[HN Gopher] Facebook is obstructing our work on disinformation
___________________________________________________________________
Facebook is obstructing our work on disinformation
Author : charlysl
Score : 192 points
Date : 2021-08-14 13:21 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theguardian.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theguardian.com)
| jefftk wrote:
| Note that the FTC consent decree does not require blocking like
| this: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/consumer-
| blog/2021/08/...
| TeeMassive wrote:
| > Using data collected through Ad Observer, and also data
| collected using the transparency tools Facebook makes available
| to researchers, we've been able to help the public understand how
| the platform fails to live up to its promises, and shed light on
| how it sells the attention of its users to advertisers.
|
| So they exploited the data from the main source of revenue of a
| corporation and then to use that data to smear that same
| corporation and then they complain that the corporation do not
| want to cooperate anymore. This is a textbook definition of blind
| entitlement.
|
| > We can't let Facebook decide unilaterally who gets to study the
| company and what tools they can use. The stakes are too high.
| What happens on Facebook affects public trust in our elections,
| the course of the pandemic and the nature of social movements. We
| need the greater understanding that researchers, journalists and
| public scrutiny provide. If Facebook won't allow this access
| voluntarily, then it's time for lawmakers to require it.
|
| Here's the problem the people who want to fight "misinformation"
| need to realize: they won't be in charge and the loyalty of those
| who gets to decide might change and those who gets to decide will
| not be the same people you would place your hopes in. I can
| delete my Facebook account but I can't delete the government.
| mellosouls wrote:
| All of the indicated research interests and criticism points in
| the article are left-wing (fair enough), but then it follows that
| this may not be good faith research in the sense of being a
| _neutral_ look at disinformation.
|
| Facebook may well be underhand here, but the title claim seems to
| be disingenuous enough to undermine sympathy disinterested
| observers may have had with the researchers.
|
| If in fact these researchers are in effect at least partially
| being seen as political campaigners themselves, then they are on
| shaky ground expecting special treatment being accorded due to an
| independent status claimed but not justified.
| emj wrote:
| No. Seems like they mention that Bidens ads were not origin
| marked, why is partisanship so imporant in this issue?
|
| > "it failed to include ads supporting Joe Biden ahead of the
| 2020 elections"
| mellosouls wrote:
| Thank you for that correction, I had misread the origin mark
| point.
| temp8964 wrote:
| Based on the examples they gave in the news report, it appears
| their motivation is partisan. So they intentionally pick one
| party line to conduct a "research" on "disinformation". What
| exactly do they want to know from this "research"?
| robocat wrote:
| Yes, the Grauniad (Guardian misspelled - long running British
| insider joke) is left wing. The researchers writing the article
| are from New York University, and we are presuming the
| researchers are left wing too.
|
| So what? Your implied alternatives are:
|
| * Only allow politically neutral science (impossible for any
| subject containing politics)
|
| * Only allow right wing science?
|
| * Disallow all scientific study of politically charged topics?
| gadders wrote:
| ORANGE MAN BAD
| asteroidbelt wrote:
| You comment is downvoted, but generally yes, it's likely they
| want to expose some bias, like racism, sexism, favor of
| republican party, support of antivax or anything else which
| may start twitter storm and respectively ads revenue stream
| for them.
| xx511134bz wrote:
| How to stop people from contradicting The Party apparatus
| online?
| gautamdivgi wrote:
| Companies are not required to share data. Have you ever tried
| getting anonymized network traffic traces from a company for the
| purpose of analysis? There is a lot of open source data available
| (thanks crawdad.org!!!) but I doubt you will have a private
| company share data with you if you just go and ask them.
|
| The same with Facebook. They're just paranoid that the data will
| make its way into places it shouldn't. Same with any other
| company.
| wolpoli wrote:
| Let's say Facebook produces a newspaper with customized ads for
| each household. Should households be prevented from mailing
| their copy of the newspaper to researchers due to privacy
| concerns of the advertisers?
|
| Should Facebook be allowed to stop sending newspaper to the
| researchers? Should Facebook be allowed to stop providing phone
| and mailing service for these researchers?
| MikusR wrote:
| But they are not producing a newspaper with customized ads.
| They are showing you photos your friends took at the party
| last weekend. Photos that are shared with you and not with
| their boss.
