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

Post by thelightthat » Tue, Jul 21, 2020, 5:20 PM UTC

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…

Post by Nasrudith » Tue, Jul 21, 2020, 5:23 PM UTC

floatrock wrote: post #114

Covzire wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 echo…

Post by raxxorrax » Tue, Jul 21, 2020, 5:25 PM UTC

Supermancho wrote: post #121

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…

> This is terrifying. Ironically, this news is terrifying if you have a very inaccurate view of human behavior. The following posts about "mindless masses" is so dismissive that I have to question the voracity of the analysis. People who use facebook are constantly faced with the dissonance of things found on facebook that do not correlate with reality. Even if FB was your one source of truth (there are no people who…

Post by raxxorrax » Tue, Jul 21, 2020, 5:28 PM UTC

barbacoa wrote: post #80

dependenttypes wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We've already seen well known EFF activists rated untrue for their arguments against warrantless surveillance Got a link about that?

From my understanding the story is: * Patriot act is up for renewal * Amendment proposed to not allow section 215 to be used to search internet history W/O warrant. * Patriot act reauthorized W/O internet history protection amendment. * PF rules "[Congress] voted for federal agencies to have access to your internet history without obtaining a warrant." is false because of semantic word games. https://www.politifact.c…

Post by indigochill » Tue, Jul 21, 2020, 5:32 PM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #76

koheripbal wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> The alternative is creating a diverse ecosystem of organizations/individuals who's analysis/logic people can choose to subscribe to Allowing people to "choose" to subscribe to certain things has the ability to get them and others killed. That's why I mentioned the blood libel, while desperately casting around for something that people on HN wouldn't pointlessly dispute as subjective. The bar for "this is genuinely…