Another few weeks has passed without my words gracing your screens and alas, the time has come once again for me to pick up my methaphorical pen.
The topic for this weeks discussion is a piece in on BBC news, 7/11/17 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-41900877
This revolves around a trial that Facebook has conducted, where it’s promoted comments containing the word ‘fake’ to the top of news feeds. These comments have been promoted on Facebook threads where the unknown judge of which news is ‘fake’ or ‘true’, has determined that particular news as ‘untrue’. This outlines their policy of prioritising ‘comments that indicate disbelief’.
This raises an interesting ethical dilemma - who gets to decide what is fake news or not?
Would Facebook circa 2003 have promoted comments 'indicating disbelief' if Mr Blair had posted that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction? Would Colin Powells UN Security Council presentation on Iraqs WMD program have received the same treatment? and if not - would Facebook then be hoist with its own petard for promoting fake news and would it have its own page flooded with comments which indicate disbelief? and is there an inverse? will they begin promoting comments which indicate belief on "Facebook approved" posts?
It seems like a dangerous precedent for Facebook to be setting itself, and the monumental task of what information is fake and what information isn't must be an administrative nightmare...
Then again - I'm sure the US will be more than adequate at assisting in determining that - the latest incumbent is waging war against it after all.