| chandelier wrote:
| If I am consenting to share with the researchers via Ad
| Observer the data that Facebook has shared with me,
| whatever that data is, great. I signed no NDA with
| Facebook.
| MikusR wrote:
| Did all the people you have friended on Facebook also
| gave permission to give their data to the researchers?
| mandmandam wrote:
| No one is requiring Facebook share data, though it could easily
| be argued that they owe us.
|
| It's _users_ who install a browser extension that are sharing
| the ads they were shown.
|
| If FB wants to serve people ads, why should they get to stop
| them sharing those ads with researchers / whoever they want?
|
| They claim the FTC is forcing them to, even though the FTC has
| stated that's untrue.
|
| This is fairly open and shut. Facebook are full of shit, quelle
| surprise.
| ardit33 wrote:
| I can't blame Facebook on this. Last time they allowed data for
| research purposes we got the Cambridge Analytica scandal, where
| that researches fed the data to this consulting company to be
| used for election purposes...
|
| Why should these guys be trusted? "Trust me bro" --- that
| didn't work well before.
|
| FB is right on this one.
| _Algernon_ wrote:
| Last time the data was accessed through an official API with
| (at best) dubious consent.
|
| This time the data is voluntarily provided by using a client-
| side extension.
|
| Seems quite different, doesn't it?
| gadders wrote:
| Ironic to see the Guardian complaining about misinformation.
| ardit33 wrote:
| I can't blame Facebook on this. Last time they allowed data for
| research purposes we got the Cambridge Analytica scandal, where
| that researches fed the data to this consulting company to be
| used for election purposes...
|
| Why should these guys be trusted? "Trust me bro" --- that didn't
| work well before.
|
| FB is right on this one.
| chroem- wrote:
| The threats posed by disinformation are too broad and numerous
| for these smaller academic organizations to handle. We need to
| consolidate our efforts under a single entity that will have more
| power to fight disinformation and protect truth. A "Ministry of
| Truth", if you will.
| enumjorge wrote:
| One of the frustrating things about political discourse is
| that, when conducted among a large enough audience, topics lose
| most of their nuance. Things tend to get reduced to A vs B.
| It's disappointing to see that when it comes to the subject of
| misinformation and propaganda in social media, for some people
| it seems, efforts to understand and reduce the spread of
| misinformation have become the enemy of freedom of speech and
| expression.
|
| I don't understand why academics trying to understand the
| spread of misinformation on Facebook draws comparisons to the
| authoritarian government in 1984. Since when do we fear
| university researchers the same way we do oppressive
| governments? I get it, censorship is a problem, but seriously
| guys, "Ministry of Truth"? What the fuck.
| thethethethe wrote:
| > I don't understand why academics trying to understand the
| spread of misinformation on Facebook draws comparisons to the
| authoritarian government in 1984.
|
| Its because this "concern" over miss/disinformation is not
| isolated to academia, the ruling party has been pushing this
| narrative for some time now.
|
| The ruling party has now aligned itself with the security
| state, the military industrial complex, and is now working on
| wrestling control of information away from big tech--all
| while expressing great concern over moms on Facebook getting
| their news from unauthorized sources as viewership of
| conventional mass media, which they have control over,
| continues to fall. I don't think it is unreasonable to view
| this as an authorization posture. Sure it's not Ministry of
| Truth status, but the comparison is there
| enumjorge wrote:
| Dude, what are you talking about. The _ruling party_? You
| mean Democrats, who have been held the presidency for less
| than a year? The ones that barely have a majority in
| congress, and the ones that appointed only 3 out of 6
| judges in the Supreme Court?
|
| What does it even mean that the "ruling party" is now
| aligned with the "military industrial complex"?
|
| Democrats control conventional mass media? Because the
| behemoth that is Fox New's and the rest of Rupert Murdoch's
| media empire is, not mass media?
| thethethethe wrote:
| The democrats currently control two of the three branches
| of the federal government, the majority of Americans are
| democrats, establishment republicans are defecting a la
| Lincoln Project thanks to the fascist bent of the new
| Republican party, the democrats control the majority of
| the cities and the states with the most economic output
| and influence, and big tech workers and executives are
| overwhelming democrats. Sure it's not 100% but they are
| the ones in power rn and it has been growing for the last
| three decades despite setbacks at the federal level.
