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

191–200 of 259 posts

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

#191

Post by catalogia »

dfxm12 wrote: post #185
catalogia wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's just a matter of people being illogical, (although it's certainly the case that all people will be illogical at least some of the time.) How people interpret what they observe is fundamentally subjective. > "Facebook didn't say they would be moderating discussion in that way." Sure, I'm responding more to the notion of "Unfortunately, not everyone is willing to believe facts" My point is that video…

If a person uses a video as evidence to conclude something that isn't evident in the video, it is not an issue about subjectivity. It's an issue with the person; they're being illogical, or acting in bad faith.

> something that isn't evident in the video

What is or isn't evident in a video is very often subjective. It's a mistake to believe that somebody who is certain of something which contradicts something you are certain of must be illogical or acting in bad faith. Two people can view the same video with different perspectives[0], perceive two sets of mutually exclusive facts, and from those contradictory perceived facts logically deduce contradictory conclusions.

[0] It's arguably impossible for two people to have the same perspective, since they have lived different lives and had different experiences.

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

#192

Post by joejerryronnie »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #180
tomjen3 wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By force, but the US government can come out with guidelines and Facebook can choose to block posts that goes against those guidelines, essentially outsourcing their content moderation to the US government while facing only a small amount of the flack (Facebook does not have an opinion on the wearing of masks, we do not allow posts that go against the scientifically backed recommendations of AGENCY).

Granted, that is exactly how the government lends teeth to sexual harassment policies it would be legally unable to enforce itself. But I don't think a policy of "nobody can dispute the government's official statements" would fly, even with the enforcement done by Facebook.

Possibly a government sanctioned third party “content moderation board” then? This is partly a cynical take on how FB can offload an impossible task to somebody else.

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

#193

Post by ksdale »

xg15 wrote: post #188
ksdale wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Whether or not people agree on something is completely irrelevant to whether or not it is a fact. Earth will orbit the sun, no matter how many people may or may not be comfortable with it. Finding out what is and what is not a fact can be extremely difficult. However, we've spent the last few centuries developing tools to tackle this problem in the for of the scientific method.

The comment I was replying to pointed out that accurate observations are indisputable facts. To paraphrase the next part, determining causation from observations can be a matter of fact (where you understand the mechanism of causation very well), or of deciding that we're satisfied that the experimentation we've done demonstrates causation (which is not at all the same thing as proving causation). We can also do something like offer a plausible mechanism for causation, which, while often useful, is not particularly close to a fact in the vein of the Earth orbiting the sun.

You're obviously correct that belief doesn't make something a fact, but what to do when a fact hinges on a study? Who decides if the study is good enough? Obviously there is an objective truth, but is the study enough to find it?

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

#194

Post by s1artibartfast »

Latty wrote: post #169
s1artibartfast wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I saw someone who was posting close-ups of nipples without specifying a gender to make the point that it isn't really that simple. Is a trans woman's nipple OK? What about a trans man? What if the trans man has large breasts? What if a cis man has large breasts? What about the tattoo nipple of a cancer survivor? Nothing is simple, there are value judgements at every turn. The implementation is absolutely making judge…

I still think it is easier than defining truth.

In all above cases you could provide the reviewer with an objective yes/no answer. The reviewer does not need a PHD to know if there is a nipple in a picture.

This is not the case for questions of scientific truth, which other requires understand the scientific consensus with complex nuances.

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

#195

Post by s1artibartfast »

filoeleven wrote: post #155
s1artibartfast wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 con…

I agree there are edge cases. Are you saying the nipple issue is harder than moderating politically contested statements of fact regarding the nature of the world we live in?

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

#196

Post by dfxm12 »

catalogia wrote: post #191
dfxm12 wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a person uses a video as evidence to conclude something that isn't evident in the video, it is not an issue about subjectivity. It's an issue with the person; they're being illogical, or acting in bad faith.

> something that isn't evident in the video What is or isn't evident in a video is very often subjective. It's a mistake to believe that somebody who is certain of something which contradicts something you are certain of must be illogical or acting in bad faith. Two people can view the same video with different perspectives[0], perceive two sets of mutually exclusive facts, and from those contradictory perceived fact…

What is or isn't evident in a video is very often subjective.

If this is the case, it's a mistake to try to put forward a fact as objective based on something that is "very often subjective". To do so is illogical or acting in bad faith.

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

#197

Post by s1artibartfast »

AlexandrB wrote: post #150
s1artibartfast wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The problem in the linked article doesn't seem to be that the rules were ambiguous. Instead it seems as though they were perfectly clear but overruled by leadership because of external pressure. Plus there's this: > Last week, however, ProPublica reported that explicit misinformation about voting remains rampant on the platform. Voting misinformation is not ambiguous in the way you describe, yet Facebook doesn't care…

I think we would have to discuss the examples given by propublica[1]. Almost everything I saw was a matter of opinion.

"Your democracy, your freedom is being stripped away from you, and if you allow that then everything this country stood for, fought for, bled for is all in vain"

"the democratic party wants to rig our elections by forcing all voters to vote by mail. Vote by mail WILL lead to fraud"

"“Flooding the nation with ballots that can be stolen, sold, discarded, and forged—THAT’s the path to Leftist victory in November.”

“You think coronavirus is a crisis, wait till you see the voter fraud epidemic we have here in California. And mark my words it’s heading to your state like a diseased bat out of hell.”

“If you mail in your vote, your vote will be in Barack Obama’s fireplace.”

[1] https://www.propublica.org/article/outright-lies-voting-misi...

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

#198

Post by specialist »

tabtab wrote: post #119
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.

Broadcast vs targeted.

Very different.

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

#199

Post by koheripbal »

xg15 wrote: post #181
vorpalhex wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is normally why we have limits on behavior like using violence to push viewpoints. You can't reason someone out of something they didn't reason themselves into, but we also know that if you try to suppress them then they'll double down on their viewpoint. The best way to push a cause is to have a martyr. There is no person fit to play the censor. Power corrupts. What starts as an intent to stop climate change de…

OK, so... now what? You've correctly identified a number of practical problems with combatting misinformation. However, this does not change the fact that misinformation exists and does real harm. So if you can neither change a person's opinion, nor keep them from influencing others, what would you propose we do?

Teach logic. ...at a young age. Fundamental logic and reason.

That is the first step. Most of the dangerous content online is visibly illogical, and driven purely on emotion.

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

#200

Post by koheripbal »

xg15 wrote: post #188
ksdale wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Whether or not people agree on something is completely irrelevant to whether or not it is a fact. Earth will orbit the sun, no matter how many people may or may not be comfortable with it. Finding out what is and what is not a fact can be extremely difficult. However, we've spent the last few centuries developing tools to tackle this problem in the for of the scientific method.

> Whether or not people agree on something is completely irrelevant to whether or not it is a fact.

No, it's actually the ENTIRE meaning of "fact". Because "fact" is a word, and it has no meaning if we don't agree.

Post reply on HN