Is MikeN actually implying that there is something wrong with complaining about “fake news”? That would mean that there something good to be said for “fake news” aka “lying” wouldn’t it?

What a strange world modern “conservatives” inhabit.

“The accusation of “fake news” or “lying press” has an ominous precedent, tracing back to the history of the German phrase “Lügenpresse.”
read more: https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/1.772836

And I am not complaining about the use of the term “fake news”. What I am doing is point out the fact that Donald J. Trump’s behavior is so steeped in Nazi tradition that our little handed president is little more than a stinking pile of rehashed Nazi crap, and he needs to be impeached and removed at the first possible opportunity. Have a nice day.

Yes- I hear the difference between the tech and its uses- and I agree. The larger point – and ultimately the place that I feel must be addressed- is that technological development is “guided” by the “who is going to stop me” mantra [paraphrase- Chiang] in the naive [IMHO ] assumption that the corporate entities funding and profiting these technologies exist on an amoral playing field.

It seems that we are leaping into a Moore’s Law acceleration of technological abilities while assuming that the corporate model of the early 1900’s is still the best economic/social/ecologic system of governance of these technologies.

There is this tacit belief that Gates, Zuckerberg, Musk et al are really the best arbiters of our social construct vis-a-vis “their” technology. But I see it as that they have been exceptionally good at creating vertical and horizontal monopolies that are about as ruthless as any of the old oil/timber/rail robber barons of yesteryear.

It will be at least interesting to see how this plays out as these “older” players [Z etc] begin to rub up against say , the quasi state run economy of China…. [to say nothing of the implications of Z’s own presidential ambitions ]

are you suggesting that we are better off leaving those issues [Crispr, autonomous vehicles, drone warfare, social media and climate change ] to market forces?

No. I was not even addressing Crispr, vehicles, or drone warfare.

My comment was meant to be a warning against viewing the technology as the danger, which, IMO, it is not, instead of guarding against dangerous uses of the technology. Z (and his counterparts elsewhere) need to realize that if they don’t become more transparent in what sorts of data their algorithms look for, and what they do with it, they will be reigned in by people who are the poster children for technological ignorance. If that happens we’ll all be hurt. (Z hasn’t helped himself with the monumentally stupid idea he floated about how to handle the issue of revenge pornish pictures being posted on FB: the details of that process show (again, IMO) that it was clearly a rapidly hacked together bit of crap designed for PR and not anything worthwhile).

Of course the other things mentioned need to be closely monitored. Implying otherwise was not my intent.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/facebook-is-getting-rid-of-its-fact-checking-label-and?utm_term=.ypb30Pgwy#.mnzQbvawl

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2017/12/21/facebook-fail-social-network-scraps-disputed-flags-fake-news/973153001/

https://medium.com/facebook-design/designing-against-misinformation-e5846b3aa1e2

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/21/facebook-found-a-better-way-to-fight-fake-news.html

Some academic work on the subject:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcom.12166/full

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3035384

I’d be especially interested to see what the impact is of education level in disputed flag reinforcement of belief in fake news. It’s implied in the second study linked above, in the response of Trump supporters, but without the actual data being collected it’s only an inference and not an elucidated correlation.

Finally, I saw this post and heard of the stories above as I was coincidentally listening to this:

http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/rn/podcast/2017/12/bia_20171218.mp3

The universe appears to want to tell me something today.

[It could also be argued that the abandonment of the Fairness Doctrine is in part responsible for the level of techno/science ignorance among lawmakers and their constituents today…. Market force driven “news” is particularly scary IMHO]

Still: are you suggesting that we are better off leaving those issues [Crispr, autonomous vehicles, drone warfare, social media and climate change ] to market forces? Again, I think Chiang is right to point out that worrying over the nuts and bolts of , say, internet neutrality is to ignore the core systemic problem: namely , that no corporate entity , left to its own devices, is capable of enough introspection to recognize that there are consequences for their behavior.

Look at the stupid questions elected officials asked when the big company’s reps were on Capitol Hill and explain how you could argue those officials have any clue about internet issues.

I still do not see how any “remedies” can take place in the context of the corporate capitalist model. A ‘bottom line view’ can never include the interests of any non-share holding greater public.

At least by involving government there are more interests represented at the table. “They have no real clue how modern technologies work” is a too easy pass- Crispr, autonomous vehicles, drone warfare, social media and climate change are all areas in which very few can claim proficient all encompassing knowledge- still – without some attempt at transparency , public advocacy and regulation, the old “let the market dictate the outcome” IS the AI doom scenario …

allow Facebook to be used to mislead, misinform and suppress voters during the 2016 election,

I don’t agree with the “allow” bit. Facebook’s tools did let the propaganda farms to buy ads and spread misinformation, but the scale of an operation like Facebook made it highly unlikely that the introduction of foreign currency (the infamous “rubles” stuff) alone would be an indicator of what was going on.

The lack of transparency in Facebook’s polices and algorithms is a fault, but isn’t theirs alone. He could make a huge step forward by explaining exactly what their news algorithms look for (all of their algorithms, actually) and providing a place where information about advertising targeting and financing could be easily accessed (as traditional media companies do/did).

His other actions (mentioned in the post above) are inexplicable. I don’t believe he wants (and I certainly don’t want) the government to put strong regulations on Facebook (and Google, and Twitter, …), because the clowns in government have demonstrated
— they have no real clue how modern technologies work
— they have no concern for the privacy of of citizens (discussions of whether big companies do either is for another time and place) — that started long ago
but if he doesn’t begin steering Facebook in a better direction it will happen.

I think the actions that need to be taken are roughly summed up as “don’t address remedies to the technology, address the remedies to detrimental uses of the technology”.