Live data from Hacker News

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

axios.com

91–100 of 104 posts

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

#91
post #75
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.

What about things that Facebook does take down, like fraud and scams or misinformation about voting requirements? Is that problematic because it positions Facebook as an authority about those things? Should Facebook remove posts which claim an election date has been moved, or that if you reply with your bank account details you will get some free money?

Yes Facebook should handle all such takedowns itself instead of outsourcing it.

It's tempting to say they can take down things like fake election dates without causing any concern, and that's probably true. But there also isn't much that falls in that category, and people can still send such messages via other messaging platforms like WhatsApp, email, the web etc. So it may simply not be worth the slippery slope in the end.

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

#92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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+1.999999…

"There are no real facts, this could all be a simulation and 2+2=5" isn't really a useful position to discuss anything useful from.

https://birdsarentreal.com/ is fun to chuckle at, but it's not a useful philosophy for encountering the world.

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

#93
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not about tradition breaking down, this is about many and many more people gaining a hearable voice.

So that they can be heard denying vaccine effectiveness, though. Again, it's a practical issue. Some messages, including this one, shouldn't get Facebook-level assistance with reaching listeners.

They generally don't deny vaccine effectiveness. They take aim at vaccine safety. If you don't even know what these people are upset about how can you be so sure about denying them a voice?

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

#94
post #91
post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about things that Facebook does take down, like fraud and scams or misinformation about voting requirements? Is that problematic because it positions Facebook as an authority about those things? Should Facebook remove posts which claim an election date has been moved, or that if you reply with your bank account details you will get some free money?

Yes Facebook should handle all such takedowns itself instead of outsourcing it. It's tempting to say they can take down things like fake election dates without causing any concern, and that's probably true. But there also isn't much that falls in that category, and people can still send such messages via other messaging platforms like WhatsApp, email, the web etc. So it may simply not be worth the slippery slope in t…

Sending messages between individuals on WhatsApp isn’t a remotely comparable problem to Facebook’s algorithm actively spreading posts to a huge audience.

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

#95
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.

The way to cure that is to pull Zuckerberg into these conspiracies and mis-information strategies. He's going to turn like a leaf on a tree when it starts to impact him personally.

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

#96

Earlier 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...

I mean, don’t they have a right to say if not “A because of B” but “B happened right after A”, which could be an observation? At what point we should do thought police? I do agree it sounds not very well educated but that could be a good start to get this education from someone in the comments. If it’s only echo chamber of like-minded people, I doubt thought policing helps in this situation as well and nothing will change their minds at this moment. If anything, blocking people’s posts strengthen conspiracy theorist ideas about invisible forces controlling information.

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

#97
I always had a sentiment that “thought policing” by blocking people’s posts just reinforces all the bad stuff that happens there. It will reinforce the idea that something is controlling the speech or information (conspiracy theorists rejoice) and the reaction would be to build even bigger misinformation echo chambers, at least this is anecdata I observe in my feeds.

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

#98

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

Interested to hear what rules these are

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

#99
post #73

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.

Attractive and somewhat lazy ideological opinion. The world is so complicated and the group most susceptible to conspiracy theories in most cases also happens to have the least access to the type of education that prioritizes critical thinking.

Then we should prioritize teaching critical thinking, and not what to think.

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

#100
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.

The way to cure that is to pull Zuckerberg into these conspiracies and mis-information strategies. He's going to turn like a leaf on a tree when it starts to impact him personally.

How hard can it be? They got bill gates, didn't they?
Post reply on HN