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

111–120 of 259 posts

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

#111

Post by GoodJokes »

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.

Let’s be honest here. Hackernews commenters inflate their own intelligence a lot and might not be the brightest stars in the sky.

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

#112

Post by shadowgovt »

refurb wrote: post #71
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…

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'm sure he'd prefer to avoid it, but Facebook has become influential enough in people's day-to-day information consumption that at this point, doing nothing is itself a stance in favor of the well-funded and well-connected.

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

#113

Post by thecureforzits »

koheripbal wrote: post #68
pjc50 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

Ideally, facts could assert themselves. Unfortunately, humans are needed to assert facts, and therefor any judgements based on facts require human interpretation. We can dissolve interpretations down as far as we like to leave as little room for bias and dishonesty (and that is a useful effort), but ultimately there will always be POWER in the hands of those who we abdicate arbitration authority to. ...and power corr…

If you step off the edge of a cliff, the fact of gravity will assert its existence on you whether you choose to subscribe to it or not.

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

#114

Post by floatrock »

Covzire wrote: post #30
mixedCase wrote: post #13

What 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.

The greatest trick the devil ever pulled is making you think he doesn't exist.

Even without active censorship, Facebook very much is a gate keeper invading your personal space. It's just rather than building up walls around you, it's merely giving you a shovel and showering you with dopamine bursts every time you dig yourself down into your own personal hole. The end effect is the same, though -- all you hear is echos bouncing off walls around you. You just think the echos are only your own.

I agree a free society shouldn't tolerate amending private citizen's conversation. However, that comes with the responsibility of recognizing the more insidious ways of doing that, such as when your attention has been hijacked with industrialized behavioral profiling. The "private citizen conversations" you hear bouncing off your walls are being algorithmically seeded by whatever brings in the most dollars the most efficiently. That's not a truly free society, that's just a very subtle form of mass indoctrination.

The devil already exists out there whether you think he does or not. And when you play with the devil, the only winning move is to not play his game.

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

#115

Post by rendall »

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

Welcome to the skeptical moderates' table. We actively seek falsification of political assertions, particularly if it fits neatly in an overall narrative, particularly if we would like to be true. We are a small and beleaguered group.

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

#116

Post by dfxm12 »

catalogia wrote: post #105
dfxm12 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this context, an apt metaphor would involve one commenter believing that the people were not struck by a car, or that the building still stands...

I don't mean these to be metaphors to some other situation. I mean them to be real examples of the shortcomings of video evidence in determining objective truth. Both are examples that doubtlessly cause heated arguments facebook moderators are expected to moderate.

If that's the case, the problem isn't with video evidence, the problem is people don't know how to make logical arguments. Facebook didn't say they would be moderating discussion in that way.

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

#117

Post by Nasrudith »

Barrin92 wrote: post #108
pjc50 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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... )

not just anything sexual, but mere nudity on social media platforms seems to be controversial. I remember the "female presenting nipples" debacle on Tumblr including pictures of breast-feeding mothers. "no censorship" apparently means, "don't anger American conservatives", not "everyone can speak and share".

It is probably pragmatic/conventional wisdom that it will kill mainstream adoption if they are openly linked to it. It is deeply stupid but I can't say it is incorrect.

Now they have a point with FOSTA - it was already risky when they don't know if a naked body is 18 or 17.

To be blunt stupid inputs be they customer norms or laws get stupid results - it is how systems work.

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

#118

Post by octaveguin »

This problem was created by social media by choosing which articles to show in your news feed based on engagement. That is, how much you'll emotionally react to it.

The solution is not to add another layer of "fact checking". That's super dubious.

Get rid of what got us here.

News feeds organized by engagement are evil. Dismantling them would solve both the production and consumption of emotion driven information.

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

#119

Post by tabtab »

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…

Re: "This is terrifying. A handful of mainstream publications and a bunch of basically unknown facebook folks are now the censors."

It's not much different than when the TV news was controlled by 3 networks.

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

#120

Post by Nasrudith »

forgotmyhnacc wrote: post #106
smt88 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

How does this argument apply to Google? When you search something e.g. is climate change real, Google ranks the results algorithmically. If Google doesn't do fact checking, are they liable for false statements?

It applies just as much because it is a fundamentally technically illiterate argument. It already ignores that the whole point of the algorithim is to prioritize. In this case just as much means "none" for both because it is asking for an outright contradiction to - provide prioritization without any bias. Or bias without bias. Nonsensical stupidity. The mobster with a cudgel making vague threats rhetoric is just another form of the stupid and wrong meme of service and platform being mutually excluse.

I personally try to do my part by stomping on this dumb sentiment like a cockroach whenever it pops up.

Post reply on HN