Facebook will implement algorithm changes to limit the virality of political posts

samgush

Posts: 16   +0
Why it matters: Facebook is set to deploy more rigid algorithmic tools to limit the spread of viral content on its platform. This is according to a new report by the Wall Street Journal that highlights measures that have been tested in recent elections, including in Sri Lanka and Myanmar, to mitigate disinformation campaigns.

Facebook is set to deploy more rigid algorithmic tools to limit the spread of viral content on its platform.

The move is in preparation for the November U.S. presidential election, which is set to pose some unique challenges. The company believes that there's tremendous potential for upheaval spurred on by the spread of disinformation during election season.

According to a recent blog post by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, the country is deeply divided along political lines. Zuckerberg has raised concerns about the recent surge in politically-motivated acts of violence as well as misinformed statements by public figures. He has alluded to these as indicators that democracy could be undermined if information is not regulated.

Facebook has already made a commitment to halt all political ads one week before the election. The social network will also pause them indefinitely after November 3 to curb inflammatory political indoctrinations. They've also been working to restrict the virality of political posts on its platforms since 2017. This is after finding themselves at the center of a probe involving their role in disseminating misleading political stories.

More recently, the network has been criticized for using overkill methods to suppress legitimate news sources, a move that arguably infringes upon free speech. Mother Jones, a major political news network, recently lambasted FB execs for intentionally limiting the reach of its news posts. Republican politicians also recently accused Facebook of control overreach and bias. This is after the social media platform censored a New York Post story related to Hunter Biden, Joe Biden’s son.

Republican politicians also recently accused Facebook of control overreach and bias.

Facebook found itself at the center of a probe involving its role in disseminating misleading political stories. (Image: USA Today)

Facebook defended the move and said that the restriction was in line with its election interference prohibition policies. It underscored that such information had to go through a fact-checking process before it could be released to the public.

The following is the statement issued by Andy Stone, the company’s Policy Communications Director, in relation to this. “While I will intentionally not link to the New York Post, I want be clear that this story is eligible to be fact checked by Facebook’s third-party fact checking partners. In the meantime, we are reducing its distribution on our platform.” Facebook currently relies on a network of third-party fact-checking organizations to authenticate such information. They include the Associated Press, the Daily Caller, and France-Presse.

Masthead credit: CNN

Permalink to story.

 

Endymio

Posts: 1,029   +875
>> " This is after the social media platform censored a New York Post story related to Hunter Biden, Joe Biden’s son. "

It wasn't a single story, but an entire series of stories. Facebook has allowed literally thousands of wholly unconfirmed political claims which were negative to Trump and conservatives, many of which later turned out to be false. Yet this well-confirmed series, backed up by multiple named sources, along with photographs, documents (including one literally signed by Hunter himself), and an official on-the-record confirmation by the FBI, is censored? And of course, the "fact-checking" process won't conclude until after the election is safely over.

Facebook is (and should be) free to implement whatever policies it wishes. But if it's going to act as an editor controlling the content on it's site, it must accept the ramifications of that decision, which means losing their Sec 230 CDA immunity to libel suits. When you choose to label some content false, you are de facto labelling other content true. If it isn't, you will bear the penalty for that.
 

Tantor

Posts: 67   +87
The true facts about Hunter Biden's laptop, the thousands of emails, photos, and information that is politically damning for Joe Biden are all over Conservative media. But Facebook needs to 'fact check' the information, to 'protect' its clients. Funny how this happens right before the election.

What we're seeing is wholesale censorship for political purposes. it has nothing to do with preventing political disinformation.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Endymio

Plutoisaplanet

Posts: 333   +405
Google is also shadow banning conservative YouTube channels as well, and it began right around the same time they got hit with a lawsuit. Here’s an example:
 

mattferg

Posts: 84   +54
>> " This is after the social media platform censored a New York Post story related to Hunter Biden, Joe Biden’s son. "

It wasn't a single story, but an entire series of stories. Facebook has allowed literally thousands of wholly unconfirmed political claims which were negative to Trump and conservatives, many of which later turned out to be false. Yet this well-confirmed series, backed up by multiple named sources, along with photographs, documents (including one literally signed by Hunter himself), and an official on-the-record confirmation by the FBI, is censored? And of course, the "fact-checking" process won't conclude until after the election is safely over.

