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

91–100 of 259 posts

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

#91

Post by HumblyTossed »

raxxorrax wrote: post #18
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…

Let us be honest here. The people that have the job to sort out this stuff might also not be the brightest stars in the night sky. If I had vested interests where manipulation of social media nets me advantages, I would be very content with the situation.

> The people that have the job to sort out this stuff might also not be the brightest stars in the night sky.

Why not?

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

#92

Post by s1artibartfast »

pjc50 wrote: post #79
refurb wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup. This is why I actually agree with Zuckerberg on his “no censorship” approach. He’s smart enough to recognize that taking on the burden of what should be censored and what shouldn’t is a quagmire he’d prefer to avoid. No matter how “good” your filters are, you’re going to piss off a massive group of customers, despite all the effort. It’s just a massive time sink with little to no benefit. “The only way to win is…

> I actually agree with Zuckerberg on his “no censorship” approach. But this is a complete nonsense! Facebook cheerfully and aggressively censors anything sexual, far over and above local concerns of legality. Even before FOSTA/SESTA. (example list from 2018 of censored FB content rules: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/24/facebook-content-that-gets-y... )

The grey area and room for debate is much greater for truth than nudity and sexuality.

zuckerbergs policy preference was no censorship of fake news, not no censorship whatsoever.

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

#93

Post by Traster »

pjc50 wrote: post #79
refurb wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup. This is why I actually agree with Zuckerberg on his “no censorship” approach. He’s smart enough to recognize that taking on the burden of what should be censored and what shouldn’t is a quagmire he’d prefer to avoid. No matter how “good” your filters are, you’re going to piss off a massive group of customers, despite all the effort. It’s just a massive time sink with little to no benefit. “The only way to win is…

> I actually agree with Zuckerberg on his “no censorship” approach. But this is a complete nonsense! Facebook cheerfully and aggressively censors anything sexual, far over and above local concerns of legality. Even before FOSTA/SESTA. (example list from 2018 of censored FB content rules: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/24/facebook-content-that-gets-y... )

And of course that doesn't even get into the fact that Facebook isn't about whether you can post something, it's about how algorithms choose to share what you post with others. They can tweak things so your post shows up at the top of everyone's feed, or no one's at all.

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

#94

Post by pjc50 »

smt88 wrote: post #81
refurb wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup. This is why I actually agree with Zuckerberg on his “no censorship” approach. He’s smart enough to recognize that taking on the burden of what should be censored and what shouldn’t is a quagmire he’d prefer to avoid. No matter how “good” your filters are, you’re going to piss off a massive group of customers, despite all the effort. It’s just a massive time sink with little to no benefit. “The only way to win is…

I think it's fine for Facebook to opt out of fact-checking, as long as they also opt out of algorithmic syndication of content. If my feed is going to have posts shared by others (even non-friends) or, worse, op-eds in it, then FB is vouching for whatever I see. If they share a link with 50 million people, they're certainly responsible for the consequences. Worse is the ad side, where Facebook wants to continue to pr…

Bingo. You can make an argument that your posts are your free speech. But "What Facebook chooses to put on your feed" is Facebook's speech.

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

#96

Post by pjc50 »

newacct583 wrote: post #37
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'm curious about the confederate general thing, do you have a link? It's true there is gray area everywhere, I guess I have a hard time believing that Facebook would bother stepping into a genuine aspect of history, in an area that isn't really much disputed.

The Confederacy is hugely disputed. Certainly in relation to its intent, purpose, heroes, and legacy.

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

#97

Post by Traster »

tzs wrote: post #74

I think the problem with Facebook and similar platforms is that they tend to merge everything into one stream. You see news, opinion, humor, satire, and ads all in one continuous feed, often not labeled as to which type it is (except ads usually say "sponsored" or something like that). Furthermore, they are designed to get you to consume as much of this stream as possible. They would rather have you shallowly engage…

>Furthermore, they are designed to get you to consume as much of this stream as possible. They would rather have you shallowly engage 120 article in an hour than deeply delve into 2 articles.

Is this actually true? This sounds to me like a 2010s understanding of advertiser supported content, where the important thing was getting page impressions. The result back then was clickbait, because they were just trying to drive views. But basically most of those business models have died off. Advertisers are far more interested in accessing a strongly identified demographic and are willing to pay a premium to get their adverts in front of people. Which would sort of map to Facebook wanting you to deeply engage with specific topics, rather than to simply skim lots of pages.

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

#98

Post by wl »

SaltyLemonZest wrote: post #88
wl wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's the Daily Wire article (paywall, so here's a mirror): https://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2020/6/29/on-beha... And here's a reasonable analysis of what it gets wrong: https://sciencefeedback.co/evaluation/article-by-michael-she... Flagging it as misleading seems fair. I cannot find the Washington Examiner oped in question.

The analysis is, ironically, guilty of the same cherry-picking it accuses the original article of. The checkers identify two false claims and two misleading ones out of Shellenberger's bulleted list of twelve "facts few people know". But the summary never engages with the article's core claim, that climate change won't be the end of the world or of human society even though many in the general public think it will. T…

If this were a debate for or against a proposition, your criticism would make a lot of sense. Even if there's some false and misleading information used to support the proposition, the proposition can still be adequately supported by other information and arguments.

However, that's not the context of the analysis. The question isn't "Does this guy have a point?" It's "Does this article spread misinformation?" The analysis rightly concludes it does.

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

#99

Post by joejerryronnie »

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.

But this is exactly what the public seems to be demanding of Facebook - i.e. take responsibility for censoring your content, but only the content I disagree with. FB is in a no-win situation unless they can offload the content moderation to a government entity.

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

#100

Post by vangelis »

lazyjones wrote: post #73
wl wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's the Daily Wire article (paywall, so here's a mirror): https://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2020/6/29/on-beha... And here's a reasonable analysis of what it gets wrong: https://sciencefeedback.co/evaluation/article-by-michael-she... Flagging it as misleading seems fair. I cannot find the Washington Examiner oped in question.

The "reasonable analysis" is hilarious. E.g.: climate change is affecting wildfires, BUT fires have decreased. Says a Geography professor from Swansea. This kind of stuff only serves to create more doubt about climate science and, unfortunately among some people, science in general.

I'd hope HN posters would understand that systems aren't that simple and read the full content of that analysis.
Post reply on HN