Ya sure.
Keep suspending me for posting real science and facts see if I care.
We are not stupid, we know you are working for a side and it is not the good guys.
Combating Misinformation
11–20 of 57 posts
Re: Combating Misinformation
#12Whatever the solution is for misinformation, if there is one, I am quite certain that it will not be invented by Facebook.
Re: Combating Misinformation
#13They can remove the entire newsfeed and remove the ability for users to share links? Oh wait, nevermind, this is "Combating Misinformation WHILE STAYING a multibillion rev business who makes money from users' attention"
You might as well ask to shut down the whole Internet. Even if Facebook disappears tomorrow, there are plenty of other social platforms to allow the spread of disinformation.
Re: Combating Misinformation
#14Stepping away from the specifics of Facebook's history, does anyone have solid ideas for how globe-spanning communities should function?
It seems next to impossible to both allow individuals to share things and make sure that you only see "true" things in that community. And it seems that given the numbers involved, there will always be some amount of "accidental" misinformation that has a real impact, and deliberate misinformation from bad actors looking to exploit the system...
Re: Combating Misinformation
#15I lost my faith in Facebook moderation the day I reported a Coke ad as scam (water with color and sugar, is the greatest scam of the century) . After they review it, they did not consider it was a scam. I do not trust this guys anymore.
Re: Combating Misinformation
#16Whatever the solution is for misinformation, if there is one, I am quite certain that it will not be invented by Facebook.
I originally upvoted, but with further reflection, I'm not certain.
There is real enduring value in being a source for information that is true and trusted. It is possible that Facebook might choose that path.
The harder question is understanding what is true. "Galileo's head was on the block; the crime was looking up the truth."
Re: Combating Misinformation
#17>For claims that don’t directly result in physical harm, like conspiracy theories about the origin of the virus, we continue to work with our network of over 55 fact-checking partners covering over 45 languages to debunk these claims... Once a post is rated false by a fact-checker, we reduce its distribution so fewer people see it, and we show strong warning labels and notifications to people who still come across it…
The problem we have is that the WHO made a mistake early on in the pandemic and then changed course. As humans, we should be allowed to make mistakes, acknowledge the mistake when new information is presented, and then change course.
The problem is with individuals and organizations that knowingly continue to promote misinformation like vaccines are bad for you.
Re: Combating Misinformation
#18>For claims that don’t directly result in physical harm, like conspiracy theories about the origin of the virus, we continue to work with our network of over 55 fact-checking partners covering over 45 languages to debunk these claims... Once a post is rated false by a fact-checker, we reduce its distribution so fewer people see it, and we show strong warning labels and notifications to people who still come across it…
> Does this pass the mask test? As we all remember, the WHO said to not wear masks early during the outbreak.
Honestly, this strikes me as simply a loaded question bordering on a dog whistle. I can't count the number of times that folks have used early mask recommendations during the pandemic as a way to a) undermine the authority of health institutions, while simultaneously b) positing the idea that there is no objective facts or truth.
In short, I don't believe your question is being put forth in good faith.
Please, disabuse me of this notion. Why should this one specific example be used as a justification for social networks not engaging in fact checking?
Re: Combating Misinformation
#19Who decides the truth? I don’t want to muddy the waters too much but i am concerned with current trend to appeal to science as an authority of truth to justify whatever public policy is in play. Scientific publishing can be a chaotic process where a healthy skepticism should be maintained.
The truth is never easy to ascertain. In fact, one of the highest cited papers from an epidemiologist is titled « Why Most Published Research Findings Are False ». I found it to be a good meta-analysis that could easily challenge my previous field of computer vision where often fantastical results were obtained on a data set but could not be reproduced elsewhere.
https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/jo...
Re: Combating Misinformation
#20Seems like a hard tach from their stance before on election misinformation. I wonder what changed to prompt this.