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

51–60 of 259 posts

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

#51

Post by sowellecho »

Consider the outrageous claim that Tucker Carlson made today (that NYT was "planning" to dox him). Was it true? Did he just cleverly "pre-empt" it? Or did he intentionally create a story to teach a lesson to the NYT reporters?

Things are made much murkier when you then find out that, yes, indeed, he was actually doxxed before once. And people did actually show up to his house to protest. And even more amazingly, the first person account of this "witness" actually makes you believe if Tucker has a point. Why did they go to his house at night? And how can anyone, from the inside of a house, distinguish "firm knocking" vs trying to break down the door. Will you be calm enough and just say "Oh.. I thought he was going to break it. But it was just a firm knock, now that I think about it. Phew.. "? And why in fuck's name would you actually spray paint anything on Tucker's property? He is going to refer to it as vandalism, because if someone came to your house and peed on the front door, that's exactly how you would refer to it too. Or are you instead going to say "Well, it's just some organic material, it can always be wiped off"?

https://archive.thinkprogress.org/i-was-at-the-protest-outsi...

At this point, there isn't actually any reason to believe one side over the other anymore. It is just complete hysterics on both sides.

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

#52

Post by [deleted] »

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”.

[deleted]

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

#53

Post by josefresco »

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…

> I've seen arguments about Confederate generals rated as false because of modern news events - in ways that disagree with well tenured academic historians.

Do you have a source for this claim?

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

#54

Post by kube-system »

supercanuck wrote: post #9
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…

Facts are a pesky thing, they end up being correct even when you disagree.

Nobody here is concerned about Facebook's ability to morph the fabric of reality -- just their ability to influence other people.

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

#55

Post by pjc50 »

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…

The problem is that there is a well-funded war on facts.

This isn't new either; the legacy version was the systematic denial that smoking caused cancer. This has been going on since the 1950s, and is still being litigated. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3490543/

The result of this is that any single point of fact-determination becomes a target. It's good of Facebook to take some kind of stand against the most fraudulent and racist articles that get circulated on there; the "blood libel" against Jews and so on. But now they're dragged into the other conflicts. There will be a lot of money available from Exxon-Mobil to deny climate change, for example.

Ultimately the concept of "fact" as something outside subjectivity will be destroyed. The rotation of the earth around the sun is really just your opinion, right? /s If heliocentricity were politically convenient or profitable there would be an astroturf campaign promoting it on facebook.

(A subgenre of this is libel lawsuits, which are much less of a problem in the US due to "anti-SLAPP" laws: https://www.medialaw.org/topics-page/anti-slapp?tmpl=compone... but may be a significant problem in the UK; e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2009/dec/17/bbc-trafigura and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLibel_case , lasting over a decade)

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

#56

Post by bmarquez »

sowellecho wrote: post #51

Consider the outrageous claim that Tucker Carlson made today (that NYT was "planning" to dox him). Was it true? Did he just cleverly "pre-empt" it? Or did he intentionally create a story to teach a lesson to the NYT reporters? Things are made much murkier when you then find out that, yes, indeed, he was actually doxxed before once. And people did actually show up to his house to protest. And even more amazingly, the…

> Consider the outrageous claim

Is it really outrageous when NYT has previously threatened to dox people? Most recently the owner of Slate Star Codex, which recieved a lot of attention on HN.

https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/06/22/nyt-is-threatening-my-...

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

#57

Post by free_rms »

Broken_Hippo wrote: post #22
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…

... 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 w…

It is a change, because it's centralized and national in scope.

No single partisan local newspaper editor had the kind of reach that facebook has.

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

#58

Post by sneak »

mtgp1000 wrote: post #48
sneak wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How is it that you figured out that you should read sites other than Facebook, and that the (presumably) mindless masses on Facebook have not?

What specifically makes them captive? Why do you believe that? Are the audiences of other extremely popular websites also captive? Why or why not?

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

#59

Post by salimmadjd »

sowellecho wrote: post #51

Consider the outrageous claim that Tucker Carlson made today (that NYT was "planning" to dox him). Was it true? Did he just cleverly "pre-empt" it? Or did he intentionally create a story to teach a lesson to the NYT reporters? Things are made much murkier when you then find out that, yes, indeed, he was actually doxxed before once. And people did actually show up to his house to protest. And even more amazingly, the…

At least with corporate TV news, we have to remember there is no "one side over the other". It's mostly one side if clustering them by their economic goals.

These are business entities that can quickly create short segments (based on the current events) designed to stir up emotion and interest among their targeted market segments to keep their eyeballs coming back and engaged while the TV ad is play.

FOX has their segment, MSNBC learn from them and has theirs, CNN a bit less defined and as a result they are suffering compared to FOX and MSNBC.

These entities are run by a group of executives that are focused on generating revenue. I don't believe MSNBC's executives are any more or less different ideologically than the FOX's executives.

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

#60

Post by dfxm12 »

Broken_Hippo wrote: post #22
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…

... 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 w…

I do think there are at least two material differences today.

One is that you no longer need "physical access" to someone to manipulate them. It is so much easier to get your message to someone today. You don't even need to buy a costly newspaper or TV network. You can be individually targeted from anywhere in the world relatively easily. The scale is completely different.

Second is that attackers are able to target specific people in a specific way thanks to the data collected by us online (I mean, your clergy doesn't have access to your search history). Your local clergy has to put forth a message that both appeals to an entire congregation and also fits in roughly with what is expected to be heard from clergy. The congregation can then talk to each other and decide if the message makes sense. Attackers going after a specific person don't have to deal with either of these.

Post reply on HN