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

201–210 of 259 posts

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

#201

Post by s1artibartfast »

newacct583 wrote: post #163
s1artibartfast wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Once again, reasons and motivations aren't the subject of "fact checking" in the sense we're discussing. That's interpretive history, not factual stuff. And I'd be shocked beyond belief if Facebook was actually stepping in here, which is why I asked for a cite. I'll be blunt: this didn't happen. They never fact checked a post about a confederate general, and if they did it was over some kind of obviously false thing…

Thanks for finding the article.

I would argue that this is clearly in the realm of interpretive history.

The core statement "Lee opposed both secession and slavery" is too poorly defined to have an objective answer. It is a question of what a historical figure thought and felt comes with all the nuance of a real human being.

Part of what I object to with the "fact checking" is that it often tries to adjudicate questions that are matter of opinion. Perhaps "oponion" should be the facebook flag.

Does placing the warning imply that the inverse is true and "Lee supported both secession and slavery".

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

#202

Post by ballenf »

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?

There are costs to living in a free society. Harm from letting people believe falsehoods is one of them. Soldiers dying to protect you from those seeking to destroy you is another.

If people aren't free to believe false things and even to try to spread those falsehoods to others, then it's no longer a free society. And one day, a thing you know to be true will be deemed false and you might still think that the problem is just that the wrong people have this power.

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

#203

Post by readbeard »

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…

I'm not clear on what you intend as a proposed definition, so to help get us on the right track, I'll take a few stabs at distilling down your post to what I think you might be suggesting. Is one of these close?

1. Facts are propositions that are indisputable.

2. Facts are propositions we are certain are true.

3. Facts are directly observable.

4. Facts are empirically verifiable.

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

#204

Post by jmcqk6 »

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.

>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.

We desperately need some mechanism for correcting bad thinking based on falsehoods. You can believe whatever you want if your beliefs have no effect on me, but the world has become so complex and interconnected that it's very difficult to point to something and say "your opinion on this has no consequences for other people."

Vaccines? Herd immunity is effected. Not vaccinating your child has little impact on yourself, but if enough people do it, it effects the entire civilization. What should be done about this?

This article is about one of the biggest, climate change.

Every political issue is shaded with the brush of ideology, and that has come at the cost of actual facts and thinking. There is the old saying "strict adherence to rules is nothing more than an excuse to avoid thinking." The same thing can be said to ideology.

It is natural that the mediums we have for disseminating information should have responsibility for the integrity of that information.

But I am looking forward to hearing what you would suggest such a mechanism would be.

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

#205

Post by failuser »

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.

«Earth orbits the Sun» is not a very meaningful or scientific statement. «Frame of reference tied to the Sun is closer to an inertial one than the one tied to Earth» is better, but try explaining it to random person on Facebook.

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

#206

Post by catalogia »

dfxm12 wrote: post #196
catalogia wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> 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".

Pretty much. If such a thing as truly objective facts exists, I (and any other human) can only perceive and understand it through through the imperfect tools available to us. The mechanisms through which we perceive and understand reality are influenced by our lived experiences; nobody is immune to this. Of this, I am certain.

Incidentally, one of the various things I am certain of is that some of the things I am certain of are actually wrong.

> To do so is illogical or acting in bad faith.

I disagree, I don't think that logically follows from the former premise. It may be the case that somebody arguing logically and in good faith simply failed to perceive facts which, had they perceived them, would alter their logical conclusions.

As a concrete example: many people who view the video of WTC7 collapsing seemingly fail to notice that in the upper left corner of the building, sunlight is visible through the windows after the rooftop penthouse collapses, immediately preceding the total collapse of the building. That sunlight is visible through those windows is a fact, by my perception. When I point this out to people who believe WTC7 was demolished, the response is often that they never noticed it before I pointed it out. It doesn't therefore follow that they were previously arguing in bad faith or illogically; what it shows is that different people viewing the same video can acquire different sets of facts. Different sets of facts may lead to different good faith and logical conclusions. A fact that you are unaware of cannot be apart of your logical analysis of matters pertaining to that fact; the best you can do is maintain a general awareness that there may be relevant facts you aren't aware of.

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

#207

Post by xg15 »

ballenf wrote: post #202
xg15 wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

There are costs to living in a free society. Harm from letting people believe falsehoods is one of them. Soldiers dying to protect you from those seeking to destroy you is another. If people aren't free to believe false things and even to try to spread those falsehoods to others, then it's no longer a free society. And one day, a thing you know to be true will be deemed false and you might still think that the proble…

"some of you may die, but this is a sacrifice I'm willing to make."

Like, are you aware how high those costs can actually get? Who decided that the costs are worth it? Like, would you say the costs of leading someone into drinking bleach will be worth it?

I absolutely support the right for everyone to have an opinion, but we have to acknowledge that now all opinions are equally valid - otherwise, were regressing from several centuries of empirical science.

So at the very least, we have to give people the tools to distinguish opinions with a solid scientific basis from unqualified ones or ones given in bad faith. Fact checkers are one tool in this.

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

#208

Post by xg15 »

koheripbal wrote: post #199
xg15 wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, and we're all susceptible to emotion to some degree, no matter the age and no matter the education.

There has been extensive research done in public relations, advertising and consumer psychology how to manipulate people emotionally and make them act against reason.

A bit of training in logical thinking is definitely not enough to counter this.

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

#209

Post by xg15 »

koheripbal wrote: post #200
xg15 wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm sorry, I don't get it. Could you elaborate?

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

#210

Post by xg15 »

failuser wrote: post #205
xg15 wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

«Earth orbits the Sun» is not a very meaningful or scientific statement. «Frame of reference tied to the Sun is closer to an inertial one than the one tied to Earth» is better, but try explaining it to random person on Facebook.

What's wrong with "Earth orbits the sun"?
Post reply on HN