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

Facebook is now claiming official CDC.gov links are “False Information”

i.postimg.cc

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 654 posts

Re: Facebook is now claiming official CDC.gov links are “False Information”

#371

Post by Dove »

traek wrote: post #352
Dove wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook is removing content because they wanted to make money with a website, and the job of statecraft fell in their laps in the process. They didn't volunteer, they aren't qualified, nobody told them they were signing up to run a kingdom, let alone the world. So they don't produce lofty, philosophical, well-thought-out positions on free speech and human rights. They don't carefully manage the public square with th…

All of this is also true for our actual government[0]. I have zero confidence that if our government were in charge of running Facebook/Twitter/any other social media app the results would be better. [0] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/16/white-house-says-facebook-ne...

I agree. I don't think our government is qualified to make these sorts of decisions. I don't know who is. I am not advocating for nationalization of these services.

I am only saying that these people never signed up to have to make decisions about such impactful matters. They are not political philosophers, and they are stuck making decisions of that gravity. I can be mad when they do it wrong, but I can also recognize how tragically outmatched they are. At least governments have judiciaries and cabinets and checks and balances and constitutions and stuff. These guys were just trying to make money on the internet, and suddenly human rights in China became their problem. Nobody seriously expects Twitter to have a full blown judiciary and legislature for processing bans. Nobody expects them to write a constitution which becomes a treasure of a historical document, on how to properly govern the flow of the world's conversation. But at this point, those things would actually be appropriate. It's not surprising they're struggling trying to solve the problem with algorithms. I don't think anyone could succeed at that, and they don't even realize they have the responsibility and opportunity -- they're just trying to do their best to be socially responsible and then get back to making money on the internet.

The best suggestion I have for them is to hold out their hands to humanity and say -- "Look, we have a tremendous opportunity here, and it's bigger than just us. How should we use it?"

Re: Facebook is now claiming official CDC.gov links are “False Information”

#372

Post by ineedasername »

lobocinza wrote: post #326
cmurf wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a new problem. 20 years ago at a national park with signs "don't feed the wildlife" with a parent teaching her 3 year old to feed the wild life within 3 feet of such a sign. I said "do you see the sign? why are you doing this?" She scoffed, pouted, and ran with her child to her car and drove away. We treat her like a child because so many adults act like children. They seek what their parents never gave them…

Nobody likes to be told what to do. Maybe if those signs where less imperative and more explanatory. Some would care.

So "Stop" signs should say "Stop because there might be another car coming from another direction and you'll be able to avoid it if you stop and see it coming".

I'm not sure that type of explanatory thing would work with most signs. Instead, we need:

1) people we trust to determine what the signs should say so that we are willing to listen to the signs.

2) Easy access to more details explanations of why/what the sign means.

3) An easy method of questioning the sign makers and and getting them changed or removed when they when either the sign maker was wrong or it's simply no longer needed.

#1 is probably the hardest.

Re: Facebook is now claiming official CDC.gov links are “False Information”

#373

Post by basementcat »

ceejayoz wrote: post #363
basementcat wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dems.gov GOP.gov

Yup. Plus, every Representative and Senator has the ability to blog on their personal house.gov / senate.gov subdomain. Sometimes they're doozies.

I think faction or party related content should be hosted on a .com or .org TLD while official policy organs may be hosted on .gov or .mil TLD

Re: Facebook is now claiming official CDC.gov links are “False Information”

#374

Post by caddemon »

whiddershins wrote: post #184
crummybowley wrote: post #6

And this is why Facebook has no business being part of fact checking. While it may look different, this is no different than two folks on the phone getting interrupted by ATT and being told they are incorrect on their assumptions about topic X. Social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter are the carrier, and should be treated as such.

The problem everyone is dancing around by trying to say Google, Twitter, or Facebook is a common carrier is that they filter and weight what you see anyway It’s literally the service Google provides. If they could decouple the information store from the display, and allow third parties to algorithmically filter and sort, then we could designate them as common carries for the first half. Maybe.

This depends how you interact with the site though. "fake news" warnings will appear on links even if you navigate directly to the page of the person who posted it. Even worse, Twitter has blocked certain stories from being sent via direct message in the past. The algorithmic feeds may make up a much larger portion of the practical problem, but I think regardless of where you stand on that issue some of these sites have already overreached with how they moderate personal pages and private messages.