|
| News Corp is the only major media corporation out of
| _six_ that is not aligned with the democrats. They happen
| to be the only one not pushing the disinformation
| narrative and are gaining viewers, not losing them like
| the others.
|
| The military sided with the establishment, which is now
| embodied by the democrats as the republicans have become
| proto fascist populists, during January 6th. The military
| is now having hearings on equity and inclusion, requiring
| reading from liberal-co-oped leftist academics. The CIA
| recently put out that commercial trying to present
| themselves as holding progressive values. The democrats
| are talking about a new domestic war on terror and have
| acquired funding to expand the capitol police. The
| majority of officials in both the CIA and the FBI are
| democrats now. I could go on and on.
|
| I'm not trying to say that all of this is bad or that the
| republicans are better, I am just pointing out that
| establishment power is aligning behind the democrats
| after the whole Trump fiasco and this whole
| dis/misinformation narrative has strong authoritarian
| undertones
| chroem- wrote:
| Science is for everything that can be objectively measured,
| and politics is for everything else that people can't come to
| a consensus on. Bad things happen when you try to frame your
| subjective political opinions as objective scientific
| reality. "Misinformation" or not, you can't control what
| other people think, at least not within the confines of a
| free society.
| enumjorge wrote:
| So are we supposed to do, ban the study or research of
| topics that can't be objectively measured because the
| results might be interpreted as scientific reality by some
| people? The line between science and politics is not as
| clear cut as you might think. History and psychology can't
| be objectively measured. Anything, even hard science, can
| be politicized. The existence of climate change and
| COVID-19 are considered political opinions by a good chunk
| of the population.
| chroem- wrote:
| Your premise that there are bad ideas that need to be
| studied and actively suppressed by authoritarian means is
| flawed.
| glitcher wrote:
| Many people here are conflating the research done through Ad
| Observer with the Cambridge Analytica fiasco. There is a huge
| difference in terms of user consent, and also the code review
| done by Mozilla on the open source Ad Observer plugin.
|
| For a much better explanation of the distinct differences between
| these two situations, please see this EFF article:
| https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/08/facebooks-attack-resea...
| mrits wrote:
| It's really odd that these researchers think they deserve access
| to this information. The successful will probably go to work at
| competitors to FB down the road. Such entitlement just because
| they give themselves the "research" title.
| uniqueuid wrote:
| "Being entitled" is a weird way to say:
|
| Researchers routinely work long hours
|
| with little pay
|
| out of altruistic motives
|
| to the benefit of everyone.
|
| Would you say doctors are entitled when they seek patients to
| study?
| jwond wrote:
| > out of altruistic motives
|
| > to the benefit of everyone.
|
| This is debatable or even blatantly false in many cases.
| Researchers are still human, and many of them are driven by
| greed and self-interest.
| tobr wrote:
| > The successful will probably go to work at competitors to FB
| down the road.
|
| What do you base this on?
| anotherhue wrote:
| If you're reading this and haven't deleted your account already,
| will you ever?
| beardyw wrote:
| I did this year.
|
| [Edit] though I had kept clear of it for 5 years.
| jimkleiber wrote:
| I hope for the day when there are more options than stay or
| leave, when users of a platform have more voice to determine
| the direction of the platform.
|
| Leaving FB (and IG and WhatsApp and GIPHY) seems like moving
| out of a country and never seeing or talking to many of my
| friends again. I'd much prefer to stay in the country and have
| more power in determining the laws governing how we interact
| with each other.
| apecat wrote:
| Yeah. Especially seeing the effects the pandemic has had on
| peoples' social lives, and as such quality of life, I'm not
| going approach grownups who are unlikely to form new strong
| friendships, and tell them to cut off a major source of
| casual semi-social interaction with old buddies.
|
| For context, I'm a man in my thirties, and I notice that a
| lot of my peers are super busy balancing work/life, or just
| bury themselves in work.
|
| I'm from a Nordic culture where we don't have Southern
| European social customs and strong multi-generational
| families. I'm really worried about how our norms basically
| push us into loneliness outside our attempts to run nuclear
| families, which often fail and leave people divorced with
| limited additional social bonds.
| jimkleiber wrote:
| I feel a similar worry. I'm a man in my thirties as well,
| Midwestern American culture which has a similar focus on
| work and nuclear family, and yet my work for the last 9
| years has been focused on emotional communication. I see
| lots of social pressure that if one has emotional intimacy
| anywhere, it's with the nuclear family, typically just with
| the romantic partner. Outside of that (or even in those
| relationships), it almost becomes taboo to express one's
| fuller range of emotions.
