Facebook will ask its 2 billion users to rank their trust in news orgs for 'Newsfeed' makeover


#1

Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2018/01/19/rank-facebook-trust.html


#2

I haven’t received my employment contract yet.


#3


#4

Here we go again. I predict another Boaty McBoatface incident.


#5

It’s a good thing nobody could ever vote more than once. Russian trolls, for example. Or American trolls.


#6

Blind spots. There’s a problem deep in the core of their ability to make a profit but if they do things maybe people will also ignore it… hopefully not.


#7

Sounds like an invitation for Russia to jump in and skew the results.


#8

We don’t even need Russia’s help. Something like 40% of the country thinks Fox News and Brietbart are more trustworthy than anyone in the “mainstream media.”


#9

The “slow boat to China” way of getting it done. I like it…


#10

Um, hey I have a fucking solution! Don’t have a fucking news feed on your non-news site!


#11

Well, that’s one way to put the inmates in charge of the asylum walled garden. The wisdom of the crowd doesn’t work so well when at least a third of the crowd are proven fools.

How about first figuring out which of those two-billion users to trust to rank their trust in the news orgs and then weight responses accordingly, FB geniuses?

Also … called it!


#12

I doubt it’s a coincidence that the “most trusted” news sources will also be the news sources that are the most shared/clicked/reacted to/etc., creating a greater amount of personal data by boosting posts that have a higher interaction rate.

Hey, here’s a good (if incomplete) idea for actually combating (at least some) of the bs on Facebook:

  1. Links from “satire” sites should be shaded a different color and marked as satire. A lot of hoax sites try to deflect criticism by claiming to be “satire.” While labeling things as fake news may hold no sway with people inclined to believe it, and even backfire, only the most resolute dipshits will have a problem with a site that claims to be satirical being marked as such.

  2. I don’t know if there’s an actual term, but there’s what I call “impostor sites.” Basically, sites that pretend to be an extant legitimate news source, often using the logo and layout of that site. Disable sharing for those sites. Or, if that’s somehow too big a step, have a bright red background and a warning dialog that opens on clicking.


#13

Or coloured sccording to degrees of conecctivity or clustering with Breibart


#14

Consolation prize: Breitbart hates it. Super funny read:

They know this is an existential threat to their fringe brand of poison. Which is funny, because the left leaning version (HuffPost) will get by just fine I feel. BBN lives off shitty, misleading, fake news and memes.


#15

they are letting the internet vote and using that as a metric for trustworthiness?
have they learned nothing of the internet in all their years online?
did they not pause and reflect how they got in the original mess?

this is the worst idea possible…

SMDH

(dammit fb…where is the dislike button when we need it!)


#16

The newest version yet of Propaganda!


#17

This will further enable tailored lying to specific groups of people.


#18

Came here to post this. Did realise others would also.
Posting anyway.

All in all, apt, FB. Thank you for taking care of this.


#19

Welcome to the brave new world of NaturalNews worldwide.


#20

I was thinking about getting The Morning Star to to the top of the rankings.

Most of America don’t know who they are (or were) and I wouldn’t be surprised if most of the British far-right thought that it had disappeared back when the Soviet Union collapsed.

It is reasonably trustworthy if you take it’s genuinely Marxist bias into account.