Facebook could tackle fake news but chooses not to, regulator says

25 comments

  1. dogmadisk

    |Author

    They depend on these farms of people interacting like real accounts. Search YouTube Facebook ad fraud for a better explanation as to why and you can see how it gets exploited

  2. 1117777111

    |Author

    Been saying this for a long time. All of these social media companies could fix many of their problems – especially phishing scams, spam, fake news, etc. They don’t do it because it would completely fuck with the reality of how many “users” they have and the reality of “user engagement”. When your stock is almost 100% dependent on growth, and much of that growth is from bots and scams, then cutting it out would shrink growth and cripple investor confidence which would tank the stock.

    You could see this in action with Twitter and the cryptocurrency scams. For about a year there were 100s of fake ‘Elon Musk’ accounts, all shilling fake Bitcoin & Ethereum scams using Elon Musk’s photo and username. The Twitter handle would be different, but anyone can use his profile name & photo. These accounts would constantly get involved in the replies to conversations that the real Elon Musk was having, making it seem like he was endorsing various products throughout the discussion. It got so bad that many very high profile celebrity accounts had to put “Not giving away Bitcoin!” next to their profile name.

    This is an EXTREMELY easy problem to fix, especially when it comes to high profile celebrity accounts. Yet they just let it go on and on forever. Dorsey was even confronted about this more than once (specifically about phishing accounts using celebrity names), and he just brushed it off as “impossible problem to fix – we’re trying really hard”. 100% bullshit. They didn’t want to fix it because it would fuck with their user / engagement stats which, again, directly influences investor perception / confidence. Same thing applies to Facebook.

    Edit: Getting downvoted. Here’s another example: dozens of accounts were running [giveaway / charity scams](https://www.hoax-slayer.net/fake-oprah-facebook-page-promises-cash-for-likes-and-shares/) under fake Oprah Winfrey & Ellen Degeneres accounts for years. Oprah’s corporation had to issue disclaimers on all their social media accounts to tell people these alt accounts were fake…and even god damn Oprah Winfrey had a hard time getting Facebook to address the problem and shut down the scam accounts. Facebook again said “this is too difficult problem to fix”. Which equates to a 1/2 trillion dollar corporation saying they don’t have the resources to even shut down a few dozen obvious scam accounts that are actively hurting consumers. This has nothing to do with whether Facebook can fix the problem, it’s crystal clear they have virtually no interest in doing so. Why is that? I think the answer is pretty obvious.

  3. YeaJimi

    |Author

    It’s almost as if the controversy created in response to the fake news benefits FB somehow. So the decision is broken down to; create distain and a toxic environment that benefits shareholders or self police and cut profitability.

    Hmm wonder how this will turn out.

  4. CynDoS

    |Author

    Yes, the 70+ year old borderline alzheimer regulators aka “if you don’t sell data, how does facebook make money ;)))) gotcha now zucc” sure know their trade

  5. Caspavio

    |Author

    tech giants have often used freedom of speech as an excuse not to tackle fake news. but the context has actually changed since. before social media, it is still hard for people to spread fake news. even if you are technically able post it online and show it to everyone, the fact is almost nobody will read it. however, with social media, this has changed drastically. as such, the old rules cannot be used to justify the lack of change.

    furthermore, it is also a stretch to equate tackling fake news as censorship. the broad meaning of freedom of speech is simple; you can say whatever you want. but the reality isnt that straightforward. for example, imagine what will happen to you when you say i have a bomb to a police officer on the street? or what happens when you slander someone? if allowing fake news is at level 0, im not asking for censorship at level 10, but certainly like somewhere in between, where deliberate deceit is unacceptable and isnt allowed to hide behind the freedom of speech shield.

    then the question, how aggressive should we go about eliminating fake news? i believe this depends on the laws each government is prepared set as well as each society is willing to accept. but for starters, we should remove things that are verified as factually wrong.

  6. jackatman

    |Author

    Eyeballs looking at fake news are worth the same as eyeballs looking at real news to advertisers. Probably worth more if we’re honest because we know they are easily persuadable.

    If your business model is selling engagement and views to advertisers, fake news and those that consume it are a rich vein.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.