Facebook is (and should be) free to implement whatever policies it wishes. But if it's going to act as an editor controlling the content on it's site, it must accept the ramifications of that decision, which means losing their Sec 230 CDA immunity to libel suits. When you choose to label some content false, you are de facto labelling other content true. If it isn't, you will bear the penalty for that.
Sorry, but you’ve drunk the cool-aid. None of this is verified, the man who claimed he saw Hunter drop off the laptop is legally blind, no one except Giuliani has “seen” the actual physical emails (just low res screenshots) and Hunter doesn’t even live in Delaware. The NYp reporter who wrote the story was so ashamed as to the factuality he removed his name from the byline.

Meanwhile the stories about Trump were confirmed and officially verified by numerous sources, and were actually publicly investigated by the FBI. Sorry, but you’re either incredibly stupid or perfect proof why Facebook needed to censor this. Turn off Fox.
 

mattferg

Posts: 84   +54
The true facts about Hunter Biden's laptop, the thousands of emails, photos, and information that is politically damning for Joe Biden are all over Conservative media. But Facebook needs to 'fact check' the information, to 'protect' its clients. Funny how this happens right before the election.

What we're seeing is wholesale censorship for political purposes. it has nothing to do with preventing political disinformation.

The true fact that’s it’s fake and numerous Republican investigations in Congress have stated so?
 
  • Like
Reactions: wiyosaya

QuantumPhysics

Posts: 3,721   +3,617
YouTube and social medias are private companies.

They can do whatever they want.

If you don’t like it: don’t use their product.

It’s no different than using techspot.

There are certain comments/ posts that they don’t tolerate and if they don’t tolerate them they will simply censor them by deleting them and then put you in a timeout. Either play by their rules or don’t play at all.

You have been warned.
 

JamesBlond

Posts: 30   +14
Its not a plan to stop disimformation, its a plan to control what is allowed fake or not, so that the election can be pushed in the direction of whom they want to win, but it dont matter anyways, there are more powerful players at hand that will cause Trump to win...so sit back the put your mind at ease, after the election Trump will make sure that all large Twitter, Facebooks and so will be shut down until they are fixed... clean the swamp
 

Evernessince

Posts: 5,461   +6,133
>> " This is after the social media platform censored a New York Post story related to Hunter Biden, Joe Biden’s son. "

It wasn't a single story, but an entire series of stories. Facebook has allowed literally thousands of wholly unconfirmed political claims which were negative to Trump and conservatives, many of which later turned out to be false. Yet this well-confirmed series, backed up by multiple named sources, along with photographs, documents (including one literally signed by Hunter himself), and an official on-the-record confirmation by the FBI, is censored? And of course, the "fact-checking" process won't conclude until after the election is safely over.

Facebook is (and should be) free to implement whatever policies it wishes. But if it's going to act as an editor controlling the content on it's site, it must accept the ramifications of that decision, which means losing their Sec 230 CDA immunity to libel suits. When you choose to label some content false, you are de facto labelling other content true. If it isn't, you will bear the penalty for that.
You mean the Hunter laptop story started by an admitted trump super fan and spread by Rudy and Russia troll farms? You mean the same story where people can't even get it straight what actually was on the laptop (FYI there were no claims of pedophilia or child torture in the original claims, those are just rumors based on rumors). You mean the supposed hunter signature that looks like a poorly done forgery that only took handwriting experts one second to debunk?

This is more shameless than the numerous Benghazi investigations that turned up nothing. There's a reason "lock them up" is so deliciously ironic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wiyosaya

JamesBlond

Posts: 30   +14
All media is fake, don't care who they are, media make up stories based on their own interpretation, people are sick and disgusting at how they stand up for evil and back evil and push evil narratives, the true racists is the one who keeps shouting it, the true criminal is the one who accuses anyone of a crime, there is no way for the right story to come out unless there is 2 or more witness and then you have to wonder how much they are paid to be witnesses... the who system is to make people against people while the leaders do what they want behind closed doors, all the people are just a bunch of sheep, especially those who think a party will save them
 

JamesBlond

Posts: 30   +14
Sorry, but you’ve drunk the cool-aid. None of this is verified, the man who claimed he saw Hunter drop off the laptop is legally blind, no one except Giuliani has “seen” the actual physical emails (just low res screenshots) and Hunter doesn’t even live in Delaware. The NYp reporter who wrote the story was so ashamed as to the factuality he removed his name from the byline.

