' "It's true that partisan content often has kind of a higher percent of people ... engaging with it, commenting on it, liking it," Zuckerberg told Axios. ' Hmm, no vested interests there for sure! /s
$$$$
Facebook doesn't plan to take strong action against anti-vaccination posts
21–30 of 104 posts
Re: Facebook doesn't plan to take strong action against anti-vaccination posts
#22Earlier quoted context omitted.
Someone’s opinion is misinformation?
When it's an all-caps, MY DAUGHTER HAS AUTISM BECAUSE OF [X] VACCINE I mean, that's misinformation. When you know that no medical literature supports the idea that autism is caused by vaccine, and you still spread it...
If the post literally reads "MY DAUGHTER HAS AUTISM BECAUSE OF [X] VACCINE" then it's not that hard to refute with scientific literate.
What is much harder to police with a coherent set of guidelines is a facebook page where thousands of moms have each written "I got my child vaccinated and then they developed autism". When a new mom, with little sleep and little background in biological science, who is still on the fence about vaccines, see those thousand posts all together it paints a compelling narrative without ever really having contradicted science.
Re: Facebook doesn't plan to take strong action against anti-vaccination posts
#23You 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…
Is he the sole person responsible for policy on Facebook or is it by commission / shareholders? I often feel like Zucc is getting scapegoated and bears the responsibility for all of Facebook, but I'm not in the loop whether he still holds the majority of shares and policy of FB, etc.
Re: Facebook doesn't plan to take strong action against anti-vaccination posts
#24"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.
This is a _much_ harder epistemology problem than you are giving it credit for.
Do you know of a way to ensure that a newly-developed effective vaccine has a non-figuratively literally 0% chance that it could cause anti-dependent enhancement or other harms. If so, I'd love to also hear your technique for writing software with absolutely 0 bugs.
Otherwise, we are dependent on trusting institutions to
1. Gather data about the statistical prevalence of harms.
2. Analyse that data and confer with their peers.
3. Broadcast judicious conclusions to the general population.
Re: Facebook doesn't plan to take strong action against anti-vaccination posts
#25Controversy breeds clicks and pageviews which drive advertising income. As long as that cycle does not get broken you can expect a lot more misery from that particular corner.
"Controversy breeds clicks and pageviews which drive advertising income."
I really wish Americans would wake up to this, and realize that Facebook, and news media in general, are breeding grounds for our division.
Re: Facebook doesn't plan to take strong action against anti-vaccination posts
#26[dead]
Re: Facebook doesn't plan to take strong action against anti-vaccination posts
#27This 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.
Unfortunately the default level of credibility people give to things that appear on their feed is not zero; and Facebook's entire income depends on this, since advertising would be useless if people gave it no credence.
Re: Facebook doesn't plan to take strong action against anti-vaccination posts
#28As 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…
[deleted]
Re: Facebook doesn't plan to take strong action against anti-vaccination posts
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 possi…
yes. But they both still fall under the category of "someone is worried about the harms of a vaccine"
So are they both misinformation, or are you painting with too broad of a brush?
Re: Facebook doesn't plan to take strong action against anti-vaccination posts
#30Controversy breeds clicks and pageviews which drive advertising income. As long as that cycle does not get broken you can expect a lot more misery from that particular corner.
false information is free.
correct information costs money (time, research, dollars).