Zuckerberg Shares Facebook's Plan to Bring Community Together, Edits Out a Questionable Sentence Minutes Later (mashable.com) 104
Facebook CEO and founder Mark Zuckerberg wants to bring people closer together. He published a 6,000-word letter on his Facebook page Thursday to outline his vision for the kind of world he thinks Facebook can help create. The free-wielding note included few specifics, but offered a number of broad, ambitious goals for how the tech giant can contribute to a better understanding of everything from terrorism to fake news. Interestingly, minutes after the post was published, Zuckerberg edited out a sentence from the letter. Mashable adds: In the post, Zuckerberg briefly touches on how artificial intelligence can be used to detect terrorist propaganda. "Right now, we're starting to explore ways to use AI to tell the difference between news stories about terrorism and actual terrorist propaganda so we can quickly remove anyone trying to use our services to recruit for a terrorist organization," he wrote in the post published Thursday. That sounds like a straightforward enough application of AI -- one that's in line with what Zuckerberg and other executives have discussed in the past -- but it's different from what the CEO had originally written. In an earlier version of the missive, which was shared with a number of news outlets in advance of its publication on Facebook, Zuckerberg took the idea farther. The "long-term promise of AI," he wrote, is that it can be used used to "identify risks that nobody would have flagged at all, including terrorists planning attacks using private channels." Here's an expanded version of the quote from the Associated Press (emphasis ours). "The long term promise of AI is that in addition to identifying risks more quickly and accurately than would have already happened, it may also identify risks that nobody would have flagged at all "including terrorists planning attacks using private channels, people bullying someone too afraid to report it themselves, and other issues both local and global. It will take many years to develop these systems." That's different from what was described in the final version that was shared Thursday, which made no mention of private communication in relation to AI and terrorism.
That sounds grand! (Score:4, Insightful)
it may also identify risks that nobody would have flagged at all--including terrorists planning attacks using private channels, people bullying someone too afraid to report it themselves...
And also, coming soon: PRECRIME!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously though, think of the children.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Slippery slope (Score:5, Insightful)
So you don't read any non-tax funded news-sites then, you know the ones ran by news corporations?
But honestly, it's facebook's decision to decide whether or not they want their platfrom to be used in distribution of non-factual/made up 'news'. I personally do not get my news from FB but I've seen the amount of entirely made up 'news' from blogs that have been shared in the recent years. A simple thing that I've seen repeated time and time again here is this: someone files a report about an immigrant committing some crime, usually theft or assault. The yellow-press then runs this with a headline along the lines of 'Immigrant man under investigation for crime X'. Then some nationalist blog made up to look like a news site runs an article with the headline "yet another immigrant crime, man from *insert country* harassed a teenager.", then, to appear more credible they link to the previous article about an ongoing investigation.
These spread like wildfire on social media because the headlines are usually shocking and they pander the the preconceived notions and fears that people have, and nobody bothers to check what the source actually says. If you point out in the comment section that the guy has not in fact been convicted of anything and it's an ongoing investigation (you know, innocent until proven guilty and all that) you get attacked for being 'on their side' or 'defending criminals', nevermind that no crime has of yet been proven to take place. If the guy is convicted it's trumpeted again as evidence of how all brown people are dangerous criminals and/or terrorists. If charges are not raised at all or he's found to be innocent, no correcting stories are run.
There are several sites operating mainly using this principle, many of them receiving funding or support from Russia, which is taking advantage of the immigrant crisis here in Europe to stir up xenophobia and nationalism because a divided and weakened EU is to their benefit. RT is a common 'source' used by these sites, Many of them also cross-link to each other, so that a blog being run in sweden is used as source by blog here in Finland. The traditional media obviously does not report on unsubstantiated rumors which is then further used as 'evidence' that the media is involved in some sort of massive 'cover-up' by not immediately reporting everything someone decided to blog about,
This is what 'alternative facts' mean, and personally having seen how fast these things can spread even after officials come out and issue corrections, I don't mind social media trying to do something about these sites' visibility, because without the massive speed/inertia that they gain by quick shares and likes they'd be in near obscurity. They are only damaging public discourse, because it's now impossible to even try and have a rational discussion with many of these people as they will not accept any news or reporting from the 'corrupted mainstream media' as evidence that they've in fact been duped by propagandists and ideologues. As a test, reporter from a newspaper submitted a story about being attacked by a foreigner(s) last summer and it was immediately published even though no source or evidence was presented. They'll pretty much run everything that serves their agenda, because that's what propaganda is.
I see no reason why facebook should allow this to keep happening. They already censor stuff like nudity and gore out, and I don't see nudity and gore anywhere near as dangerous to the society as made up 'news'.
