Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Is Facebook So Afraid of Checking Facts?

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 108 posts

Re: Why Is Facebook So Afraid of Checking Facts?

#81

Post by AnthonyMouse »

crooked-v wrote: post #60
new2628 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is easy to pick one clear-cut case that supports one's viewpoint. The question is how to handle the more murky cases.

Sure, but by answering the clear-cut cases you've at least defined boundaries for your problem space.

But the clear-cut cases aren't actually the problem. You don't need to censor things that are so obviously stupid. The bottle of Lysol says things like "Hazard to Humans and Domestic Animals" and "call a poison control center" etc.

To the point that it's incredible that the few people who actually do it are even telling the truth about why, instead of being cases of insane parents looking for a cover story when they want to murder their kids, or Munchausen by proxy or something like that.

Meanwhile the same principle gets you absolutely nothing in all of the non-obvious cases, because when the answer is non-obvious (and therefore much more problematic if wrong) then Facebook doesn't have it either.

Re: Why Is Facebook So Afraid of Checking Facts?

#82

Post by Frondo »

jumpman500 wrote: post #71
TomMckenny wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the enormously popular post telling parents to make their kids drink Lysol should not have even the slightest warning next to it because the poster could be like Galileo or Einstein?

You can't save people from their own stupidity. I'd rather have stupid thoughts said out loud so they can be analyzed and detected rather than repressed inside ones own mind. I think that the non-sense that a lot of people are preaching online shows how much our education system is failing us. If this was covered up I might be able to delude myself into thinking differently about that. In modern times it's easy to on…

I've used this analogy in another thread, and I'd like to post it again to understand better the differences between public health and traffic laws.

"You can't save people from their own stupidity." Agreed, but how does that explain the rights-restraining acceptability of red lights and speed limits?

Red lights tell me, a law-obeying driver, that I must stop periodically while I drive through a city. Speed limits tell me, a safe driver, that I can't drive at whatever speed I deem safe. These are ostensibly done for "public safety," yet they place limits on what movements I can make. (For what it's worth, I have no problem with traffic laws.)

Note that these same laws limit pedestrians from movement such as walking on public freeways and crossing streets outside designated areas at designated times.

What makes limits on posting to Facebook different from traffic laws?

This isn't a snarky gotcha post, I'm trying to understand what the difference is between something with very little rights-related controversy (red lights and forbidding people from walking on freeways) and pandemic-related stay-at-home orders and Facebook moderation.

Re: Why Is Facebook So Afraid of Checking Facts?

#83

Post by olivermarks »

new2628 wrote: post #16
dilippkumar wrote: post #10

This article misses a crucial point: I do not want fact checked information. I do not want a ministry of Truth telling me what’s an acceptable set of statements to trust. I do not want a third party providing unsolicited opinions on how much I conform with the acceptable statements a ministry of Truth has blessed for public use. I’ll provide three arguments. First, how will Facebook or any other entity that takes on…

This is an excellent summary, and I fully agree with it. As a modest addition: - In many important cases, there is no fact, just differing viewpoints and opinions. One man's terrorist is another one's freedom fighter. Violent insurgency for one, legitimate fight for liberty and justice for the other. In fact, reasonable people will even disagree on whether in some topic there are facts or only opinions, let alone abo…

I think a better analogy is 'one man's investigative journalist is another man's conspiracy theorist'. We don't need #bigTech telling us which is which. Most of us can figure out who is dealing with real facts, events which have happened etc. The current crackdown on free speech is the equivalent to digital book burning. Free choice and free speech was ultimately reinstated after the european events during the 1930's.

Re: Why Is Facebook So Afraid of Checking Facts?

#84

Post by catalogia »

glitchc wrote: post #30
okintheory wrote: post #15

It seems to me that there's an obvious alternative to checking facts, but it's one that scares FB much more than fact checking. Suppose they were transparent! Suppose it was easy to see unobfuscated statistics about who is paying for what on FB. Suppose journalists could easily look up how much white nationalists are spending on targeted advertising in each US state. Suppose we could see how much Exxon, Chevron, Koch…

Why just stop at Facebook? All businesses operate on the model where they take dirty money and try to do clean things with at least some of that money. Heck, most charities operate this way. Let's just make everyone transparent. We should know if the Red Cross is receiving money from Smith and Wesson. Bad individuals and corporations make donations to good causes all the time. You can think of it as moral outrage, bu…

> All businesses operate on the model where they take dirty money and try to do clean things with at least some of that money.

