• You must be logged in to see or use the Shoutbox. Besides, if you haven't registered, you really should. It's quick and it will make your life a little better. Trust me. So just register and make yourself at home with like-minded individuals who share either your morbid curiousity or sense of gallows humor.

Facebook is rating the trustworthiness of its users on a scale from zero to one

Satanica

Satanica

Veteran Member
Bold Member!
https://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Facebook-is-rating-the-trustworthiness-of-its-13171166.php
[....]
The previously unreported ratings system, which Facebook has developed over the last year, shows that the fight against the gaming of tech systems has evolved to include measuring the credibility of users to help identify malicious actors.

Facebook developed its reputation assessments as part of its effort against fake news, Tessa Lyons, the product manager who is in charge of fighting misinformation, said in an interview. The company, like others in tech, has long relied on its users to report problematic content - but as Facebook has given people more options, some users began falsely reporting items as untrue, a new twist on information warfare that it had to account for.

It's "not uncommon for people to tell us something is false simply because they disagree with the premise of a story or they're intentionally trying to target a particular publisher," said Lyons.

Users' trustworthiness score between zero and one isn't meant to be an absolute indicator of a person's credibility, Lyons said, nor is there is a single unified reputation score that users are assigned. Rather, the score is one measurement among thousands of new behavioral clues that Facebook now takes into account as it seeks to understand risk. Facebook is also monitoring which users have a propensity to flag content published by others as problematic, and which publishers are considered trustworthy by users.

It is unclear what other criteria Facebook measures to determine a user's score, whether all users have a score, and in what ways they're used.
[....]
But how these new credibility systems work is highly opaque, and the companies are wary of discussing them, in part because doing so might invite further gaming -- a predicament that the firms increasingly find themselves in as they weigh calls for more transparency around their decision-making.


"Not knowing how [Facebook is] judging us is what makes us uncomfortable," said Claire Wardle, director of First Draft, research lab within Harvard Kennedy School that focuses on the impact of misinformation and is a fact-checking partner of Facebook, of the efforts to assess people's credibility. "But the irony is that they can't tell us how they are judging us - because if they do the algorithms that they built will be gamed."


The system Facebook built for users to flag potentially unacceptable content has in many ways become a battleground. The activist Twitter account Sleeping Giants called on followers to take technology companies to task over the conservative conspiracy theorist Alex Jones and his Infowars site, leading to a flood of reports about hate speech that resulted in him and Infowars being banned from Facebook and other tech companies' services. At the time, executives at the company questioned whether the mass-reporting of Jones' content was part of an effort to trick Facebook's systems. False reporting has also become a tactic in far right online harassment campaigns, experts say.

Tech companies have a long history of using algorithms to make predictions about people, from how likely they are to buy products to whether they are using a false identity. But with the backdrop of increased misinformation, now they are making increasingly sophisticated editorial choices about who is trustworthy.

In 2015, Facebook gave users the ability to report posts they believe to be false. A tab on the upper right hand corner of every Facebook post lets people report problematic content for a variety of reasons, including pornography, violence, unauthorized sales, hate speech, and false news.

Lyons said that she soon realized that many people were reporting posts as false simply because they did not agree with the content. Because Facebook forwards posts that are marked as false to third party fact-checkers, she said it was important to build systems to assess whether the posts were likely to be false in order to make efficient use of fact-checkers' time. That led her team to develop ways to assess whether the people who were flagging posts as false were themselves trustworthy.

"One of the signals we use is how people interact with articles," Lyons said in a follow-up email. "For example, if someone previously gave us feedback that an article was false and the article was confirmed false by a fact-checker, then we might weight that person's future false news feedback more than someone who indiscriminately provides false news feedback on lots of articles, including ones that end up being rated as true."

The score is one signal among many that the company feeds into more algorithms to help it decide which stories should be reviewed.

"I like to make the joke that, if people only reported things that were [actually] false, this job would be so easy!" said Lyons in the interview. "People often report things that they just disagree with."

