141–150 of 654 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am for one didn't knew until this week that current COVID PCR tests will test also positive for the flu.
... they won't, that desinformation is exactly the point of the comment you are replying to.
The submitted postimg.cc screenshot had the following cdc.gov link [0], which appears to be flagged as false information. The following text was on that cdc page: > After December 31, 2021, CDC will withdraw the request to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of the CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel, the assay first introduced in Febr…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Millions of people would lose contact with friends and family that they have no other connections with. Not at all. > Companies that depend on Facebook advertising would disappear. Good. > People would be locked out of OAuth accounts on thousands of websites. OK? If you were federating your auth via Facebook it was only a matter of time until you were locked out for one arbitrary reason or another. This just seems…
That is such a Hacker News answer. Some people rely on their relationships with other people. They build support systems, form groups, and take comfort in the company of others. Being cut off suddenly and with no means to reconnect would isolate many people. This would be extremely damaging from a mental health perspective alone. In addition, so many people have reconnected with old friends, family, teachers. One fri…
When you don't have Facebook your friends and family just txt or email. I mean Facebook book hasn't even been around that long. To pretend it is something like water or electricity is just preposterous.
The CDC was spreading misinformation, and we shouldn’t expect the government to be immune from misinformation (through incompetence usually).
If this pun was intentional, well done.
I actually verified this yesterday on my own FB acount. https://imgur.com/a/5tgkbFL Not sure if it's still happening, but you can test it if you make the post visible to only you and you wait ~5 minutes for that misinformation message to show up. Even if the fact checker had some kind of point, I don't know how labeling an authoritative source as "false information" helps anyone understand anything just because part…
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”.
So just unfollow her. It sounds like you have some major issues with her personally anyway so how is this a failure by the platform and not just you subjecting yourself to a negative situation?
The problem is that Facebook is convinced that I, a British citizen living in Berlin, want to see “Bernie Sanders Dank Memes” (or whatever it was, there are many) even though I’ve clicked on the button labeled “don’t show me ‘Bernie Sanders Dank Memes’“.
The “even though I’ve clicked on the button” is especially egregious, in this context.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We need to differentiate the recommendation algorithm parts of these products from the communication parts. If Facebook is recommending something, that's on them, and if they want to not recommend my content to anyone, so be it; but I should be able to post something seen only by the people who opted in to following me without them getting in the way.
I would take this a step further and say that all social media recommendation algorithms should be publicly reviewable. The claim is that this algorithms are neutral. But we know many contain ways for the owner to artificially boost preferred content. And algorithms tend to have the biases of their creators in them. Controlling what people see is an important power and one that should be regulated.
Text classification with Transformers is hard. Humans are expensive. My guess is also that the link got flagged because of who shared it, but that's just a guess.
Information can be accurate or fake based on who said it?
My guess would be that you could also figure out word salad to throw at their False Information model that would create false positives.
Text classification with Transformers is hard. Humans are expensive. My guess is also that the link got flagged because of who shared it, but that's just a guess.
Information can be accurate or fake based on who said it?
Orange man rushed out a shot. It must be bad.
Gray man said get the shot. It’s good.
I’m not saying that kind of “thinking” is valid, but it’s apparently widely accepted.
(I got the shot, but I can see why some people would have considerations)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you fact check the flat Earth theories? Sometimes there is objective truth and sometimes there isn't.
The earth feels flat, and feelings are objective (especially in this post-truth society) ;)
Fact: the Earth is an oblate spheroid (roughly round) undergoing human-caused climate change.
Example contrary feeling: I live in the arctic circle, it's cold and all I can see is a flat ice-scape. How can the Earth be warming and round when this is all I experience?
There are at least two facts that are creating cognitive dissonance here:
1) I feel cold.
2) I can't see the whole Earth from the surface.
What we feel guides us to question the world (which is healthy) but we shouldn't cling to what we feel is right when we can prove our feelings are wrong. Turns out that being cold on one point of the Earth is an experience that has nothing to do with the global average temperature rising. Also, we are living on a giant rock whose size is so much larger that it locally feels flat. We can also only see so far before our vision is impeded by the atmosphere.
Flat-Earthers are wasting all of our time IMO because there is a lot of well established evidence to prove the Earth is round (ish) and much bigger than us. It's even easy to visually verify if you spend time/money to go high enough to see it for yourself.
The real issue here is that the facts are more complex than just repeating what "feels" true. Humans (much as all animals) are lazy and often don't pursue rigor.
