Facebook doesn't plan to take strong action against anti-vaccination posts

Post by ghostpepper » Wed, Sep 09, 2020, 2:31 PM UTC

ljm wrote: post #20

tarr11 wrote: post #9

Earlier 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…

Post by HumblyTossed » Wed, Sep 09, 2020, 2:32 PM UTC

blueatlas wrote: post #25

jacquesm wrote: post #5

Controversy 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.

Post by ceejayoz » Wed, Sep 09, 2020, 2:32 PM UTC

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #23

deminature wrote: post #10

You 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.

Post by emteycz » Wed, Sep 09, 2020, 2:32 PM UTC

newacct583 wrote: post #32

bmh100 wrote: post #12

This 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.

But the point is that one does this when traditional authorities have already broken down. When large numbers of people refuse to believe legitimate science, it's too late to be worrying about "moral hazards", the damage is already done. This is just an attempt to stem the bleeding by having entities like social media platforms step in and try to assume the role of the authorities that have been rejected. And yes, I…

Post by kryogen1c » Wed, Sep 09, 2020, 2:33 PM UTC

teslademigod1 wrote: post #2

"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.