Meanwhile the stories about Trump were confirmed and officially verified by numerous sources, and were actually publicly investigated by the FBI. Sorry, but you’re either incredibly stupid or perfect proof why Facebook needed to censor this. Turn off Fox.
You can call people incredibly stupid ...it takes one to see one.. you want to find a democrat who is right in their mind, ill give you 200000 years, good luck
 

Endymio

Posts: 1,029   +875
None of this is verified, the man who claimed he saw Hunter drop off the laptop is legally blind, no one except Giuliani has “seen” the actual physical emails (just low res screenshots) and Hunter doesn’t even live in Delaware.
Hunter Biden's signature has been matched to the shop receipt, and thousands of his personal, never-before published photographs are on the laptop. The FBI confirmed on the record they have the actual laptop and that its not some "Russian disinformation", several organizations, including the NY Post, have copies of the actual emails, including email headers, and several people who those emails were sent to have confirmed the emails are genuine, and neither Hunter nor his father have denied the emails are his.

Compare that to the literally thousands of stories about conservatives and Trump, all based one story from one single, unnamed anonymous source, stories which were never forced to go through some arbitrary, undefined "fact-checking" process, and which were quickly determined false.

Hunter Biden may not live close to the shop in Delaware, but his father does -- and Hunter has been known to stay at his father's house for extended periods. Claiming this is some sort of "smoking gun" to prove the story false is downright laughable.

Meanwhile the stories about Trump were confirmed and officially verified by numerous sources, and were actually publicly investigated by the FBI.
Really? How about the ABC Report claiming the FBI had proof Flynn met personally with Russians during the campaign? Or the CNN report claiming the FBI had officially denied they had wiretapped members of the 2016 Trump campaign? Or the NYT story claiming Trump had a bust of Martin Luther removed from the White House? How about the CNN report claiming Comey was contradicting Trump's assertion that he was told he was not under investigation? How about the WaPo story with the reporter claiming "Trump lied" about a packed rally, when his photograph of a near-empty hall was taken before attendees began entering? How about the doctored video of Trump "embarrassing the US" by overfeeding Koi during a Japanese visit?

How about the report -- repeated countless times by all media outlets -- that "All 17 intelligence agencies concluded" that Russia meddled to help Trump? (Actuality, it was a few hand-picked analysts from 4 agencies, and several agencies disagreed with the assessment). Or the even-more repeated falsehood that Trump stated "there were good people" among the White Separatists at Charlottesville? What of the WaPo story claiming a new allegation of rape against Bret Kavanaugh by one of his college friends? Or the one claiming he had been drugging and gang-raping women at parties while in high school? What about the original allegation itself, which not only wasn't verified, but outright denied by Blasey-Ford's friends? What of the Covington High "Maga-hat" students accused of shouting racial slurs and attacking a Native American activist (CNN and WaPo both have settled multi-million dollar defamation suits for that one).

This isn't even the beginning of the tip of the iceberg, and doesn't even touch on the widespread practice of shadow-banning conservatives, with no formal process, notice, or justification given, or any of a hundred other abuses -- all of which fall squarely on one side of the political aisle.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Forjo Atinxan

Avro Arrow

Posts: 369   +388
Sorry, but you’ve drunk the cool-aid. None of this is verified, the man who claimed he saw Hunter drop off the laptop is legally blind, no one except Giuliani has “seen” the actual physical emails (just low res screenshots) and Hunter doesn’t even live in Delaware. The NYp reporter who wrote the story was so ashamed as to the factuality he removed his name from the byline.