|
| So yes, I wish we don't have to cut off our digital ties to
| others where we may still be maintaining some of those non-
| work, non-family relationships.
| anotherhue wrote:
| All reasonable, but why does it have to be Facebook?
| apecat wrote:
| Social networks and communications platforms have value
| because there are people using them. I'm sure you know
| this, it's called the network effect.
|
| Facebook's services are places where people in my
| demographic have accumulated social networks that
| sometimes forms connections in actual socializing.
|
| When we throw parties with my best friends for a wider
| social circles, friends and acquaintances included, we
| still use Facebook events, to coordinate them, as an
| example.
|
| Similarly, although I use Signal to talk to my closest
| friends, Facebook Messenger is still a functional way to
| get hold of people when you don't have their phone number
| or e-mail. Where I'm from, people my age didn't really
| collect phone numbers, since Facebook's convenient for
| that.
|
| Transferring the connection between myself and these
| acquaintances may be cumbersome or awkward, and mind you,
| I'm the kind of person who insists on moving
| conversations to Signal after a certain point.
|
| As a case in point, it took years to make Signal
| something that I actually use for real social connections
| outside my closest circle of people who humor my nerdy
| demands. And only succeeded thanks to 1) me having moved
| some group chats to Whatsapp for encryption the minute
| Whatsapp released a desktop app in May 2016. This moved
| the social graph to my phone book, which made it easy to
| switch to Signal over time. The initial move to Whatsapp
| worked because people already used it. 2) the larger
| network effect of Signal taking off, largely over the
| last year.
|
| So, with all of this hassle in mind, I'm not going to
| tell people who, bluntly put, are at risk of being
| lonely, to drop useful social tools.
| [deleted]
| inglor_cz wrote:
| I deleted my account at the end of July 2019.
|
| Facebook did not become a better place through that. But at
| least I now procrastinate on HN instead. The population here is
| visibly smarter and the mods actually do their work to keep the
| standard from sliding into abyss.
| asteroidbelt wrote:
| > The population here is visibly smarter
|
| You pick your Facebook friends, you subscribe groups which
| you prefer with mods you like, and you are free to ban
| whatever Facebook recommends you. My Facebook feed is
| interesting, I even click ads from time to time because ads
| are good.
|
| Comparison to HN is not fair, because Facebook is about
| friends and HN is about strangers. Still I kinda like
| Facebook because on HN there's very narrow Overton window and
| interesting comments are often downvoted while on Facebook
| I'm exposed to very broad range of ideas from far left to far
| right.
| Nuzzerino wrote:
| If you're frequently on Facebook, you still have to deal
| with comments from friends of friends, if reading their
| posts - and that's where the frustration starts.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| "You pick your Facebook friends"
|
| True, but this picking is not completely voluntary. If you
| are on Facebook and your relatives/coworkers/colleagues
| are, too, they will feel offended if you reject their
| friend request and you will have some personal hassle in
| your meatspace. Happened more than once to me and I reacted
| by cowardly accepting everyone and then filtering out most
| of them. Was not proud.
|
| In that sense, being in a community of complete strangers
| here in HN is actually refreshing.
|
| What I really value on HN is the fact that a lot of
| comments contain valuable info or at least interesting
| thoughts. I often changed my perspective on something I
| previously considered obvious after reading a HN
| discussion.
|
| This is rare on Facebook, most of the user-produced content
| is low-effort, shallow, information-poor and/or fishing for
| likes.
| mic47 wrote:
| Probably not...
| 6AA4FD wrote:
| A lot of the people I know who still have an account, and are
| aware of Facebook's track record, use it for maintaining
| contact with friends and status updates, I don't think there is
| a whole lot that will get those people to drop, they would
| rather try to further close off the flow of information into
| Facebook, and they are already not trusting the service or what
| it does with the information it gets.
| still_grokking wrote:
| But they're still feeding the machine...
|
| The presented line of reasoning makes no sense. But people
| aren't rational, that's no news.
| codetrotter wrote:
| I have Facebook messenger app installed for the sake of a
| couple of people, and I check the Facebook main page once
| in a blue moon to respond to event invites from a friend.
