Tag: mark-zuckerberg

Zuckerberg and Obama chatted about Facebook and fake news

Barack Obama and Mark Zuckerberg at the 2016 Global Entrepreneurship Summit .

Image: Jeff Chiu/ REX/ Shutterstock

After a long, muddling, counterfeit news-filled 2016 ballot in which Donald Trump became President of the United States, Barack Obama was one of the many parties to take shootings at Facebook’s role in spreading fake news.

But according to a new New York Times Magazine article published online on Tuesday, Obama didn’t merely complaints about fake bulletin, he also spoke directly to Mark Zuckerberg it.

In the article, entitled Can Facebook Fix Its Own Worst Bug, ” writer Farhad Manjoo probed Facebook’s efforts to adapt to and fix their own problems of fake bulletin on social media. While interviewing Facebook co-founder Mark Zuckerberg for the narration, Manjoo asked if he had was talking about Obama about the former president’s grievances. And in agreement with the New York Times Magazine , “Zuckerberg paused for several seconds, virtually to the point of awkwardness, before answering that he had.”

Even Zuck knows things are bad if the former chairman of the United States presents pertain for his platform’s persona in government history.

“Zuckerberg paused for several seconds, virtually to the point of awkwardness, before answering that he had.”

Then, Facebooks spokespeople reportedly to be implemented after Manjoo’s interview was over, stressing that Obama was just one of countless parties Zuckerberg spoke with about the issue of fake bulletin in Facebook’s News Feed, to limit government assumptions about Facebook’s efforts to address fake news

While the conversation may have been awkward for Zuckerberg, the topic is not new to Obama.

Nearly a week and a half after the election, while speaking at a news conference in Berlin, President Obama publicly addressed the spread of fake bulletin, exclusively calling out Facebook.

“In an senility where theres so much active misinformation and it’s boxed very well and it inspects the same when you see it on a Facebook page or you turn on your video, if everything seems to be the same and no discriminations are made, then we wont know what to protect, ” he said.

“If we are not serious about realities and whats genuine and whats not, and particularly in an age of social media when so many parties are coming their info in sound bite and off their phones, ” he went on, “if we cant discriminate between serious contentions and hype, then we have problems.”

Following the election, Zuckerberg was first reluctant to admit that counterfeit news articles on Facebook had any sort of influence on the results. Eventually, he published a post on his Facebook page in November saying it was “extremely unlikely[ that] hoaxes changed the outcome of such elections in one attitude or the other.”

In that same berth, Zuckerberg also acknowledged that Facebook could do more to engagement fake bulletin, but downplayed the presence of misinformation on the place in the process.

“Of all the content on Facebook, more than 99% of what parties see is authentic. Exclusively a very small amount is fake bulletin and hoaxes, ” he wrote.

Since then, the company has taken active steps to fight the spread of misinformative clauses, including banning fake bulletin locates from its ad network and creating a tool at the opening of the News Feeds that offers tips on how to identify confusing information materials and links to helpful resources in the platform.

As for the future of Facebook, in a 6, 000 -word record entitled “Building Global Community”Zuckerberg communicated he strives to see a “supportive, ” “safe, ” “informed, ” “civically-engaged, ” and “inclusive” digital world.

Whatever changes Zuckerberg decides to realise to the pulpit in the future, he should remember Obama is taking note.

WATCH: Facebook Spaces will give you and your friends a place to hang in VR

Read more:

Tech CEOs are becoming more like politicians, so they should be judged the same way

Tech CEOs act like politicians. Let's treat them as such.

Last week, Dennis Mitzner, an Israeli tech journalist, published a blog post on his website claiming an overemphasis on social justice had “contaminated” tech journalism.

He grumbled about how a press visit to a Nokia factory had, in his mind, been derailed. Instead of focusing on the company’s plans to build a commercial 5G network, the group of journalists fretted over Nokia’s diversity policy.

Mitzner used the example to support a flimsy thesis that journalists overemphasize “hiring policies and aspects that relate to social justice issues at the expense of judging the technology and its impact on society and economy.”

He failed to realize the reason so many tech journalists focus on social issues is that tech companies themselves have done the same. Tech executives are increasingly wielding power once reserved for elected officials, so tech journalists have begun to scrutinize them in ways they have historically judged administrations.

Tech executives are increasingly wielding power once reserved for elected officials.

Questioning whether a tech company’s staff is inclusive is becoming the same as asking whether a president’s cabinet is.

For more than a decade, corporations like Facebook and Google have not only grown wildly wealthy, but they’ve explicitly claimed they had higher callings beyond bringing in lucrative returns for investors.

They promised that living in a technologically advanced society of their creation would make our lives better, including for historically marginalized groups.

Tech in the age of Trump

In the wake of Donald Trump’s election, these companies (and the considerable lobbying power they employ) are finding there’s a newfound pressure on them to deliver on the moral promises they’ve made.

They’ve begun to come out against policies put forward by the Trump administration, like the recent travel ban on predominantly Muslim countries. On Tuesday, Facebook announced employees would be free to take time off to protest on International Women’s Day next month.

They’ve also faced post-election backlash on issues like hate speech and fake news, which they’ve finally begun to develop tools to combat. Large tech companies have started to do things that feel like the work of governments.

Deciding whether a user should be banned, for example, looks like a decision lawmakers make about who should be allowed in their country. The way that a corporation like Facebook responds to its users resembles how a congressman might respond to the concerns of her constituents.

