a true apples to apples comparison. But now you know how to compare a mature asset like gold, to a new asset like Bitcoin. It's not in today's measure. It's in the relative situational circumstances that are equivalent. Also, if Elon Musk were to obtain one astroid with sizable portions of gold on it. Well, then gold's value will be debased and it will be difficult to easily compare the two. Every factor matters. Please don't act like it's a huge waste of energy, it's actually not even close to many other forms of money that humanity has used.
[1] - https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-mining-more-polluting-than-...