|
| Other than this I don't use Facebook at all any more and
| have used it very very little for the past several years.
|
| I use a browser that tries to protect me from trackers and
| ads.
|
| To me, this is what makes sense to do.
|
| But they still get a significant amount of my attention
| because I use Instagram though.
| realusername wrote:
| The main issue here is that they also get to link all the
| other app events to your facebook account due to the
| facebook sdk and the fact you installed the app on the
| phone.
| GoodJokes wrote:
| So you use IG. Honestly, you are being irrational. So two
| friends are forcing to use fb messenger. How? They refuse
| to communicate outside of it? They don't sound like good
| friends and insta is just as bad as fb so...you have
| literally done nothing to mitigate.
| whatsapps2020 wrote:
| You are saying that comfortable communication with friends
| is rationally less important than long-term ideological
| battle that you don't really influence?
| ipaddr wrote:
| If you don't mind sharing your private conversations then
| sure it starts looking rational.
|
| It is not just an ideological battle when your
| information is used directly against you personally.
| Companies pay for ads targeted to you by mining your
| personal content.
|
| If you are not on facebook or rarely use it they have no
| opportunity to influence you.
| tomjakubowski wrote:
| You can use Facebook while not having any conversations
| on it you'd wish to stay private. I think most of my
| friends still on Facebook use it that way.
| still_grokking wrote:
| You don't need FB to comfortable communication with
| friends.
|
| So there is no reason to use it.
|
| If you know what FB is about, and still use it
| nonetheless (actually for no reason), that's highly
| irrational.
|
| "I want to communicate with my friends" is just a very
| lame excuse for feeding the machine.
| asteroidbelt wrote:
| > You don't need FB to comfortable communication with
| friends.
|
| You don't need planes to meet your distant relatives, but
| flying is often much more convenient than other modes of
| transportation.
|
| > So there is no reason to use it.
|
| Convenience is my reason. If you don't have reasons for
| yourself, that's fine, don't use it, but don't say for
| everyone.
|
| > feeding the machine
|
| This is a bit dramatic.
| fsflover wrote:
| >You don't need planes to meet your distant relativesx
|
| This is not a good parallel. You can use any modern
| instant messenger like Telegram to talk to your friends
| as comfortably (or more).
| asteroidbelt wrote:
| It is a good parallel. Obviously if your relatives live
| on another continent, flying is the optimal, but for
| example you can ride a bus from SF to LA instead of
| flying.
| fsflover wrote:
| Bus takes much longer, whereas other messengers are
| practically as convenient as Facebook.
| [deleted]
| Retric wrote:
| Yes. There are many options outside of Facebook, but
| compromising your morals sticks with you.
| GoodJokes wrote:
| A lot of people you know seem lazy or extremely
| unimaginative. There are just so many ways to still socialize
| and keep up with friends. If your friends stop talking to you
| cuz they can't do it through fb...maybe re-evaluate said
| friends.
| izacus wrote:
| And not a single mention of the fine that Facebook got for giving
| access to this data for someone elses "work". The work that
| Guardian gleefuly led the assault on and also widely reported
| (with good reason! Cambrige Analytica was a huge privacy issue).
|
| So not recognising the fine is disingenuous hypocritical crock
| and far from trustworthy reporting. Guardian, do better.
| uniqueuid wrote:
| As others here have pointed out, you are conflating two very
| different things.
|
| Cambridge analytica deceived people to steal and sell data, and
| to invisibly manipulate them.
|
| These NYU researchers are scientists, whose entire work is only
| valuable if put into the open, and who are boud do law and
| supervised by many checks and balances - soft and hard ones.
|
| It _must_ be possible to study platforms, and for people to
| volunteer their data with informed consent to science.
| Otherwise the entire mechanism of "self-observation" of
| society falls apart.
|
| So yes, it would be good to mention the caveat that Facebook
| does need to protect users. But no, that's almost entirely not
| the issue here.
| newbie789 wrote:
| I'm not 100% familiar with the Cambridge Analytica situation,
| but wasn't their tooling based around _user_ data rather than
| just keeping track of ads?
|
| From the article: > Facebook claimed that we were violating its
| terms of service, that we were compromising user privacy, and
| that it had no choice but to shut us down because of an
| agreement it has with the Federal Trade Commission. All of
| these claims are wrong. Ad Observer collects information only
| about advertisers, not about our volunteers or their friends,
| and the FTC has stated that our research does not violate its
| consent decree with Facebook.