Former president Obama gives another equally powerful man, Mark Zuckerberg, a hug.

Image: justin sullivan/getty images

In this sense, immensely powerful figures like Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook, Travis Kalanick of Uber, and Brian Chesky of Airbnb have taken on the kind of moral responsibility once reserved for politicians. They view their platforms the same way lawmakers see their policies.

But don’t take my word for it. Listen to Chesky himself, who recently told Forbes India, “When we design our community, we think like politicians legislating for their constituents.”

Uber has argued that it doesn’t just run a business; it provides a critical public service. By eventually removing large numbers of cars from the road, Uber says, it will help reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, lessening the effects of climate change.

Facebook in particular has ramped up its virtue signaling. More than ever, the social network is concerned about how its users perceive it.

As BuzzFeed‘s Nitasha Tiku’s eloquently explained, Zuckerberg has become increasingly interested in ensuring that he is viewed favorably as a leader so much so that journalists have wondered whether he’s seeking election to public office.

“It is our responsibility to amplify the good effects and mitigate the bad to continue increasing diversity while strengthening our common understanding so our community can create the greatest positive impact on the world,” Mark Zuckerberg wrote in his February manifesto, which resembled in parts a political platform.

The empire of the Valley

In a page out of science fiction, a number of leaders in tech have reportedly even banded together to form their own constitution. Sam Altman, president of famed startup accelerator Y Combinator, said he’s spoken to a group of tech leaders about creating a set of beliefs they all support.

That makes sense, since tech companies have often found traditional governments to be in the way of their goals. Both Uber and Airbnb have fought local and federal governments to ensure their businesses remain as unregulated as possible.

Journalists often discover that tech companies fail to practice what they preach.

Tech firms don’t want to avoid government regulation only so they can continue to rake in piles of cash. They also want to bypass regulations so they can be free to create a society the way they envision it.

Ultimately, they want to convince consumers that for-profit companies can be dominant forces for good in the world, perhaps even more so than governments. Naturally, tech journalists have taken to examining the truth behind such an assertion. Journalists often discover that tech companies fail to practice what they preach.

Earlier this month Google claimed it had “closed the gender pay gap globally.” Less than a week later, the Department of Labor said Google had fostered an “extreme” gender pay gap across its entire workforce.

It can seem like tech journalists cover social issues disproportionately. In reality, they’re tasked not just with covering the products that these companies develop, but also how they shape global society.

Technology isn’t neutral. It’s well documented that algorithms and products can carry the same biases that people do.

It’s a journalist’s job to ask whether a product, a platform, or a piece of software really benefits everyone.

We live on these platforms the same way we live in a country. Tech journalists should criticize tech firms, and the people that run them, the same way they criticize governments and politicians.

WATCH: NASA has discovered a water world in our solar system capable of sustaining life

Facebook reveals timeline of what happened in Cleveland murder

Image: ap

Facebook compassions video. Facebook likewise adores coin. Video is bringing in coin, also.

But Facebook is starting to realizefinallythat not every video’s worth hosting. No significance how many beliefs it gets.

On Monday, a day after a video departed viral on Facebook for showing a slaying in Cleveland, Facebook published an confession about its own collapse in reporting the crime.

The incident was the most recent in a series of videos of violent crimes( as well as one particularly harsh sample of suicide) that have ended up either livestreamed or uploaded onto Facebook.

“We incapacitated the accuseds account within 23 instants of receiving the first report about the assassination video, and two hours after receiving a report of any kind. But we know we need to do better, ” Juston Osofsky, Facebook’s VP of Global Operations, wrote in a blog berth.

Facebook’s recap of the incident 😛 TAGEND

On Sunday morning, a boy in Cleveland announced a video of himself announcing his intent to commit murder

then two minutes later announced another video of himself killing and killing an older man.

A few minutes after that, he went live, admitting to the murder.

It was a horrific crime one that has no place on Facebook, and goes against our policies and everything we stand for.

Various initial bulletin narratives had misreported what videos were announced when and who the hell is livestreamed on Facebook. In response to these reports, Facebook published a timeline elucidate what happened and when.

Image: facebook

To be sure, it’s not Facebook’s fault that someone killed someone and that parties pictured the contest on Facebook. The area offers the possibilities for usersall virtually 2 billion of themto report a berth for contravening Facebook’s Community Standards, which denounce violence.

But no one reported it quickly, according to Facebook’s blog post: “We did not receive a report about the first video, and we are just received a report about the second largest videocontaining the shootingmore than an hour and 45 instants after it was announced. We received reports about the third video, containing the mans live acknowledgment, before it is had ended, ” the blog berth reads.

Facebook does have a crew of human moderators that actively check live videos if they reach a certain threshold, the company told Mashable earlier this year. But, in such a case, that threshold was apparently not reached in time.

Still, Facebook said it will do better. “As a result of this terrible series of events, we are reviewing our reporting flows rest assured people are able to report videos and other cloth that violates our criteria as readily and quickly as is practicable, ” the blog berth reads.

That effort to do better also includes introducing more artificial intelligence into monitoring Facebook videos, since the area does receive so much material every minute that human moderators are not able to keep upso they say. Whether or not those humans’ A.I. equivalents will do any better remains to be seen.

WATCH: This mini scuba gear lets everyone descent like a pro