Re: Facebook is now claiming official CDC.gov links are “False Information”

#375

Post by cat_plus_plus »

cududa wrote: post #266
snowwrestler wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook is removing content because that is ground they want to stand on. Removing content feels like censorship, so it lends itself to political grandstanding in their favor. Millions of people get upset and demand that Facebook handle all content neutrally, which is exactly what Facebook wanted everyone to think in the first place. The real issue with Facebook is the editorial decisions they make about promoting s…

I’m sorry but my profession is vaccine hesitancy and persuasion researcher and OP is just wrong. I have n=20,000 polls showing people get disinformation from Facebook that informs their decision to not get vaccinated and hours of focus group recordings also showing this.

How do you distinguish correlation and causation? People who are concerned about something are naturally going to search online and engage with content that confirms their biases. Do you have a robust evidence that vaccine hesitant go on Facebook and change their minds based on pro-vaccine content that is heavily promoted these days?

Re: Facebook is now claiming official CDC.gov links are “False Information”

#376

Post by root_axis »

teeray wrote: post #93
13years wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is who decides. Once you create a fact checking entity, it will decide for itself what are object truths. Within a fact checking entity you essentially have the same issue as regulatory capture.

Exactly. It should be the user who decides which filters are applied for them. Right now, there is no choice.

Users do have a choice. They have the choice not to trust Facebook as an authoritative source of information.

Re: Facebook is now claiming official CDC.gov links are “False Information”

#377

Post by jimmydorry »

jussij wrote: post #334
l-_l-_l-_lo_ol wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He didn't recommend hydroxy as a cure. He was advocating studies at the time that were supportive of its preventative effectiveness. As those weren't enough to justify using it the left media jumped on it with extreme hyberbole and you bought it with your lack of skepticism I assume. States that have ended lockdowns early, like Florida, haven't done any worse than locked states and saved their economies. Lockdowns ar…

You make it sounds like the mask wearing was some sort of left leaning fetish, when in fact it was nothing more than the best possible health advice.

Best possible health advice... except when it wasn't initially [1] (allegedly to save stock for frontline workers), then it was, then it wasn't [2] (vaccinated no longer need them), and now it is again.

I agree that the use of face masks is commonsense and should become a part of life, like it has been in asian countries since at least SARS. But to imply that the directives from health officials has remained the same is either ignorant or deceitful.

[1] https://www.businessinsider.com.au/fauci-doesnt-regret-advis...

[2] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cdc-guideline-mask-vaccinated-c...

Re: Facebook is now claiming official CDC.gov links are “False Information”

#378

Post by SquishyPanda23 »

gunapologist99 wrote: post #319
SquishyPanda23 wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you saying that people who check facts believe they are the single source of truth? Why would you need to check facts if you were the source of truth? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the fact checkers believe that there is an external source of truth (i.e. facts) which they are checking?

> the fact checkers believe that there is an external source of truth (i.e. facts) which they are checking? Ah, yes. I believe you are referring to the CDC.

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic, but the CDC doesn't see themselves as a single source of truth.

They defer to the scientific consensus of people who specialize in understanding how viruses work, how pandemics work, and who have a process for learning facts by interrogating reality.

Re: Facebook is now claiming official CDC.gov links are “False Information”

#379

Post by ineedasername »

Overton-Window wrote: post #370
ineedasername wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you expand on that 100% democracy part? It doesn't seem like any system would allow 100% of the people to all be governed by their preferred set of rules when at least some of those rules would always conflict with ones that others want to live with.

You have three ways to vote: 1. With your ballot: very small chance of changing policies (1 vote) 2. With your wallet: small chance of changing policies (n votes through political donations) 3. With your feet: guaranteed chance of changing policies The internet facilities 100% democracy as it simplifies voting with your feet (remote work, social networks), allowing likeminded individuals to congregate and influence p…

Thanks for a thoughtful response! I agree more referendums would get to a better level of participatory democracy. Though on any specific issue it could still be a 51% win with 49% going away angry.

I'm not sure how blockchains makes more frequent referendums easier. Maybe harder to game the system? Apart from that it seems like a platform for regular referendums could be built without blockchains. It's still relative early days on that tech though, and amidst "Blockchain" being attached to anything anyone wants to hype, I have ended up being a bit skeptical of claims they can fit a given purpose until it goes beyond the conceptual stage.

Re: Facebook is now claiming official CDC.gov links are “False Information”

#380

Post by tonyaiken »

wffurr wrote: post #242
gunapologist99 wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The discussion about the algorithmic feed seems to be out of context for this thread (i.e., Facebook is now claiming official CDC.gov links are “False Information”) I don't believe the problem is facebook recommending anything -- the problem is facebook trying to ban certain content entirely (at least in the context of this thread -- algorithmic feeds are a separate problem.)

No promoting content, no need to flag misinformation.

The problem is sometimes misinformation attracts far more people and therefore just like promoted
Post reply on HN