|
| If these NYU researchers have in fact created an identical
| system with identical strategies and goals, and are lying
| blatantly in the Guardian, that should be big news!
|
| I'm somewhat skeptical about the equivalence here.
| zdragnar wrote:
| Expecting the Guardian to do better would be like expecting the
| NYT to do better- pretty pointless. They have specific agendas,
| and the stories are written to conform to the narrative.
|
| As an aside, I don't use Facebook at all, and wouldn't trust
| them with my dog's name either.
| djanogo wrote:
| China also likes to detect and sensor all "disinformation". GTFO
| out here trying to research on what ads/subjects people are
| seeing so you can categorize them based on what your
| classification of that information is.
|
| Entire community is in uproar on apple scanning your pictures but
| this "research" group gets a pass on monitoring what people are
| engaging in non-public internet FB groups/feeds?, and gets to
| classify if that information is "disinformation"?
| TeeMassive wrote:
| I like reminding those "misinformation fighters" that they will
| never be in charge. The look of disenchantment in their face is
| usually quite telling.
| mandmandam wrote:
| You seem to have the wrong end of some sticks.
|
| Users are installing a browser extension to specifically share
| the ads they were shown.
|
| Facebook are claiming this is against an FTC agreement and so
| they are sadly forced to shut the researchers down - the FTC
| says that's bs.
| asteroidbelt wrote:
| But it is too high risk that these extensions will share
| something else like friend list or phone numbers. Even if
| extension authors have honest intentions (we cannot verify
| that), we cannot trust their account and the extension itself
| won't be hacked and extension replaced with something else.
|
| And if that happens everybody will forget these newspaper
| analogies and will go straight to blaming Facebook. No, it is
| in everybody's best interest (except these researchers) not
| to have this extension.
| cronix wrote:
| You mean after FB has already shared your friends list and
| phone numbers? And tracked you and your friends, most if
| not all of who did not give you permission to give FB their
| private contact info, all over the web?
| ergocoder wrote:
| I see.
|
| Since they have shared it with Cambridge Analytica,
| therefore, they must share with every single group that
| asks?
|
| That just doesn't make sense.
|
| I'm happy that FB is more stringent on this since
| guardian isn't exactly great either.
| cronix wrote:
| Not what I said. Did your friends and family give you
| specific permission to give FB their private contact
| info, which FB uses to associate private relationships
| whether they are on FB or not and track people across the
| web? Nothing to do with Cambridge or anyone else I didn't
| mention.
| ergocoder wrote:
| So, your comment has nothing to do with the current topic
| them?
|
| Yeah, a lot of people give that permission. It is in the
| user agreement.
|
| Not that I agree with wide user agreement, but I'm sure
| user agreement covers that part, arguably.
|
| Yes, arguably, your friends are rightfully allowed to
| share your private info like phone numbers and photos.
| Because they have access to those information.
|
| Not that I agree with it, it is just the current state we
| live in.
| tzs wrote:
| > I'm happy that FB is more stringent on this since
| guardian isn't exactly great either.
|
| The Guardian has nothing to do with Ad Observer and the
| research it is used for. They simply ran the article
| written by the NYU researchers that Facebook banned.
| ergocoder wrote:
| Why did they choose to run it on a shady newspaper
| though?
|
| There are at least 10 other more credible newspapers to
| choose from.
| Vanit wrote:
| So... They're complaining that they got banned for spreading
| disinformation?
| adjkant wrote:
| Am I missing something? What disinformation did they spread?
| MikusR wrote:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13443719
| tzs wrote:
| The submitted article about Facebook is _in_ the Guardian
| but not _by_ the Guardian. It is by a couple of researchers
| from NYU.
|
| The article you linked to is both _in_ the Guardian and
| _by_ the Guardian.
| tomc1985 wrote:
| So much of the discussion on disinformation is completely
| disingenuous and a distraction from the fact that Facebook and
| other social media magnates need to radically restructure their
| business practices and strip away the last 15 years of
| "innovation" in how our feeds are presented to us.
|
| Return everyone's feed to a reverse-sorted chronological list of
| posts from friends only and so much of the misinformation problem
| goes away!
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-08-14 23:01 UTC)