Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 104 posts

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

#61

Post by afarrell »

ceejayoz wrote: post #55
afarrell wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Epistemology is harder than that. If a government body declares that there is no risk of human->human transmission of COVID-19, am I not entitled to evaluate other evidence and conclude that this statement of fact is incorrect? > Based on the preliminary information from the Chinese investigation team, no evidence of significant human-to-human transmission and no health care worker infections have been reported. http…

No, see, that's a great example of incorrectly mixing the two up on your part. Nothing in that statement can fairly be read as "there is no risk of human->human transmission of COVID-19". Fact: On Jan 5, 2020, the WHO had "no evidence of significant human-to-human transmission". You can hold the opinion that they should've been more aggressive about the potential of that changing. You can hold the opinion that the WH…

> the WHO should figure out a way to rely less on member nations accurately reporting information to them.

So you would say that the WHO should be 'entitled to their own set of facts', separate from that of the PRC, correct?

That would imply that "How do we determine the credibility of organizations?" is a sometimes-difficult exercise in human judgement, correct?

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

#62

Post by nickfromseattle »

salimmadjd wrote: post #18

I 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.

Ideologically, I agree.

Reality doesn't look too great though.

>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.

Technology has evolved faster than our ability to create a society of critical thinkers.

>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.

Education seems to vary state by state, for example Texas elected to eliminate classes that teach critical thinking.

"We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student's fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority."[0]

So if Americans are generally lacking critical thinking skills, and for various reasons those skills will never be taught or learned, do you still want to let propaganda and fake news run unabated?

[0] https://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/teaching_now/2012/06/texas...

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

#63

Post by jdhbbbhb »

darepublic wrote: post #42

Don't use Facebook but I don't want any of the social media platforms performing any censorship beyond the legally mandated type (ie pirated material illegal porn etc)

Even the darkest corner of the internet, 8chan, has more strict rules than that

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

#64

Post by emerged »

cblconfederate wrote: post #58
credit_guy wrote: post #54

The way I read this: 1. Trump is pushing for a vaccine to be authorized before Election Day. 2. Democrats are saying a vaccine before Election Day should not be trusted. 3. A simple anti-vaxx detection algorithm would identify Democrats as anti-vaxxers 4. Zuckerberg either wants Facebook to stay out of this controversy, or he's siding with the Democrats.

The way i read it is america's politics are a dangerous clusterfuck

Currently, there is a clamping operation occurring on all topics in the US. Media clamps to the left or right extreme, and both extremes are completely nutty. Those extremes at least used to be vaguely rational, or at least they somewhat managed to balance one another out.

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

#65

Post by boldpandabear »

Facebook has already taken strong action against people who believe you should not vaccinate your child.

It is almost impossible to find anti-vax groups on Facebook in their search feature. They won't surface them at all.

Even if you type in the direct phrase sometimes.

You have to have a direct link to the anti-vax group.

That is a form of censorship.

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

#66

Post by afarrell »

ceejayoz wrote: post #55
afarrell wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Epistemology is harder than that. If a government body declares that there is no risk of human->human transmission of COVID-19, am I not entitled to evaluate other evidence and conclude that this statement of fact is incorrect? > Based on the preliminary information from the Chinese investigation team, no evidence of significant human-to-human transmission and no health care worker infections have been reported. http…

No, see, that's a great example of incorrectly mixing the two up on your part. Nothing in that statement can fairly be read as "there is no risk of human->human transmission of COVID-19". Fact: On Jan 5, 2020, the WHO had "no evidence of significant human-to-human transmission". You can hold the opinion that they should've been more aggressive about the potential of that changing. You can hold the opinion that the WH…

> Nothing in that statement can fairly be read as "there is no risk of human->human transmission of COVID-19".

So you'd like to be 'entitled to your own set of facts' about how to summarise that WHO post because I am a fallible human, correct?

Would you say that Facebook are composed of infallible humans who never misinterpret the results of dense scientific papers? Or can the human judgement they exercise on complex topics be mistaken?

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

#67

Post by deminature »

bhupy wrote: post #48
deminature wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Allowing anti-vaccination sentiment to proliferate on the platform is fairly unambiguously harmful to society, especially during a pandemic that may rely on a vaccine to escape. It appears to be choosing engagement, which drives clicks, page views and ad impressions over being a force for good and then dressing it up as free speech, when moderators selectively remove millions of other posts per day. Social networks h…

I mean, by that logic, the US government allowing anti-vaccination sentiment to proliferate without legal/policy action (read: the First Amendment), is also "unambiguously harmful to society". Except, the issue is way more nuanced than that. The reason this expression is enshrined as a protection in US jurisdiction is because we decide that free expression trumps every other social need — with the narrow exceptions a…

My point is that true freedom of speech of already only partially possible on the platform owing to moderators selectively taking down millions of posts daily that violate the 'community guidelines'. Extending this to anti-vaccination rhetoric seems like a small expansion of existing policy, and addresses a problem causing real harm in society.

Cities are paying millions to stop outbreaks of previously defeated diseases like measles and counteract disinformation primarily being spread on social networks [1]. Should social networks not be somewhat culpable for their quantifiable externalities on society?

[1] https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2019/09/us-measl...

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

#68

Post by emerged »

ceejayoz wrote: post #38
sunseb wrote: post #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.

As The Daily Show once put it, "you are entitled to your opinion; you are not entitled to your own set of facts".

This is generally a sleight of hand where one person's opinions are being referred to as 'facts' while the other's opinions are not. The rabbit hole here goes deeper than most people wish to believe because we're nested so deep into a particular dominant narrative.

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

#69

Post by ceejayoz »

afarrell wrote: post #61
ceejayoz wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, see, that's a great example of incorrectly mixing the two up on your part. Nothing in that statement can fairly be read as "there is no risk of human->human transmission of COVID-19". Fact: On Jan 5, 2020, the WHO had "no evidence of significant human-to-human transmission". You can hold the opinion that they should've been more aggressive about the potential of that changing. You can hold the opinion that the WH…

> the WHO should figure out a way to rely less on member nations accurately reporting information to them. So you would say that the WHO should be 'entitled to their own set of facts', separate from that of the PRC, correct? That would imply that "How do we determine the credibility of organizations?" is a sometimes-difficult exercise in human judgement, correct?

> So you would say that the WHO should be 'entitled to their own set of facts', separate from that of the PRC, correct?

No, not really. "The WHO doesn't have reports of X" and "No one has reports of X" are separate (if related) facts.

> That would imply that "How do we determine the credibility of organizations?" is a sometimes-difficult exercise in human judgement, correct?

"Is this organization credible?" is an opinion, that you might back up with various facts.

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

#70

Post by kedean »

credit_guy wrote: post #54

The way I read this: 1. Trump is pushing for a vaccine to be authorized before Election Day. 2. Democrats are saying a vaccine before Election Day should not be trusted. 3. A simple anti-vaxx detection algorithm would identify Democrats as anti-vaxxers 4. Zuckerberg either wants Facebook to stay out of this controversy, or he's siding with the Democrats.

It's more likely to me that Facebook recognizes that the anti-vaxx community is one of the most active and most engaged segment of their users. Suddenly banning the topic they care most about is going to trigger a mass exodus of some of their most valuable assets, while maintaining the status quo just causes a little bad publicity. I've yet to see any mass exits of users because FB isn't doing something about it, so that's the profitiable option for them.
Post reply on HN