Facebook doesn't plan to take strong action against anti-vaccination posts • Hacker News Board

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

#81

Post by baddox » Wed, Sep 09, 2020, 2:58 PM UTC

hackinthebochs wrote: post #17

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…

>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.

The trouble is that Facebook’s algorithm by definition does shape the speech that people see on Facebook.

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

#82

Post by ceejayoz » Wed, Sep 09, 2020, 2:58 PM UTC

afarrell wrote: post #78

ceejayoz wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

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

Ah, we're conspiracy theorizing now.

There is substantial contemporary reporting of the WHO's statements from January, and the Internet Archive has it snapshotted on Jan 9. http://archive.is/jZByM

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

#83

Post by baddox » Wed, Sep 09, 2020, 3:01 PM UTC

hoorayimhelping wrote: post #52

blueatlas wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

I think you might be in a tech bubble if you think Americans are blind to how biased and disgraceful the media is. Most Americans are middle of the road when it comes to politics, and middle of the road conservatives and liberals are sick of the narrative the media has been pushing. All you have to do is ask people outside of tech circles how they feel about the media. (Then ask them how they feel about big tech). In…

There’s a difference between thinking that any media that doesn’t agree with my political views is disgraceful, and thinking that the entire media industry is profiting from fostering division and controversy.

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

#84

Post by bhupy » Wed, Sep 09, 2020, 3:02 PM UTC

deminature wrote: post #67

bhupy wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 disea…

Right, and that's just as easily an argument in favor of loosening the existing restrictions, not tightening them even further.

Epistemologically, where you come out on this all depends on which axiom you start from.

Also, there's a subtle difference between the existing guidelines and what you're proposing: the existing guidelines exist to maintain a positive experience directly for those consuming the platform (eg I don't want to see ISIS beheadings on FB). The new guidelines you're proposing exist solely to indirectly prevent others from seeing things you think they should not be seeing (eg I don't want my aunt to see this post). It's a very important distinction.

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

#85

Post by pnw_hazor » Wed, Sep 09, 2020, 3:03 PM UTC

ghostpepper wrote: post #31

ljm wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Which word do you have an issue with in the NYT headline, 'reaction'? As in, the 'adversity' faced by this patient may not in fact be a 'reaction' to the vaccine?

The use of "on hold" in the guardian headline clearly conveys a temporary pause or an interruption.

The use of "halted" in the NYT headline commonly means stop or end.

halted; halting; halts Definition of halt

(Entry 1 of 4)

intransitive verb

1 : to cease marching or journeying

2 : discontinue, terminate the project halted for lack of funds

transitive verb

1 : to bring to a stop the strike halted subways and buses

2 : to cause the discontinuance of : end halt hostilities

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/halt

on hold in American English

1. in a period or state of interruption or delay the countdown was on hold

2. in a state of interruption in a telephone call, as during a transfer to another line I was on hold for five minutes

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/on-h...

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

#86

Post by afarrell » Wed, Sep 09, 2020, 3:03 PM UTC

ceejayoz wrote: post #82

afarrell wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Ah, we're conspiracy theorizing now. There is substantial contemporary reporting of the WHO's statements from January, and the Internet Archive has it snapshotted on Jan 9. http://archive.is/jZByM

No, I'm saying that in order to believe in any facts, you have to exercise some level of human judgement and conclude/assume that the entire world has not conspired to deceive you.

It is wise to exercise judgement in that direction for the same reason it is wise to round 0.9999999999999999999 up to 1

It is often wise to round 0.999 up to 1.

-----

I'm not saying '2+2=5'.

I am saying '2+2=4'. You are saying '2+1.99999999999999999=4'.

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

#87

Post by ShamelessC » Wed, Sep 09, 2020, 3:03 PM UTC

boldpandabear wrote: post #65

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.

I don't use Facebook but my understanding was that in general it's tougher to do broad searches like that as they want you to be connected via social graph first. could be wrong here though.

At any rate, what's wrong with censorship in online media? It's been my experience that basically every platform lacking censorship turns into a cesspool of bigotry and misinformation.

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

#88

Post by ardy42 » Wed, Sep 09, 2020, 3:04 PM UTC

Is this anti-vaxx in general, or specific concerns about a coronavirus vaccine?

Because there's a world of difference between repeating a debunked claim about vaccines causing autism or the idea that all vaccines are unsafe and saying you had a bad reaction to a specific vaccine or have concerns about an unproven vaccines development process.

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

#89

Post by super_scooper » Wed, Sep 09, 2020, 3:05 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…

You are being overly defensive of vaccines. They are a great and effective treatment for many diseases and I get the sense you are trying to make zuckerburg's comments seem more demonstrable then they really are. Considering Facebook's diligence in cutting off speech on their platform that is racisst, climate change denying, etc. I find it hard to believe that they will refuse to crack down on antivax advertisers and dedicated facebook pages.

Tbh I have not done the research but I have no doubt there have been faulty or problematic vaccines at one time or another. Just like any other medical treatment there is a chance rhat they have defects, cause side effects, followed bad quality control protocol. Elevating vaccines to this status of being not allowed to be critisized for fear of our society being damaged seems like an almost equally dangerous alternative to what we have now. If people are legitimately hurt by a vaccine, they have a right to have a voice, and we have a responsibility as a society to hold those at fault accountable. That can't happen if we treat every person on facebook with even the slightest grievance about a vaccine like they are insane.

And to address your point on practicality; the fact of the matter is, anti-vax movements have never been normalized. There is enough pressure from employers, schools, government, and scientists that most people will get vaccinated if it is found to be of personal or public benefit. Hardcore antivaxers are generally looked down upon by the public.

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

#90

Post by afarrell » Wed, Sep 09, 2020, 3:06 PM UTC

ceejayoz wrote: post #76

afarrell wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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? 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...

And your choice to believe the webpage over me is an (entirely reasonable and wise) exercise in human judgement based on other evidence you have access to.