Re:Facebook blocks links to B.S. Detector, fake news warning...
by ChuckMcM on Friday December 02, 2016 @02:13PM
(#13091391)
Welcome to the original "editorial" question. Read up on "Yellow Journalism" for a history.
The answer to your rhetorical is "some people start from a position of reporting responsibility some start from a position of personal responsibility."
Lets presume there is a conversation between Alice and Bob on what is happening. Eve can hear both conversations and to some extent can ascertain when either Alice or Bob are communicating a falsehood or a misstatement to the other.
In the personal responsibility policy camp Eve doesn't do anything, it is up to Alice and Bob to evaluate the integrity and accuracy of the other's facts. In the reporting responsibility policy camp, if either Alice or Bob is communicating to a group (which is to say the communication is one to many) then Eve must inform the many when Alice states a falsehood or lies, conversely if Bob is the one who is communicating to the many then his falsehoods and/or misleading statements must be called out.
Facebook lands in the middle because both Alice and Bob are in fact communicating to lots of people (everyone on the feed, everyone reading the comments section what ever). As the "market maker" for this meeting of speakers and listeners, either Facebook is 100% responsible for the quality of the facts or 100% not responsible for the quality of the facts.
If you think of the information being exchanged as "product" and people publishing information as "sellers" and people reading that information "buyers" (even though there may be no financial transaction involved), there is quite a bit of experiential guidance around what the market owner must do versus the sellers and buyers in the market. The challenge is that people who might be suspicious being offered a Rolex watch at a flea market for a fraction of the price, seem more willing to believe a "news story" from an unaccredited news source which differs markedly from what the mainstream press is reporting. If they saw such news stories as 'cheap rolexes' it might activate the same sorts of suspicions they would get in a market when the price is too good to be true.
The answer to your rhetorical is "some people start from a position of reporting responsibility some start from a position of personal responsibility."
Lets presume there is a conversation between Alice and Bob on what is happening. Eve can hear both conversations and to some extent can ascertain when either Alice or Bob are communicating a falsehood or a misstatement to the other.
In the personal responsibility policy camp Eve doesn't do anything, it is up to Alice and Bob to evaluate the integrity and accuracy of the other's facts. In the reporting responsibility policy camp, if either Alice or Bob is communicating to a group (which is to say the communication is one to many) then Eve must inform the many when Alice states a falsehood or lies, conversely if Bob is the one who is communicating to the many then his falsehoods and/or misleading statements must be called out.
Facebook lands in the middle because both Alice and Bob are in fact communicating to lots of people (everyone on the feed, everyone reading the comments section what ever). As the "market maker" for this meeting of speakers and listeners, either Facebook is 100% responsible for the quality of the facts or 100% not responsible for the quality of the facts.
If you think of the information being exchanged as "product" and people publishing information as "sellers" and people reading that information "buyers" (even though there may be no financial transaction involved), there is quite a bit of experiential guidance around what the market owner must do versus the sellers and buyers in the market. The challenge is that people who might be suspicious being offered a Rolex watch at a flea market for a fraction of the price, seem more willing to believe a "news story" from an unaccredited news source which differs markedly from what the mainstream press is reporting. If they saw such news stories as 'cheap rolexes' it might activate the same sorts of suspicions they would get in a market when the price is too good to be true.