Facebook overrides fact-checks when climate science is “opinion” • Hacker News Board

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

#151

Post by njarboe » Tue, Jul 21, 2020, 5:44 PM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #55

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 th…

I agree with your post in general but consider that accuracy and being correct is hard and takes time and consideration. This is something almost no people value when speaking in normal conversations or the equivalent online venues (Twitter, Facebook, reddit, HN, etc.). Take your post, for example, with its incorrect use of "heliocentricity". It means an astronomical model in which the Earth and planets orbit the Sun at the center of the Solar System. It is the accepted theory of planetary motion for centuries and has many different ways to be independently verified :). Not the best example of something incorrect that might be promoted with astroturfing.

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

#152

Post by shadowgovt » Tue, Jul 21, 2020, 5:44 PM UTC

xaedes wrote: post #124

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…

That is why I recently said: Fact checking == Truth Factory. Lets open a ministry for that, guess the name.

So long as there are other sources of information, the risk of one source having a Ministry of Truth is irrelevant.

In a vibrant marketplace of ideas, a "Ministry of Truth" is just "quality standards."

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

#153

Post by shadowgovt » Tue, Jul 21, 2020, 5:46 PM UTC

mtgp1000 wrote: post #63

sneak wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

>mindless masses Perhaps you meant this hyperbolically but I do not believe it to be an exaggeration. >What specifically makes them captive They are captive because of a combination of their ignorance and the network effect. If all of your friends are on Facebook for example you'll have to leave them behind if you delete your account.

You can't legislate away ignorance.

In fact, if your argument is "most people are ignorant" it's an argument in favor of not letting their primary source of news be dominated by wealth and network effects instead of grounding in at least some objective reality (imperfect though it may be).

People who want "the real truth" have few impediments to seeking it out on the modern Internet. People who don't want to do their own fact-checking are better served by somebody doing it (and then we can keep a close eye on the watchmen).

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

#154

Post by ksdale » Tue, Jul 21, 2020, 5:47 PM UTC

indigochill wrote: post #139

pjc50 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> the question of "what is a fact" could easily absorb a large part of an undergraduate History and Philosophy of Science degree Is it really that complicated? It seems like, at least if you subscribe to a certain definition of fact, it becomes straightforward. Example Fact: I observed that in a sample of X smokers who smoked Y cigarettes a day, Z developed lung cancer. Example non-Fact: Smoking causes approximately…

And then, assuming you can get people to agree on the accuracy of the observation and on the causation, people can still argue about the best course of action to address a problem. Assuming people don't agree on causation, you might never get enough trials of solutions to learn anything about what a best solution might look like.

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

#155

Post by filoeleven » Tue, Jul 21, 2020, 5:48 PM UTC

s1artibartfast wrote: post #123

vkou wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The grey area and room for debate is much greater for truth than nudity and sexuality. That's your subjective opinion. Different cultures will significantly disagree with you (and with the Zuck) on what the gray area for nudity and sexuality is.

Different cultures may disagree on what the policy should be, but Zuckerberg has the ability to create nudity rules that are objective, whether you agree with them or not. For example, FB can make a policy that says no exposed nipples for females. There may be different opinions on the value of such a policy, but not the execution/implementation. This is much more difficult for a policy stating that content must not…

> For example, FB can make a policy that says no exposed nipples for females. There may be different opinions on the value of such a policy, but not the execution/implementation.

Your policy is still ill-defined, though. Do you mean ALL female nipples, or just human ones? Does the ban extend to babies? Who’s going to police that, and how?

Radiolab did an episode on all kinds of Facebook rules, covering the nipple conundrum as part of it. There’s very little that is straightforward about implementing any of them.

https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/articles/post-...

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

#156

Post by freeflight » Tue, Jul 21, 2020, 5:49 PM UTC

sneak wrote: post #12

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…

How is Facebook the arbiter of truth when many, many websites other than Facebook exist, and most human beings do not use Facebook? This is a very different scenario than a single company owning every broadcast tower in a town, pre-internet. The ability to access Facebook strongly implies general internet access , which is a compelling argument against Facebook exerting any sort of authority over general truth.

> most human beings do not use Facebook?

Facebook has literally billions of monthly active users [0], close to two billion daily active users [1] and very likely a number of total accounts that's 10+ billion [2]. Instagram has another billion mau, and half a billion dau [3].

I struggle to think of any other private entity with that much global reach into so many peoples lives, the only other example that comes to mind is Google, the two of them combined have direct influence over 70%+ of internet traffic [4].

Staying clear of their impact is active work because even if you don't use their services, chances are many and often even most people around you still do.

[0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/264810/number-of-monthly...

[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/346167/facebook-global-d...

[2] https://youtu.be/nmXACRrzLMA

[3] https://www.omnicoreagency.com/instagram-statistics/

[4] https://staltz.com/the-web-began-dying-in-2014-heres-how.htm...

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

#157

Post by tyrust » Tue, Jul 21, 2020, 5:50 PM UTC

curiousgal wrote: post #28

I don't understand why it's Facebook's role to teach people. Maybe if regulations were instead imposed on school curriculums we wouldn't have dumb adults arguing about climate change, flat earth or mask wearing. Combat issues at the root not the fruit.

Facebook moderation and education reform are not mutually exclusive.

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

#158

Post by tossAfterUsing » Tue, Jul 21, 2020, 5:56 PM UTC

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…

> A handful of mainstream publications and a bunch of basically unknown facebook folks are now the censors.

I share your concern. And, hasn't this been the case for as long as there have been centralized publications?

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

#159

Post by mrow84 » Tue, Jul 21, 2020, 5:57 PM UTC

indigochill wrote: post #139

pjc50 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> the question of "what is a fact" could easily absorb a large part of an undergraduate History and Philosophy of Science degree Is it really that complicated? It seems like, at least if you subscribe to a certain definition of fact, it becomes straightforward. Example Fact: I observed that in a sample of X smokers who smoked Y cigarettes a day, Z developed lung cancer. Example non-Fact: Smoking causes approximately…

Did they all inhale?

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

#160

Post by s1artibartfast » Tue, Jul 21, 2020, 6:00 PM UTC

newacct583 wrote: post #130

pjc50 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Not in a fact-checker-visible sense it isn't, though. We know who the actors were and what they did and how they wrote about it. The US civil war is one of, if not the, best-attested conflicts of its century. What is there to fact check? Like I said, I'm curious and suspect the real issue is a little deeper.

I'm not particularly familiar with the matter, but the actions and wirittings are still subject to interpretation.

Some examples might be:

What was the reason for the confederacy to declare independence.

What were General E Lees motivations for joining the war.

What was the motivation for most soldiers (who were not slave owners) joining the war.

You can find hundreds of books disputing these topics.