The problem with misinformation, ultimately, is that it is given a platform. We've reached an inflection point where people can truly believe these mistruths so deeply, that any fact checking is received as a personal attack -- and they get even more defensive.

Facebook (or YouTube, or Twitter, or whoever) can try to come up with even more infoboxes or disclaimers, but it will continue to exist as long as it is given a platform.

The original sin of social media comes down to the idea that anyone can post, and that virality begets virality. Shocking content is presented on the same level as traditional media -- and in many cases, can exceed those traditional news sources' reach.

FWIW, and disclosure -- we're building a platform that aims to combat misinfo by making it only for news. (https://blog.nillium.com/were-not-an-aggregator/).

Our reporters follow an Editorial Policy, that comes with consequences if they break the guidelines. Virtually every respectable news org has something like this -- we're just making ours public. https://www.forthapp.com/docs/policy.html

Until we hold the reporting produced by professional reporters -- reviewed by editors, fact checked, and held in check by an editorial process -- at a higher esteem than what Firstname Bunchanumbers says, misinformation will continue.

> Until we hold the reporting produced by professional reporters -- reviewed by editors, fact checked, and held in check by an editorial process -- at a higher esteem

Having worked in a news organization, I wish I had more faith in this statement. Most reporters are woefully out of touch or depth when covering complex topics. As a finance major, I'm often surprised how often the explanations for basic topics are wrong or presented without any nuance.

The ONLY way to fight misinformation, intentional or not, is to allow a free exchange of ideas. The stupid ones, in the end would be shown as stupid and sink. But in todays world people seem to think that other people, "being the dumb ones", need to be protected from their stupidity, and "us being the sage ones" need to hide the dumb ideias from the dumb ones. Such arrogance.

> The ONLY way to fight misinformation, intentional or not, is to allow a free exchange of ideas.

That implies all ideas are given equal visibility, but we already know that social networks prioritize content that's outrageous or controversial over content that isn't.

You want a free exchange of ideas? Start by fixing the algorithms.

I don't agree. It is trivial to spread bullshit and nontrivial to show that it's bullshit. Your philosophy allows misinformation to spread because of how much harder it is to refute than create.

Absolutely. It's basically a digital gish gallop:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop

I'm very wary of censoring ideas, but we do have laws around things like fraud and truth in advertising. Should we get rid of those?

I originally upvoted, but with further reflection, I'm not certain.

There is real enduring value in being a source for information that is true and trusted. It is possible that Facebook might choose that path.

The harder question is understanding what is true. "Galileo's head was on the block; the crime was looking up the truth."

But Facebook can at least work towards it, even if you're pessimistic they'll solve it. That's what this blog post is about.

The very first sentence on the page is how they are stopping it. If their ambition is to work towards something vaguely better, then sure, seems reasonable.

I think focusing on the literal semantics of the first sentence rather than taking the blog post holistically is too harsh. Obviously it's still a problem; they are communicating that they're working on it.

I did look at the whole thing and assumed that they meant that doing those things added up to stopping it. However I can see your point of view as well.