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

Facebook overrides fact-checks when climate science is “opinion”

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 259 posts

Re: Facebook overrides fact-checks when climate science is “opinion”

#41

Post by ogre_codes »

MattGaiser wrote: post #33

I’m not really sure what people expected from Facebook here. The oldest of newspapers struggle with these kinds of judgements (until they just decide to stop caring and cater to a certain political side). It is not reasonable to expect Facebook to get it right with any consistency, if there even is a definitive correct answer to begin with.

Consistency is the word here.

Facebook has a policy that they put in place that's fairly reasonable, they have outside fact-checkers they acknowledge as experts. They deliberately set aside the mechanism they put in place to avoid this kind of nonsense.

It is entirely reasonable to expect Facebook to apply the policy that they themselves created in order to avoid having to make these kind of calls.

Re: Facebook overrides fact-checks when climate science is “opinion”

#42

Post by ogre_codes »

intended wrote: post #39

Facebook is arbitraging manpower here. Firstly, this article is about American issues, so it’s only the America issue “lens” that is being used to focus on issues. These same and similar issues must exist for every other country, many of whom have 0 ability to fund and afford individuals who can dedicate their time and lives to fact checking their Local power structures or narratives. Secondly, even the constrained s…

> Removing an article which says ...

This is no different from removing an article which says you shouldn't use vaccines because they are ineffective and cause Autism.

When the facts which are used to back the opinion are false, then the factual portions of that opinion piece are subject to fact checking. Otherwise, there is zero point to having Fact checkers or any sort of moderation.

Re: Facebook overrides fact-checks when climate science is “opinion”

#43

Post by tzs »

atlgator wrote: post #40
vorpalhex wrote: post #7

I 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…

Facebook can’t have it both ways. They can’t tell Congress they are like the telephone company (an agnostic communication channel) and then turn around and censor whatever they feel like. Either take responsibility for the content or stay out of it.

The whole point of section 230 of the CDA was to say that they can.

Before 230, there had been court rulings that said if a platform moderated user supplied content they were liable for that content. Section 230 was written to reverse those rulings.

I'm not sure why, but a myth has taken hold that under 230 you have to be neutral to get the liability shield.

Re: Facebook overrides fact-checks when climate science is “opinion”

#45

Post by throw737 »

IAmEveryone wrote: post #25
throw737 wrote: post #10

Question: 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…

Facebook is an international company and should comply with local laws, if it wants to do local advertising.

My country bans propagation of certain ideologies, due to our history. For example Heineken can not use its logo here. It would be criminal offense, not civil lawsuit.

Another possible problem is anti free Hong Kong propaganda and lattest presidential decree.

I dont really care about politics. Just showing it is incredibly thin ice.

Re: Facebook overrides fact-checks when climate science is “opinion”

#46

Post by CydeWeys »

atlgator wrote: post #40
vorpalhex wrote: post #7

I 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…

Facebook can’t have it both ways. They can’t tell Congress they are like the telephone company (an agnostic communication channel) and then turn around and censor whatever they feel like. Either take responsibility for the content or stay out of it.

This is a common misunderstanding that is often repeated despite being wrong. This is the exact opposite of Section 230, which says that you can have it both ways: You can moderate some but not all stuff without getting in trouble.

Re: Facebook overrides fact-checks when climate science is “opinion”

#47

Post by atlgator »

tzs wrote: post #43
atlgator wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook can’t have it both ways. They can’t tell Congress they are like the telephone company (an agnostic communication channel) and then turn around and censor whatever they feel like. Either take responsibility for the content or stay out of it.

The whole point of section 230 of the CDA was to say that they can. Before 230, there had been court rulings that said if a platform moderated user supplied content they were liable for that content. Section 230 was written to reverse those rulings. I'm not sure why, but a myth has taken hold that under 230 you have to be neutral to get the liability shield.

TIL. Thanks for pointing me to the legislation.

Re: Facebook overrides fact-checks when climate science is “opinion”

#48

Post by mtgp1000 »

sneak wrote: post #29
esperent wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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”.

How many of them even realize that their worldview is potentially being shaped by the moderation teams of the tech they consume? And what alternatives exist to the major platforms (Facebook, reddit, etc)?

They're effectively a captive audience.

Re: Facebook overrides fact-checks when climate science is “opinion”

#49

Post by jeffreyrogers »

Would be nice to know what the actual claims are. I'm not at all a climate change denialist, but some of the things claimed by people trying to raise awareness for climate change are outright false, or at least extremely unlikely, e.g. humans almost certainly aren't going to go extinct because of climate change. But it can still be catastrophic at a society level.

It's a shame the issue is so polarized, because while the claims that the earth is warming and that the warming is at least in part caused by c02 and other forms of pollution are solid, some of the assumptions going into the models are questionable and can be legitimately debated.

Re: Facebook overrides fact-checks when climate science is “opinion”

#50

Post by dependenttypes »

vorpalhex wrote: post #7

I 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…

> We've already seen well known EFF activists rated untrue for their arguments against warrantless surveillance

Got a link about that?

Post reply on HN