131–140 of 654 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At&t is a private company, and it isn't allowed to censor your calls for whatever clever or asinine reasons it comes up with.
AT&T is highly regulated, what they can and can’t do has little to do with the average company. That said they are allowed to do quite a bit such as blocking calls between individuals.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter are the carrier, and should be treated as such. It's more nuanced than that because ATT doesn't repeat a phone call it has deemed interesting to millions of other people.
> millions of other people Another nuance is that due to Facebook post privacy settings, an individual post can be restricted to a limited friend list, and not viewable by the general public. However the "fact checking" appears to apply to both private and public posts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unless I put her account on snooze, I regularly see posts that my (literally) abolish-money/anarcho-communist ex shares, even those from groups which I have repeatedly marked as “block all content from this group”.
Why are you still friends with your ex ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There really isn’t any such thing as fact checking, only narrative pushing.
Can you fact check the flat Earth theories? Sometimes there is objective truth and sometimes there isn't.
For the typical person, who roams around on some small patch of the Earth's surface, but who isn't launching rockets or traveling between continents, the flat earth theory is more useful than the spheroid earth theory. When you walk a short distance, your path's deviation from planar geometry due to the earth's global curvature is orders of magnitude smaller than the deviation due to local surface roughness, and hence the global curvature is irrelevant in practice. Let's say you walk 5km (about 3 miles); the difference between your path as predicted by the planar-earth theory versus the spherical earth theory is about one tenth of a millimeter. For 99% of what we do, invoking the spheroid Earth theory would be like using general relativity to model a baseball's trajectory in the presence of air resistance.
And if you happen to be far from the earth, on a length scale greater than about 10**9 km, then the point-earth theory is probably going to be the most useful model to you.
In short, it's all a matter of perspective. "Objective truth" isn't a thing; all that matters is how effective your model is at describing the properties that are relevant to you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If everyone involved in the conversation wants to be involved, and no laws are broken, and the platform interferes, then it's censorship. If there's some kind of algorithm putting the content in front of people who didn't ask for it (e.g. not followers/friends/subscribers/whatever), then you have a point.
Facebook is a private company that allows you to sign up to use its wholly-owned platform, and it's allowed to censor for whatever clever/asinine reasons it comes up with. Your only recourse is to disengage.
Likewise, if companies like Facebook get so large and influential that they (and a small number of other NGOs) provide the only meaningful channels of communication between groups, we are dooming freedom of expression if Facebook, Google, or whomever are free to silence you in order to pander to politics and advertisers. Especially not when Facebook works for the federal government and gets tax breaks and subsidies. Your individual rights mean more than the right of a giant corporation to make lots of money and have undue amounts of power.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have seen this sentence of the link: > CDC encourages laboratories to consider adoption of a multiplexed method that can facilitate detection and differentiation of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses Used to claim that many positive test results were not covid cases, but were flu cases. This _isn’t_ the case — the CDC is now recommending tests that can check for multiple infections rather than just one. But the wordi…
I see a picture of a link with a "false information" notice. What are you seeing that I am not that causes you to interpret all of this ostensibly harmful missing context? Sure, you can use this fact to make a misleading claim. But literally any piece of information can be used in a harmful manner. I guess we need someone to round off the points on all of our scissors so we can't hurt ourselves?
https://i.imgur.com/8TEAXQW.png
I think another commenter's idea is reasonable - people are flagging false claims like this, and the link is being punished by association
Claim: Facebook is now claiming official CDC.gov links are “False Information“ My rating: True
This is the CDC post in question: https://www.cdc.gov/csels/dls/locs/2021/07-21-2021-lab-alert...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I see a picture of a link with a "false information" notice. What are you seeing that I am not that causes you to interpret all of this ostensibly harmful missing context? Sure, you can use this fact to make a misleading claim. But literally any piece of information can be used in a harmful manner. I guess we need someone to round off the points on all of our scissors so we can't hurt ourselves?
This is the post I was referring to - it was this image (no text) and a link to the above article https://i.imgur.com/8TEAXQW.png I think another commenter's idea is reasonable - people are flagging false claims like this, and the link is being punished by association
Maybe someone, somewhere used this link to argue something misleading, but as I said before, you can do that with any fact.