Seriously (Score:5, Informative)
Anybody that uses Facebook as a news source is a complete idiot.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
>*Anybody* that uses Facebook is a complete idiot. FTFY
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Seriously (Score:4, Insightful)
Indeed and as the owner of an entertainment tool we should be neither surprised or concerned when the chief moron spouts the usual bullshit. What is far more worrying is that most of the population seem to think that this entertainment medium provides them with information. Fucking morons, and worse they get to vote.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This quick link [journalism.org] breaks down news consumption by social media outlet. Unfortunately, a great many people fit your definition of "complete idiot." Fortunately, they check their news sources against what's trending, so what could go wrong?
Re: (Score:2)
>> Unfortunately, a great many people fit your definition of "complete idiot."
Yes that's something I've been aware of for a long time. I often question whether I'm perhaps being too harsh, but they continually find new ways to prove I'm actually not.
Misunderstaning the Problem (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem is not that people are seeking news through facebook; the problem is that they're seeing what other people post on facebook. That loosens the control of the media, which is a major problem, as they have lost control of the narrative. Scan the front page of the NY Times or CNN's webpage for a week and you'll realize that the narrative is 100% focused on destroying Trump's presidency. Facts be damned, though they'll be included if convenent. Facebook allowing people to post, and worse, to aggregat
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Your retarded assumption there is that everyone necessarily wants to destroy the President of the United States.
Why is it that democrats can never get their heads around the fact that their arguments are in fact not magically unquestionable?
You were Trolled? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
The bird logo is twitter, isn't it?
Re: (Score:1)
That's right. The smart people use it as an advertising platform.
Re:Seriously (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Shit affects you whether you realize it or not because all people, "idiots" or not, are irrational. You see a friend post "TRUMP IS ENDING THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND KILLING KIDS!" and you think "That's stupid," but you subconciously have a slightly more paranoid opinion of Trump.
And obviously the reverse is true. At least I hope. Otherwise, my father and mother in law went from sane Navy veterans to vo
Re: (Score:1)
First step: (Score:3, Insightful)
First step: everyone presto sign up for a FREE AWESOME facebook account!
Then we will see...
C'mon, Zuckie, little rich asshole. Your sense of entitlement is absolutely disgusting.
ATTENTION, CITIZEN! (Score:4, Funny)
The Computer has identified this thread as containing FAKE NEWS and other ungoodthinkful Hatefacts. This thread is therefore terminated. All readers are ordered to report to Room 101 for re-education. Failure will reuslt in a declaration of being PROBLEMATIC and sentence to six months of hard nagging.
REMEMBER: THE COMPUTER LOVES YOU.
Re: (Score:2)
Aehm, are these not called "ALTERNATE FACTS" now? Or is that only when they cam from the ruling Junta?
Re: (Score:2)
I gather you're too politically naive to understand the difference between the inept statements of an inexperienced administration and the threat of widespread, automated censorship?
Re: (Score:2)
I gather you are unable to recognize sarcasm...
Re: (Score:2)
I decoded your sarcasm just fine: that's why I accused you of being naive.
Prediction (Score:1)
Zuck2020 will be the first US presidential campaign run by VR. And it will be a bigger disaster than Trump2016 in the sense of getting the greater evil elected.
And Zuck will probably run as a Republican.
What the hell is a "free-wielding note"? (Score:2)
Slight correction needed (Score:1)
Perhaps you meant "free-wheeling"? Maybe?
All these words (Score:5, Insightful)
Sound like high minded excuse to start use the platform for political purposes. All these words "bullying", "fake news", etc. are code words involved in liberal virtue signalling. "Fake news" is something that those evil right wingers do (especially it does not apply to New York Times, et al. or any garbage coming from BLM or other such outlets). "Bullying" is anything that makes a member of a designated minority group feel bad. Facebook is going the same way as Twitter.
Given Facebooks enormous reach, I think we can say that rarely has world placed such a huge power in the hands of one individual. We are unfortunate that the individual in case is Mark Zuckenberg, a man so insecure that he needs constantly signal his virtue. I guess it was only a matter of time until he would succumb to this. This is going to be a slippery slope and is going to get worse. As it does, it will become harder and harder to call out liberal bullshit (Trevor Martin -type of misinformation) as contradictory views to orthodoxy is hidden deeper and deeper.
People who are repelled by this (I think term "red pilled" is used) feel (with justification) that they get better information from such luminaries as infowars.com and breitbart.com. O tempora, o mores. Five years ago I didn't expect that I would seriously say that there are any sane reasons that one should pay any attention to infowars.com. (Just to make it clear: I am NOT endorsing infowars.com in any way possible. I'm just saying that due to general drop in quality in other news, it has become relatively better.)
