The proposals of Zuckerberg against the buffaloes – Want …

Mark Zuckerberg return to question buffalo, this time showing a plan of seven points to deal with a problem that especially in the Usa has become political. The accusation of the media – a decidedly hypocritical, given that can certainly not be called out – is that you have allowed for lack of control, that an exorbitant amount of false information pro Trump influenced the vote. A part of the same employees of Menlo Park seems to threaten to find a solution, convinced of this theory. Zuck is much less, however, the buffaloes would still represent a problem.

The founder of Facebook has stated that to consider the crowds and the idea that the social network has contributed to the election of Donald Trump to 45° president of the United States. Let’s face it: he’s absolutely right. In the hubbub of comments and analysis that have made havoc of logic, sociology, and statistics, Zuck seems to be one of the few to remain transparencies. Probably because he really knows the dynamics of his creation and its algorithms. That’s why the long post in which he resumes the argument turns on a principle: to take seriously the responsibility of what happens on the site without assumersela for this is that only theoretically would be an indirect consequence.

our goal is to connect people with the stories and we know that people want accurate information. We have worked on this problem for a long period of time, and we take seriously this responsibility. We have made significant progress, but there is still work to do. We have always relied on our community to help understand what is fake and what is not. Anyone on Facebook can report any link, and we use these reports along with other information to decide which stories you can safely classify as misinformation, clickbait, spam, and scams: penalizziamo this content in the News Feed so that it is less likely to spread.

An account, however, is the mathematical object, another claim to make Facebook arbitrator of the truth. Philosophical concept from which the ceo of Menlo Park wants to keep, wisely, far:

We believe in the value of giving people a voice, that is to say to the people what they want every time that this is possible. We must be careful not to discourage the sharing of opinions, or to limit the error of the accurate content. We don’t want to be arbiters of truth, we rely on the community and the third parties.

The strategy in seven points

With an exception to the rule, Zuckerberg explains publicly the work is still in progress, which Facebook intends to do to combat misinformation remaining in the frame "beyond good and evil", that is, confirming the interest to break down the buffaloes and their business model is at the same time, by rejecting once again the requests for a slice of the population and of the media in democratic times in which they take a full role of publishing (and then political). The plan consists of seven points, which pass from the strengthening of the algorithms to the simplification of the reports.

1. Detection stronger. The most important thing that can make the engineers, he explains, is “to improve the ability to classify the misinformation”. The technical systems for locating what people report as false, that they can, on the basis of a learning system.
2. Ease of reporting. Make it much easier for reporting of the buffaloes should help the site to make them disappear more quickly. Warning: this method is used by those who consider the buffalo always and only those of others. Therefore, it is conceivable how that can be a tool, already today, social bombing.
3. check from the third party. This is an admission important. Zuckerberg claims that “there are many organizations set of fack checking: we plan to learn from them and more.”
4. Warning. Looks like the label developed by Google. In practice, even Facebook is exploring several hypotheses on how to show alerts when people read, or share content that is already reported by a third party or by the users themselves.
5. Quality of related articles. Another small news from Zuck: “We are raising the level for the stories that appear in the “related articles” under links in the News Feed”.
6. economics. Except for some rare cases, the misinformation is not at all an ideological nature, it is instead a form of spam. In other words, to the young Macedonian who have produced a mountain of buffaloes against Clinton was interested only to earn money, and the fans of the Trump had the best features for believe it or otherwise share it. The sixth point of the plan of Facebook is probably the decisive one: to find a way to stop the continuity between the buffaloes and the false political announcements.
7. Listening of experts. Just because Facebook does not consider it to be a media company, will continue to work with journalists and others in the industry news to better understand their control systems, and their cultural sensitivity. An idea which meets with sympathy and agreement, for example, Jeff Jarvis.

Facebook has nothing to do

With the passing of the weeks, with a few analyst that is superficial or mathematicians who believe themselves to be sociologists (new category emerging is increasingly clear as neurosis post-vote has threatened to make Facebook an easy scapegoat. The composition of the vote, the source of the shares of fake news was illustrated by an excellent article by Jonathan Albright, who showed how in reality these contents are disseminated through various methods and even more traditional, and, finally, the same report that the american media have (finally) decided to do in the States of the province mainland, where Trump has won the election, have reduced much of this theory from the basics fragile.

Locate the engineering of the joints, to quantify the spread of bad information (whatever that means) is only a great "how to", not a why, not to be confused with an explanation of the vote. It is a serious error to believe that people share rubbish and therefore vote for Trump. It is more likely, and historically proven to be the opposite, i.e. that the social need, creating the need to have arguments to support it, has an interest in the content of the reinforcement, also of comfort to a decision already taken, to a position that is already established. the the center is The man, not the Internet, his willingness and mental to look for in a tank’s ideological and moral content, which give the "fit" to its own guidelines, which often – if you studied, really have to do with deep rooted heritage, educational, cultural, which tell of the families, of the anthropology of the local, of the transformations due to the social division of labour.

in Addition, losing ourselves questions about the "meaning" confining the study to observe the "as" is, paradoxically, we do a pleasure to the manufacturers of buffalo, to which should be contrasted with the positive power of the Network and a healthy horror of the technological determinism. Considering all of the variables information of which it is a co-star on the web. The question nobody seems to ask is if Facebook and Twitter are really so informative and especially if the users consider them such: you will not be sharing the ones that are blatant falsehoods for the sake of it, without believing it really, just because eligible to oppose and attack a party? No one passes this question to the head: that may be before the orientation staff and then the online behavior.