- Joined
- Aug 1, 2014
- Messages
- 26,719
- Reaction score
- 6,278
- Location
- California
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
For four years, Facebook has promised to curb the spread of disinformation, but new data shows that it has failed miserably
Its most recent challenge was trying to prevent an unconfirmed report about the contents of a laptop supposedly owned by Hunter Biden from going viral on its platform.
While Twitter was slammed for its response — which saw it block URLs to the New York Post’s laptop story completely — Facebook escaped criticism, after it took what appeared to be a more considered route of reducing its distribution on users’ News Feeds before it was fact-checked.
Since the New York Post story was published on Oct. 14, it has received 2,164,601 interactions, with 54,115,025 estimated views on Facebook, according to new research conducted by digital rights group Avaaz and shared with VICE News.
But an even more startling and worrying statistic from Avaaz’s research highlights how Facebook has failed to get a handle on the spread of disinformation on its platform since the 2016 election.
Avaaz found that among those sharing the New York Post story was a network of more than 200 pages and groups — with a combined following of 13 million users — which had previously been identified by Avaaz as serial spreaders of disinformation.
For four years, Facebook has promised to curb the spread of disinformation, but new data shows that it has failed miserably
Its most recent challenge was trying to prevent an unconfirmed report about the contents of a laptop supposedly owned by Hunter Biden from going viral on its platform.
...
Facebook has failed to get a handle on the spread of disinformation on its platform since the 2016 election.
Avaaz found that among those sharing the New York Post story was a network of
Did Vice specifically call the Hunter Biden laptop story "disinformation"? No, because they want to spread disinformation themselves, without lying directly about the matter. We know the emails are real, and only a larping partisan thinks they came from Russia.I am glad you admit Hunter story is disinformation
Is that the Dutch perspective? You should stick to making pastries. You're actually good at that.The only one who is practicing disinformation is kinda or should I say specifically you.
We know the emails are real
Is that the Dutch perspective? You should stick to making pastries. You're actually good at that.
I don't do pastries.
Oh no! You should do pastries for sure. Life is short.
So...Vice is grousing because FB isn't suppressing free speech as much as Twitter.Lol. We're not going back to the pre-internet days Dems. You will not control the free speech of Americans, no matter how much you try.
The emails are real. The NYT and CNN failed to cover Biden's ass. The people know!
Uh huh. So we're at a very contentious stage of delusions and loss of contact with reality, due to the closeness of the election. Hillary Clinton supporters were in a similar haze of delusion in late October, 2016, which eventually dissipated after her loss, after the fever broke. I believe the same kind of a return to sanity will take place after Biden is defeated.1. No you don't. A word of a convict who does not like Hunter is not proof. A non-denial is not proof.
2. Even if they were real, it proves nothing about Biden. Hunter may have been running his mouth and cashing in on his name, even promising something he could not deliver, but it does not mean Joe did anything.
Because the amount of pressure on FB and Twitter is enormous. From a business perspective, I believe FB and Twitter would rather that Trump be reelected, because his tax policies are a boon to big companies like FB, Google and Twitter. But they're constantly under pressure from one political side to censor people who are on the opposite side. Bad public relations coming from the media's commitment to giving unfavorable coverage for social media companies that don't censor conservatives is what drives censorship of conservatives on these platforms. The platforms themselves benefit from a controversial politician like Trump, because any sort of controversy increases usership of social media accounts--people want to talk about it online.So...Vice is grousing because FB isn't suppressing free speech as much as Twitter.
I don't use either platform all that much so I don't really care about them, but I have to ask...why do either platform want to control what topics "go viral"?
Did you happen to catch the number of people who believed the story? Views don't equate to belief. Many on here read it and dismissed it based on posts I've read.Lol. We're not going back to the pre-internet days Dems. You will not control the free speech of Americans, no matter how much you try.
The emails are real. The NYT and CNN failed to cover Biden's ass. The people know!
If that were true, then they wouldn't be suppressing conservative voices.Because the amount of pressure on FB and Twitter is enormous. From a business perspective, I believe FB and Twitter would rather that Trump be reelected, because his tax policies are a boon to big companies like FB, Google and Twitter. But they're constantly under pressure from one political side to censor people who are on the opposite side. Bad public relations coming from the media's commitment to giving unfavorable coverage for social media companies that don't censor conservatives is what drives censorship of conservatives on these platforms. The platforms themselves benefit from a controversial politician like Trump, because any sort of controversy increases usership of social media accounts--people want to talk about it online.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?