As a side note, this trend has pushed me back to the Slashdot. It seems that, one again, this is almost the only place where even some sane voices are heard. (Ten years ago it Slashdot was for the place to be for a different reason.) Reddit has become unreadable, twitter also, now facebook, and so on. Case in point, the coverage of PewDiePie -scandal in past day was covered best here on slashdot. Decent analysis, perspective, opposing views, etc. in comments that was not available anywhere else. Thanks folks, keep it up. You might be the last best hope for humanity until news media fixes it self.
Re: (Score:1)
News media is valuable, just like the U.S. dollar--they're both only real in the eyes of the maggots in the cheese.
Re: (Score:1)
I mostly get my news from youtube channels now. It is a very strange place to be in were I clearly can see that I don't get the whole story from the old giants. .
I won't even bother to watch news channels anymore.
Regarding the pewdiepie thing. It so weird that if I want the level headed insight to that whole thing, I would go watch Philip DeFranco instead of WSJ. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
What the fuck is going on?
Drudge's Fault (Score:1, Informative)
Actually its ABC's fault.
Back when Clinton was president, the story about Monica was given to ABC 3 times over a 8 month period. They buried it every time they got it. There is no telling how many stories the "big 3" buried.
Matt Drudge made a website and put the story up, he thought it was interesting. Here we are 20 years later and Drudge is still around. That is THE first time I know of a story buried by the "big 3" got national attention. They have been mad since then that they can't bury stories th
Re: (Score:1)
> Actually its ABC's fault.
>
> Back when Clinton was president, the story about Monica was given
> to ABC 3 times over a 8 month period. They buried it every time they
> got it. There is no telling how many stories the "big 3" buried.
Add Newsweek to the list. http://australianpolitics.com/... [australianpolitics.com]
> At the last minute, at 6 p.m. on Saturday evening, NEWSWEEK magazine killed a
> story that was destined to shake official Washington to its foundation: A White
> House intern carried on a sexual aff
Another good listen, and I "almost" agree (Score:4, Interesting)
Sargon of Akkad did a video explaining the Pewdiepie [youtube.com] situation very well. Sadly the only people who want to learn are people who don't know him (like me) or get information from the far left who started the petitions, threats, etc... Those people are stuck in confirmation bias, so will simply call Sargon a [insert_ism/obe]. People who knew him already knew this was coming so don't need the lesson.
I "almost" agree that Youtube has become a better source of information than broadcast "news", but probably for different reasons. There are a few people I subscribe to and follow, but most of the time I use that information to find sources. It takes me 5 minutes to read a transcript versus 5 minutes to read someone's analysis of a transcript. When the majority of media ignores information that does not fit a narrative and cherry picks for an agenda, my time is better spent with the actual source making up my own mind.
Re: (Score:1)
All these words "bullying", "fake news", etc. are code words involved in liberal virtue signalling.
Oh Golly Gosh, here they come with their code words to take away our liberties.
Re:All these words (Score:4, Interesting)
Sound like high minded excuse to start use the platform for political purposes. All these words "bullying", "fake news", etc. are code words involved in liberal virtue signalling. "Fake news" is something that those evil right wingers do (especially it does not apply to New York Times, et al. or any garbage coming from BLM or other such outlets).
The cognitive dissonance is strong with this one......from Trump's very own press conference yesterday:"Russia is fake news....You know what they said, you saw it and the leaks are absolutely real. The news is fake because so much of the news is fake." So Trump is liberal now and CNN is right-wing?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is that someone (I think intentionally) co-opted "fake news" to mean "biased reporting"- that's not originally what it meant at all and a lot of people are still using the term to mean something else. "Fake news" originally (as in a couple of months ago) meant completely fabricated stories. "Trump derives his power from secret Mayan ceremony" "Hillary feeds on the blood of wildebeasts" - that kind of crap that was going around Facebook at the time like it was legit. Now anything anyone doesn't l
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that someone (I think intentionally) co-opted "fake news" to mean "biased reporting"- that's not originally what it meant at all and a lot of people are still using the term to mean something else. "Fake news" originally (as in a couple of months ago) meant completely fabricated stories.
You gotta understand free expression of language these days -- I guess they're just "free wielding" the term.
(Or, at least that's what I'm guessing these two words from TFS might mean when put in sequence. But from the summary, I still can't understand exactly what Zuckerberg's note was "wielding." Didn't know Slashdot was into actually spawning NEW eggcorns.)
Re: (Score:1)
"Fake news" is something that those evil right wingers do
No, "fake news" is something those evil right wingers believe.
Re: (Score:2)
the coverage of PewDiePie -scandal in past day was covered best here on slashdot.
I think PewDiePie was a "don't care"
Re:All these words (Score:5, Interesting)
Sound like high minded excuse to start use the platform for political purposes. All these words "bullying", "fake news", etc. are code words involved in liberal virtue signalling. "Fake news" is something that those evil right wingers do (especially it does not apply to New York Times, et al. or any garbage coming from BLM or other such outlets).
