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

Combating Misinformation

about.fb.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 57 posts

Re: Combating Misinformation

#31

Post by fractionalhare »

theNJR wrote: post #4

>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…

A principled commitment to fact-checking is more important than whether or not any particular fact-check is ultimately correct. Mistakes happen. If the effort results in more good calls than bad calls, it is a good initiative overall.

What would you have Facebook do, fact check using Twitter because the CDC made this one bad call? Do you think the modal CDC consensus is worse than that of Twitter?

Re: Combating Misinformation

#32

Post by jaredwiener »

goalieca wrote: post #19

Who 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 Publis…

There's a major difference between coming to different conclusions from a set of data, with completely fabricating nonsense.

@BadMedicalTakes (https://twitter.com/badmedicaltakes) is just one quick way to see some of the stuff thats out there.

Can we at least all agree that germs cause disease, there are no nanobots in any of the COVID vaccines, and that masks are not dangerous?

Re: Combating Misinformation

#33

Post by fractionalhare »

j4yav wrote: post #30
fractionalhare wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But Facebook can at least work towards it, even if you're pessimistic they'll solve it. That's what this blog post is about.

The very first sentence on the page is how they are stopping it. If their ambition is to work towards something vaguely better, then sure, seems reasonable.

I think focusing on the literal semantics of the first sentence rather than taking the blog post holistically is too harsh. Obviously it's still a problem; they are communicating that they're working on it.

Re: Combating Misinformation

#34

Post by fractionalhare »

kikokikokiko wrote: post #27
j4yav wrote: post #12

Whatever the solution is for misinformation, if there is one, I am quite certain that it will not be invented by Facebook.

The ONLY way to fight misinformation, intentional or not, is to allow a free exchange of ideas. The stupid ones, in the end would be shown as stupid and sink. But in todays world people seem to think that other people, "being the dumb ones", need to be protected from their stupidity, and "us being the sage ones" need to hide the dumb ideias from the dumb ones. Such arrogance.

I don't agree. It is trivial to spread bullshit and nontrivial to show that it's bullshit. Your philosophy allows misinformation to spread because of how much harder it is to refute than create.

Re: Combating Misinformation

#36

Post by CarelessExpert »

kikokikokiko wrote: post #27
j4yav wrote: post #12

Whatever the solution is for misinformation, if there is one, I am quite certain that it will not be invented by Facebook.

The ONLY way to fight misinformation, intentional or not, is to allow a free exchange of ideas. The stupid ones, in the end would be shown as stupid and sink. But in todays world people seem to think that other people, "being the dumb ones", need to be protected from their stupidity, and "us being the sage ones" need to hide the dumb ideias from the dumb ones. Such arrogance.

> The ONLY way to fight misinformation, intentional or not, is to allow a free exchange of ideas.

That implies all ideas are given equal visibility, but we already know that social networks prioritize content that's outrageous or controversial over content that isn't.

You want a free exchange of ideas? Start by fixing the algorithms.

Re: Combating Misinformation

#37

Post by CarelessExpert »

fractionalhare wrote: post #34
kikokikokiko wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ONLY way to fight misinformation, intentional or not, is to allow a free exchange of ideas. The stupid ones, in the end would be shown as stupid and sink. But in todays world people seem to think that other people, "being the dumb ones", need to be protected from their stupidity, and "us being the sage ones" need to hide the dumb ideias from the dumb ones. Such arrogance.

I don't agree. It is trivial to spread bullshit and nontrivial to show that it's bullshit. Your philosophy allows misinformation to spread because of how much harder it is to refute than create.

Absolutely. It's basically a digital gish gallop:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop

Re: Combating Misinformation

#38

Post by zackees »

theNJR wrote: post #4

>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…

My mom is a flight attendant.

I warned her in January that this virus was going to hit. In March 2020, her company, I won’t say which major one it was, banned her from wearing a mask, per guidelines of the WHO.

This was about the same time that Amazon and Ebay purged large supplies of masks from their market places to protect consumers from “price gauging” right as the pandemic hit.

Re: Combating Misinformation

#39

Post by j4yav »

fractionalhare wrote: post #33
j4yav wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The very first sentence on the page is how they are stopping it. If their ambition is to work towards something vaguely better, then sure, seems reasonable.

I think focusing on the literal semantics of the first sentence rather than taking the blog post holistically is too harsh. Obviously it's still a problem; they are communicating that they're working on it.

I did look at the whole thing and assumed that they meant that doing those things added up to stopping it. However I can see your point of view as well.

Re: Combating Misinformation

#40

Post by thu2111 »

fractionalhare wrote: post #31
theNJR wrote: post #4

>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…

A principled commitment to fact-checking is more important than whether or not any particular fact-check is ultimately correct. Mistakes happen. If the effort results in more good calls than bad calls, it is a good initiative overall. What would you have Facebook do, fact check using Twitter because the CDC made this one bad call? Do you think the modal CDC consensus is worse than that of Twitter?

Facebook should just not use fact checkers at all. The sites were fine before that and "fact checkers" shoot themselves in the feet so frequently that ever fewer people take them seriously. Most such self-proclaimed checkers are far more interested in what authority figures say than what is true, hence why they're such a mess - the moment authority figures disagree it sends them into a tailspin of confusion and random, arbitrary decisions.

Really, Facebook and others need to just give up on this. There is no principled commitment to anything here. "Misinformation" isn't even a meaningful concept. It's arrogant and abusive for randos at FB or other social media firms to believe they are so smart they can sift the entire world for what's true and what's not. Nobody can do that. Nobody.

Post reply on HN