Meanwhile the stories about Trump were confirmed and officially verified by numerous sources, and were actually publicly investigated by the FBI. Sorry, but you’re either incredibly stupid or perfect proof why Facebook needed to censor this. Turn off Fox.
This is how the right has been functioning as of late:

1.) Brand everyone who is liberal or progressive as "them"
2.) Refer to media that is based on truth as "liberal"
3.) Lie your butt off with wild, made-up stories and unproven conspiracy theories (like flat-earth)
4.) Claim that you're being unfairly censored by the "liberal" (read: based on truth) media
5.) Rinse and repeat

It isn't hard to make people believe things with no proof. Religion's been doing it for millennia.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wiyosaya

wiyosaya

Posts: 5,479   +3,575
I think if you're getting your political news from social media, that's the definition of lazy.
I'd say they are suckers for disinformation and only hear what they want to hear. If anyone thinks they get anything reliable on the "news front" IMO, they really should not have a computer.

Who gives a crap about Fakebook???? I don't. Social media. Ha!
 

wiyosaya

Posts: 5,479   +3,575
Hunter Biden's signature has been matched to the shop receipt, and thousands of his personal, never-before published photographs are on the laptop. The FBI confirmed on the record they have the actual laptop and that its not some "Russian disinformation", several organizations, including the NY Post, have copies of the actual emails, including email headers, and several people who those emails were sent to have confirmed the emails are genuine, and neither Hunter nor his father have denied the emails are his.

Compare that to the literally thousands of stories about conservatives and Trump, all based one story from one single, unnamed anonymous source, stories which were never forced to go through some arbitrary, undefined "fact-checking" process, and which were quickly determined false.

Hunter Biden may not live close to the shop in Delaware, but his father does -- and Hunter has been known to stay at his father's house for extended periods. Claiming this is some sort of "smoking gun" to prove the story false is downright laughable.


Really? How about the ABC Report claiming the FBI had proof Flynn met personally with Russians during the campaign? Or the CNN report claiming the FBI had officially denied they had wiretapped members of the 2016 Trump campaign? Or the NYT story claiming Trump had a bust of Martin Luther removed from the White House? How about the CNN report claiming Comey was contradicting Trump's assertion that he was told he was not under investigation? How about the WaPo story with the reporter claiming "Trump lied" about a packed rally, when his photograph of a near-empty hall was taken before attendees began entering? How about the doctored video of Trump "embarrassing the US" by overfeeding Koi during a Japanese visit?

How about the report -- repeated countless times by all media outlets -- that "All 17 intelligence agencies concluded" that Russia meddled to help Trump? (Actuality, it was a few hand-picked analysts from 4 agencies, and several agencies disagreed with the assessment). Or the even-more repeated falsehood that Trump stated "there were good people" among the White Separatists at Charlottesville? What of the WaPo story claiming a new allegation of rape against Bret Kavanaugh by one of his college friends? Or the one claiming he had been drugging and gang-raping women at parties while in high school? What about the original allegation itself, which not only wasn't verified, but outright denied by Blasey-Ford's friends? What of the Covington High "Maga-hat" students accused of shouting racial slurs and attacking a Native American activist (CNN and WaPo both have settled multi-million dollar defamation suits for that one).

This isn't even the beginning of the tip of the iceberg, and doesn't even touch on the widespread practice of shadow-banning conservatives, with no formal process, notice, or justification given, or any of a hundred other abuses -- all of which fall squarely on one side of the political aisle.
So sue them if its affected you. Maybe the EFF will take your case. :laughing:
 

wiyosaya

Posts: 5,479   +3,575
You mean the Hunter laptop story started by an admitted trump super fan and spread by Rudy and Russia troll farms? You mean the same story where people can't even get it straight what actually was on the laptop (FYI there were no claims of pedophilia or child torture in the original claims, those are just rumors based on rumors). You mean the supposed hunter signature that looks like a poorly done forgery that only took handwriting experts one second to debunk?

This is more shameless than the numerous Benghazi investigations that turned up nothing. There's a reason "lock them up" is so deliciously ironic.
In the meantime, they ignore stories like this - https://www.cjr.org/analysis/breitbart-media-trump-harvard-study.php That detail how right-wing media embellishes stories to fit its agenda.
 

hahahanoobs

Posts: 3,080   +1,232
I'd say they are suckers for disinformation and only hear what they want to hear. If anyone thinks they get anything reliable on the "news front" IMO, they really should not have a computer.

Who gives a crap about Fakebook???? I don't. Social media. Ha!
The only way you can argue facts, is when you don't really have them.
 

Latest posts