What if it's anti-covid-vaccine misinformation?
Facebook doesn't plan to take strong action against anti-vaccination posts
11–20 of 104 posts
Re: Facebook doesn't plan to take strong action against anti-vaccination posts
#12This is the problem with "fact checking". It positions the platform as an authority. Now, any claim that isn't "debunked" by this "fact checking" gains a certain amount of credibility by comparison. The moral hazards are enormous, multiplied by the opaque behavior of Facebook's algorithm and again multiplied by its unprecedented reach in society.
Re: Facebook doesn't plan to take strong action against anti-vaccination posts
#13"If someone is pointing out a case where a vaccine caused harm or that they're worried about it — you know, that's a difficult thing to say from my perspective that you shouldn't be allowed to express at all." Where I'm from, we call that misinformation.
The front page of the NYT today is about AstraZeneca halting their trials because of a patient’s adverse reaction to the vaccine. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/09/world/covid-19-coronaviru...
Pausing, and that's why we have trials.
Re: Facebook doesn't plan to take strong action against anti-vaccination posts
#14“Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.” Marcus Aurelius
We need to stop trying to enforce "the truth" to other people. Just let people talk and have different opinions. That includes letting people having conservative values, because lately this thought police is getting out of control.
Re: Facebook doesn't plan to take strong action against anti-vaccination posts
#15As with almost everything these days, this topic is NOT black and white despite what initial comments say. Take a look at the vaccine for the 1976 swine flu outbreak.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_swine_flu_outbreak
A comment here already says that expressing concern over a vaccine is basically misinformation. I'm sorry but expressing concern about a vaccine that is developed in about 1 year, which is a record 1/10th of the time it normally takes is completely fair, as there can be serious consequences that you don't know about for a while.
And I say this as someone who is vaccinated for everything, even optional vaccines, and has vaccinated for everything when going to Asia etc.
Re: Facebook doesn't plan to take strong action against anti-vaccination posts
#16"If someone is pointing out a case where a vaccine caused harm or that they're worried about it — you know, that's a difficult thing to say from my perspective that you shouldn't be allowed to express at all." Where I'm from, we call that misinformation.
The front page of the NYT today is about AstraZeneca halting their trials because of a patient’s adverse reaction to the vaccine. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/09/world/covid-19-coronaviru...
You are misrepresenting that story (deliberately, to make a point?). One person on a vaccine trial has reported adverse symptoms -- it is not yet known whether the patient's symptoms are a reaction to the vaccine or not. They could be sick with some completely unrelated issue.
The trial has been paused in order to investigate the cause of this person's symptoms.
> “At this stage, we don’t know if the events that triggered the hold are related to vaccination,” said Dr. Luciana Borio, who oversaw public health preparedness for the National Security Council under Mr. Trump and who was acting chief scientist at the F.D.A. under former President Barack Obama. “But it is important for them to be thoroughly investigated.”
If anything, this should make you more confident, not less, in the safety of a well-tested vaccine.
Re: Facebook doesn't plan to take strong action against anti-vaccination posts
#17You would hope that the custodian of the world's most popular communication platform would have a greater sense of obligation to the social responsibility that comes with it. Unfortunately we don't live in that world, and Zuckerberg continues choose dollars over lasting damage to the standards of discourse. He is the Murdoch of the 21st century, tearing at the social fabric in pursuit of profits and facilitating the…
>would have a greater sense of obligation to the social responsibility that comes with it
Maybe that's why he is largely hands-off when it comes to policing or shaping content? Not everyone agrees that the best way to manage an important communications platform is to shape the speech allowed on it.
Re: Facebook doesn't plan to take strong action against anti-vaccination posts
#18I get my flu vaccine every year. That said, I agree with Zuck.
I want to live in a world where we’re forced to teach our kids critical thinking skills than in a world that relies on controlling the flow of information. Let’s have articles about making critical thinking a required school class as is with English, math, US history, etc. Than Zuck is not blocking this or that.
Re: Facebook doesn't plan to take strong action against anti-vaccination posts
#19Not surprised as Facebook is a cesspool of anti-5G and anti-vaxxer.
Re: Facebook doesn't plan to take strong action against anti-vaccination posts
#20"If someone is pointing out a case where a vaccine caused harm or that they're worried about it — you know, that's a difficult thing to say from my perspective that you shouldn't be allowed to express at all." Where I'm from, we call that misinformation.
The front page of the NYT today is about AstraZeneca halting their trials because of a patient’s adverse reaction to the vaccine. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/09/world/covid-19-coronaviru...
This article is practically misinformation in itself, and the body of the text confirms it:
“The event is being investigated by an independent committee, and it is too early to conclude the specific diagnosis.”
Here is an article from another newspaper, about the same thing: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/09/oxford-univers...
The headline is: "Oxford University Covid vaccine trial put on hold due to possible adverse reaction in participant"
Compared to NYT's "Covid-19 Live Updates: Vaccine Trial Is Halted After Patient’s Adverse Reaction"
Notice the difference between the two of them?