She declined to say what other signals the company used to determine trustworthiness, citing concerns about tipping off bad actors.
Click to expand...
 
Craygor said:
Yes or No is not much of a scale.
Click to expand...
the things they could be rated on could go through the floorboard. I haven't been on for almost 2 years except when I had to and still received multiple notifications of compromise because of someone [multi people that were fb hacked] on my page, I wasn't hattt concerned because my fb was so old & still had original or decade old passwords with reinforced nnfb settings they would get nothing of value other than my opinions and game board. People don't think or realize how potentially dangerous all these apps are on there or the games or even in general for laptops or phones and should
 
I have a Facebook. I mostly post stuff about my cats or stupid people. None of it's fake. I do indeed have cats, and I hate stupid people!

Yay!! I'm trustworthy!!!!!
 
I used to operate about 4 of 5 fake profiles at any given time, in order to fuck with people(which is the primary point of facebook of course). How do i check my rating?
 
JackBurton said:
I used to operate about 4 of 5 fake profiles at any given time, in order to fuck with people(which is the primary point of facebook of course). How do i check my rating?
Click to expand...

I used to do this back on the day (almost 15 years ago) with Myspace. I was known as Big Sid the Trekker, a morbidly obese nudist who drove a school bus and was obsessed with Star Trek the Next Generation. At his peak, Big Sid had just under 5,000 friends and received regular shout outs from several local bands.

I had four other accounts, but they were mostly just for show, or to participate in collaborative operations. One was a nudist who worked for the CIA. Another was a fat middle-aged Russian chick who liked posing in her undies.

Man, those were the days. There was a thriving fake account community between Myspace, b, and ytmnd, and we worked together to do all sorts of things that I am going to refrain from waxing overly fondly about here.

The moral of this story is to watch what pictures you post on the Internet, especially if your appearance is somewhat... unique.

Also, if you happen to be a reporter, VERIFY tips before rushing to update your stories. ANYONE can create an email account and fuck around with local reporters. Some people even got off on fucking with Greta van S.

What was this thread about again? And what the hell ever happened to Myspace?
 
Teleute said:
What was this thread about again? And what the hell ever happened to Myspace?
Click to expand...

I think it's still active, well still usable

No one is on it though. Which is bizarre to me. It's vastly superior to facebook in nearly every single meaningful way. Far better design.
 
JackBurton said:
I think it's still active, well still usable

No one is on it though. Which is bizarre to me. It's vastly superior to facebook in nearly every single meaningful way. Far better design.
Click to expand...

I haven’t even tried logging into MySpace in over a decade. Last time I did, all of Big Sid’s posts had been deleted, his background music (TNG theme midi) was gone, and a lot of his best buddies (mostly retarded children, a few carny freaks), had been murdered by Myspace mods. :(

You weren’t Gregg the Retard, by any chance, were you? Or the PB&J Time kid?
 
I have a Facebook. I hardly ever do anything on it. If I'm on the internet, I'm right here on DD.

( Honestly, my fb is how I find out if my mom is still alive. Not that it matters one way or the other.)
 
roadsidehorror said:
I deleted my facebook 3 or 4 years ago. Any important people in my life, I call them or go see them. Fuck facebook. It's just a monster brainwash engine.
Click to expand...

I didn’t have Internet for four years, and to be honest, the only thing I ever missed was Dreamin’ Demon. At the same time, I’ve had very little social contact because I’m mostly homebound these days, and I hate having people over unless the place is spotless and I can play the gracious hostess. (Old habits die hard.)

So theoretically, Facebook should be a great way for me to keep in touch with friends and family. The problem is, my respect for my friends and family is fleeting on account of the completely fucking retarded bullshit they’ve been posting on a daily basis. At least, the ones who haven’t abandoned their accounts entirely.
 
I don’t do Facebook. I hate it when people document every aspect of their lives on face book like what they are having for dinner with pictures or how many times they took a shit today....not interested, thanks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top