Deception, coercion, half-truths and complete fabrication are not, and have never been, tools used exclusively by people with one particular political leaning or another. They're used by leftists, rightists, centrists, libertarians, conservatives, liberals, democrats, republicans, greens, independents, tea partiers, anarcho-communists, fascists, feminists, masculinists, and everyone in between or beyond.
It might be the case that a certain number of news outlets could be liberally biased enough to use these tactics to undermine right-wing political viewpoints, but this in no way prevents or exonerates those outlets which are right-wing, from using the same tactics.
If your complaint then becomes that there are too many liberal news sources and not enough mainstream conservative news sources, then you're basically saying that you want the news to present you with lies that agree with your personal political dogma, rather than lies that attack or offend your personal political dogma.
If you think that a change of color or movement along a right/left spectrum will in any way affect the frequency and severity of lies, deception and coercion used by the mainstream media, you would be plain wrong in that belief. ANY politically motivated organization, regardless of what agenda they're pushing, is going to distribute deceptive and patently false information, also known as propaganda, that supports the agenda they are being paid to push.
The only way to return news media to reporting on objective truths observable by scientifically rigorous methods, and away from speculation, hearsay, the passing of rumors and fabrications, and opinion-slinging (all of which are inherently biased toward some particular set of beliefs, and in the context of politics, toward some particular set of political beliefs), is to forcibly separate media from financial incentive. Capitalist media is always going to be propaganda for someone.
[Esc]Ncc/yy/:w! (Score:2)
Obvously he's using vi..
These are not called "terrorists"... (Score:4, Insightful)
The ones "planning" terrorist attacks using a Facebook channel are called "pathetic losers without a clue". Chances are they only think about doing something terroristic because some FBI provocateur suggested it to them and will be providing fake explosives and the like.
Zuck off (Score:5, Insightful)
Zuckerberg has some serious delusions of grandeur. He was in the right place at the right time to pinch someone else's idea. He was able to promote it and make a lot of money out of it.
That doesn't mean he's an expert on everything under the sun. His opinion on most things is worth no more than the typical slashdotter's and he doesn't know more than the proverbial bloke at the pub.
P.S. Hey manishs, you fucked up the quotes again.
Re: (Score:2)
Thomas Edison [youtube.com]
Ray Kroc [dailymail.co.uk]
Mark Zuckerberg [businessinsider.com]
Re:Zuck off - perhaps... but... (Score:4, Insightful)
I know very little to anything about him. However, I think this entire story is such shit.
yes, he's a multi-billionaire and the CEO of a huge company.
All he did was post some information that was rattling around in his head - which EVERYONE seems to think is absolutely a necessary thing to do these days.
Then, he thought better of one sentence, and removed it.
And people lose their fucking minds and consider that to be NEWS worthy of reporting on. It's all asinine.
It's not important. It really isn't.
I'm just surprised he admitted it (Score:4, Insightful)
Bring Community Together? (Score:2, Interesting)
Speaking as a guy who uses Facebook entirely to push my novels, Facebook seems to be a major contributor in the breakdown of community. I've got hundreds of "friends," know next to nothing about them, have never met them, and have no plans to meet them. We're not building communities; we're building audiences for our inane momentary thoughts and pics of the really cool fish tacos we had last night. As a somewhat shy and asbergery child I had only a few, but really close, friends. My nephew, about as ner
AI-Censorship (Score:3)
I bet that China LOVES this idea! No censors... just AI that will do the job in a way that it will censor unwanted content "nobody would have flagged at all". That is totalitarian dream! Great ways to put AI to use for the benefit of mankind. Mark, congratulations for your achievement.
I am sure we will hear about this technology soon but we may not like the news.
At some point... (Score:2)
work on real stuff (Score:2)
His Deep State handlers... (Score:1)
Missing the Point (Score:4, Insightful)
Nobody seems to have keyed into the fact that the article implies Facebook is planning to run content analytics and conceptual clustering algorithms across all of their databases. Databases including "private" conversations.
Having seen first hand what 5+ year old analytics tools can pull out of seeming disparate data sets, I find this both amazing and frightening.
They key quote from the summary is this one...
The "long-term promise of AI," he wrote, is that it can be used used to "identify risks that nobody would have flagged at all...
When you let an "AI" build concept clusters based on linguistic analysis, and then pattern match to find similarities, you will open Pandora's box to all sorts of unexpected correlations.
Result of a Netflix binge (Score:1)
Just seen on BBW world (Score:2)
BBC World's ticker just showed "Zuckerberg: My facebook manifesto to re-boot globalisation".
He thinks he's Samuel P. Huntingdon, Thomas L. Friedman, John Locke & Adam Smith all rolled into one. What a pretentious cockwad.
What they're not saying (Score:1)