I block Facebook on my Pi-Hole.
Life is great!
Facebook overrides fact-checks when climate science is “opinion”
21–30 of 259 posts
Re: Facebook overrides fact-checks when climate science is “opinion”
#22I remember being very concerned that the fact checkers wouldn't be operating in a vacuum and we'd have a bunch of facebook execs being arbiters of truth. And that appears to be exactly what has happened. This is terrifying. A handful of mainstream publications and a bunch of basically unknown facebook folks are now the censors. We've already seen well known EFF activists rated untrue for their arguments against warra…
... And before that, there was local news and newspapers. Some time before that it might be your boss, your parents, or the local clergy.
This is no change, but business as normal. What has changed is that we actually have easy access to information outside of the keyholders. So when the government and some in society dismiss complaints about police brutality, we can have the retribution of actual video (an example with both historical and current examples), and it is so much harder to dismiss. Unfortunately, not everyone is willing to believe facts - but again, I'm not sure this is more true today either, since folks have been rejecting things like modern medicine and science and so on for generations if not centuries. We simply know about it more, thanks to - in part, for good and bad - facebook. And reddit and HN and every social place on the internet.
Re: Facebook overrides fact-checks when climate science is “opinion”
#23Facebook has devolved into the Karen social network.
Re: Facebook overrides fact-checks when climate science is “opinion”
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
Facebook is the 6th most popular website on the planet (behind Google, Youtube, and 3 Chinese sites). That puts them in a position of control over a great deal of the world's information diet. If they say something is false or true, many people will believe it. If they censor something, many people will never see it.
How does that put them in control? Users still read at least five other websites. Their popularity does not give them any ability to censor information widely, unless perhaps they collude with search engines to blacklist certain terms across all popular sites. The fact that many people use Facebook is an indicator that those same huge groups also have access to every other website , which reduces the persuasiveness o…
> How does that put them in control? Users still read at least five other websites.
I can't read Chinese. So discount those sites.
Re: Facebook overrides fact-checks when climate science is “opinion”
#25Question: facebook as a platform is not liable for information it contains. However if Facebook would publish fact checking info, that is wrong or missleading, are they liable? Could I sue facebook if their "facts" were proven wrong, and cause me damage?
You can sue anyone for everything. Do you stand a chance? No.
The platform/publisher dichotomy is mostly just a right-wing talking point with absolutely no basis in law. As your example alludes to, a website can well be both at the same time.
For text that is Facebook’s own editorial content, the liability standard generally applied to any speaker, but historically tested in relation to news media and book publishers would apply, which is one of “malicious intend”: you need to prove that they wanted to cause the harm your suffered.
This is a rather high standard, but it follows from the US’s regard for free speech. You are likely to encounter additional difficulties trying to prove and quantify the specific damages you incurred.
But Facebook’s fact checking is set up somewhat differently, with third parties doing these checks. It seems almost impossible to make a case for intent against FB for a correction authored by any of these organizations.
Re: Facebook overrides fact-checks when climate science is “opinion”
#26Facebook warned me yesterday when sharing a satire article that the article was over a year old and the facts may not longer be current. Thank you for protecting me Facebook gosh darnit!
Re: Facebook overrides fact-checks when climate science is “opinion”
#27Question: facebook as a platform is not liable for information it contains. However if Facebook would publish fact checking info, that is wrong or missleading, are they liable? Could I sue facebook if their "facts" were proven wrong, and cause me damage?
They'll probably punt the responsibility to the third-party 'fact checker', even though they selected the fact checkers
Re: Facebook overrides fact-checks when climate science is “opinion”
#28I don't understand why it's Facebook's role to teach people. Maybe if regulations were instead imposed on school curriculums we wouldn't have dumb adults arguing about climate change, flat earth or mask wearing. Combat issues at the root not the fruit.
Re: Facebook overrides fact-checks when climate science is “opinion”
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is Facebook the arbiter of truth when many, many websites other than Facebook exist, and most human beings do not use Facebook? This is a very different scenario than a single company owning every broadcast tower in a town, pre-internet. The ability to access Facebook strongly implies general internet access , which is a compelling argument against Facebook exerting any sort of authority over general truth.
69% of people from the US use Facebook. In Europe, it's a little over 80%. Saying that "most humans" don't use it seems pointless at best, disingenuous at worst. If this platform becomes an arbiter of truth, it's clearly a massive problem across many huge portions of the globe.
The statement “most humans don’t use Facebook” is an objectively true statement.
So is “most people who have a Facebook account can also view almost every other site on the whole public internet”.
Re: Facebook overrides fact-checks when climate science is “opinion”
#30What a disgustingly terrible article. Never explains what precise facts Facebook is taking into consideration as opinion, just throws around political leanings and pointlessly polarizes it as "climate scientists" vs "climate change deniers". This is the kind of journalism that only serves to divide the people even further by empowering their tribalism instead of trying to discuss the matter at hand.
More insidiously, it's another drumbeat for the idea that we need classical media gate keepers to invade people's personal space and "correct" any wrong-think. Very dangerous and unwelcome idea for a free society. The media has no valid purpose for having the power to amend private citizens conversations, we wouldn't tolerate at a bar and we shouldn't on our personal web space.