That's a bit too cynical even for me. There do still exist businesses that simply produce a product or perform a service, selling it honestly without any tricks or subterfuge.

Re: Why Is Facebook So Afraid of Checking Facts?

#85

Post by protonfish »

xienze wrote: post #49
protonfish wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that I don't trust anyone to tell me what is true, but there is a base level of fact-checking that is beneficial: Remove anything that is completely fabricated and makes claims without a single shred of evidence. There is absolutely no need for this type of "news." No organization can definitely curate the truth, but almost any can sweep out the garbage.

The problem is that many of the things shared on Facebook et al are subject to debate on what the actual truth of the matter is, subject to one’s political biases. We’re not necessarily talking about content stating that the sky is green but say, the accusations Tara Reade made against Joe Biden.

That is ridiculous. Nobody is asking FB to takes sides on the Reade vs Biden issue. We are asking them to remove QAnon level insanity.

Re: Why Is Facebook So Afraid of Checking Facts?

#86

Post by thisisnico »

vorpalhex wrote: post #8
thisisnico wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook would be so much better with fact-checking. It seriously would improve the state of the world.

What makes you think that? Their moderation team is not paid well, mostly outsourced to contracting firms, and has no accountability. What happens when their moderation team decides some anti-vax nuttery is "a fact" and then bans anyone disagreeing? As a reminder, this is a group that handed out punishments for pictures of infants being breastfed.

I'm not insinuating that they use the same method used as the moderation team.

Re: Why Is Facebook So Afraid of Checking Facts?

#87

Post by protonfish »

new2628 wrote: post #54
protonfish wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you honestly believe there is no objective truth, then there is no value in anything you say. Please stop posting anything ever again.

Apart from the aggressive nature of your comment, indeed, in most areas of interests to humans there is no objective truth or it is not as interesting as the motivations and interests of the involved parties.

According to your own beliefs, your statement above can't be true. But one thing about it is certain: It is not objective interesting to me in the slightest.

Re: Why Is Facebook So Afraid of Checking Facts?

#88

Post by thisisnico »

cheez wrote: post #7
thisisnico wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook would be so much better with fact-checking. It seriously would improve the state of the world.

I don't know his name, but what was your opinion on that guy from Google who said we shouldn't force women into STEM for the equality, but let them do what they want (which may not be STEM.) Is the world better off without that opinion (or fact, depending on who you ask?)

My opinion is that you cannot fact check opinion pieces. There is a difference between news and opinion articles.

Re: Why Is Facebook So Afraid of Checking Facts?

#89

Post by protonfish »

lucidone wrote: post #79
protonfish wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed there is no guaranteed way to only allow truth. However, there are many easy ways to remove utter nonsense. Maybe we should start with that and see how it goes.

I agree in principle (e.g., Pizzagate and similar conspiracy theories), but delegating the arbitration of facts to a private company seems dangerous territory to me. The inconvenient answer as it appears to me is that folks have to discern what is nonsense and what isn't, which leaves us exactly where we are.

That does not sound like a good solution to the problem of powerful bad actors using social media to spread conflict and misinformation. In fact, it is not a solution at all. I don't understand this attitude of defeatism. Clearly how things are is bad. We should explore solutions. Is that too radical for you? Asking private companies to discern between nonsense of good facts is something that is commonly done with all publications - newspapers, magazines, TV, radio. This is nothing new. Healthy moderation has always been a key part of civil discourse - and FB's moderation is utter garbage. The solution? Demand they moderate less bad.

Re: Why Is Facebook So Afraid of Checking Facts?

#90

Post by cheez »

thisisnico wrote: post #88
cheez wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know his name, but what was your opinion on that guy from Google who said we shouldn't force women into STEM for the equality, but let them do what they want (which may not be STEM.) Is the world better off without that opinion (or fact, depending on who you ask?)

My opinion is that you cannot fact check opinion pieces. There is a difference between news and opinion articles.

But according to him, he was using facts backed by research.

You see how this can be sticky.

Post reply on HN