71–80 of 104 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Zuck controls 60% of the voting rights. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/20/shareholders-wont-force-zuck...
Is there even a point of voting rights if one person hold the majority?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
This is not about tradition breaking down, this is about many and many more people gaining a hearable voice.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
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…
> 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…
It is simply not factual that that statement states "there is no risk of human->human transmission of COVID-19". It explicitly states otherwise, in fact.
> There is limited information to determine the overall risk of this reported cluster...
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 opi…
Right. 100% Agreed.
And that implies that a fact like "On 5 January 2020, the WHO said '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.' " is based on an opinion like "The WHO's web administration team is credible and would not have misleadingly changed the content of a web page"
Unless you start comparing that fact with other facts as reported the internet archive or a checksum in your database...which also has credibility questions.
---------
I'm just saying "Sadly, there is no way to escape using human judgement somewhere." I suspect we agree on most relevant object-level questions about vaccines and COVID-19.
I realise I sound pedantic. In normal times, I just round 0.9999999999999999999 up to 1 and go on with my life.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
This is not about tradition breaking down, this is about many and many more people gaining a hearable voice.
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…