Live data from Hacker News

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

i.postimg.cc

421–430 of 654 posts

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

#421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But if you mean that whether a claim is "valid" depends on any one person or source's position on the claim, then you're back to that bad epistemology I described. No, I'm not asserting that view. However, what you are stating I think is the viewpoint of most people. They will accept the claim as valid.

> However, what you are stating I think is the viewpoint of most people. Do you think that most people think that whether a claim is true depends on Facebook's stance on that claim? That would be extremely shocking to me. My impressions is the opposite: that there is mainstream repulsion to Facebook (and Twitter, etc.) being so bold as to take any stance on factual issues.

People do leverage Facebook's claims when they align with their own. You are probably right in that it doesn't directly change anyone's opinion that disagrees.

However, it does reinforce confirmation bias. Those that align with Facebook's viewpoint will be less likely to listen to other user's opposing viewpoints as the feel emboldened that they viewpoint has some official support.

So I think it has an indirect effect in that it weakens user to user influence.

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

#422
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…

Are you sure those people are stupid (ie. they care about the environment and want to do the right thing but mistakenly do the wrong thing instead) or simply putting their personal convenience above the convenience of others? To be stupid, I think it would have to be an action that goes against their own interests. Tragedy of the commons isn't caused by stupidity but by selfishness. It's different.

https://denver.cbslocal.com/2011/07/01/police-do-not-feed-be...

Pretty stupid.

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

#423
post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet you are witnessing exactly what I describe today in realtime. Censorship went from censoring crazy conspiracy theorist Alex Jones in 2017, to affecting everyone in the public as well as heads of state. I said this was going to happen the very day he was deplatformed. With great power comes great temptation and abuse nearly a certainty to follow.

Free speech issues are never simple - but their solutions is never found in the extremes. We've already, as a society, compromised free speech to make exceptions for discriminatory speech and violent destabilizing speech - we're already compromising how available all information is and it's necessary to have a functioning society. Right now the US, specifically you guys - most of the rest of the world is handling thi…

> has a huge issue with false information around vaccine efficacy and dangers

It is fascinating your viewpoint here, as the false information identified in the US is true information elsewhere. The reason for this is precisely the censorship and information control.

Reasonable censorship is an oxymoron

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

#424
post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is an increasing infantilization world-wide where some group thinks it needs to "protect the others", assuming they are the single source of truth and that it's obvious they are. It's a well known bias which for some reason aligns with the current zeitgeist. As everything before, it shall too pass at some point.

Institutions of ordered information (papers, publishers, tv) have been disrupted by a New tech - the internet What we see now is a knee-jerk reaction to reestablish order by the establishment. This happened too with the creation of the gutenberg printing press. New tech disrupted established information sources. Approx 60 years after the printing press creation, a relatively minor religious squabble ended up in a hug…

> Truth is power.

No, but mindless post-modernist drivel is annoying.

“Vaccines work” happens to be true. It’s not “the establishment” being afraid to lose power, it’s sane people taking an interest in others’ survival.

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

#425

Facebook seems to be censoring so much because Facebook believes that most people will actually believe whatever bits of misinformation are floating around out there. But is everyone that easily manipulated? More importantly, does everyone actually believe that they can be easily manipulated, or do they just think that everyone else is so easily manipulated, but somehow they're above the fray? And at what point does…

It's important to remember the history here. In 2015 social media was basically the wild west. You could get away with saying all sorts of crazy stuff and nobody cared.

After the 2016 election all of the big social media CEOs were dragged in front of Congress to testify about fake news, Russian propaganda, etc. They were directly threatened by lawmakers that if they didn't shape up by censoring us that lawmakers would bring the hammer down.

What we are experiencing now is 5 years of development on that threat. The social media CEOs are in a position where if the media manages to make a big fuss about some sort of "misinformation" then Congress will respond by dragging their butts back to testify and/or regulation.

This has turned the social media CEOs into slaves of the corporate press. All it takes is a few tweets from the right people asking Zuck why he's platforming "Nazis" or whatever they are calling moderate Republicans and anti-war leftists these days and these companies will jump.

This is the censorship that the government demanded, and they can't escape. I'm not sure what the answer is, because if we all jump ship from FB/Twitter/etc onto a "new" platform, it won't be long until that new CEO gets dragged before Congress and is given the same threats.

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

#426

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…

Nobody actually wants an "uncensored" Facebook. If you went there and your feed were full of spam, porn, and shock videos, you'd stop going.

Censoring that is in your control is filtering. Yes this is needed.

Nobody wants censoring that is not in your control.

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

#427
Here is a partial historical list of scientific consensus "deniers" proven right which this sort of censorship will either silence by big tech or due to self-censorship:

1. Ignaz Semmelweis, who suggested that doctors should wash their hands, and who eliminated puerpal fever as a result, was fired, harassed, forced to move, had his career destroyed, and died in a mental institution at age 47. All this because he went against consensus science.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis#Conflict_with...

2. Alfred Wegener, the geophysicist who first proposed continental drift, the basis of plate tectonics, was berated for over 40 years by mainstream geologists who organized to oppose him in favour of a trans-oceanic land bridge. All this because he went against consensus science.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Wegener#Reaction

3. Aristarchus of Samos, Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, brilliant minds and leaders in their field all supported the heliocentric model. They were at some point either ignored, derided, vilified, or jailed for their beliefs. All this because they went against consensus science.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei#Controversy_ov...

4. J Harlen Bretz, the geologist who documented the catastrophic Missoula floods, was ridiculed and humiliated by uniformitarian "elders" for 30 years before his ideas were accepted. He first proposed that a giant flood raked Eastern Washington in prehistoric times, and who suffered ridicule and skepticism until decades of further research proved his thesis. All this because he went against consensus science. He was eventually awarded the Penrose Medal.

https://www.seattletimes.com/entertainment/books/bretzs-floo...

5. Carl F. Gauss, discoverer of non-Euclidean geometry, self-censored his own work for 30 years for fear of ridicule, reprisal, and relegation. It did not become known until after his death. Similar published work was ridiculed. His personal diaries indicate that he had made several important mathematical discoveries years or decades before his contemporaries published them. Scottish-American mathematician and writer Eric Temple Bell said that if Gauss had published all of his discoveries in a timely manner, he would have advanced mathematics by fifty years All this because he went against consensus science.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Friedrich_Gauss#Personali...

6. Hans Alfven, a Nobel plasma physicist, showed that electric currents operate at large scales in the cosmos. His work was considered unorthodox and is still rejected despite providing answers to many of cosmology's problems. All this because he went against consensus science.

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

7. Georg Cantor, creator of set theory in mathematics, was so fiercely attacked that he suffered long bouts of depression. He was called a charlatan and a corrupter of youth and his work was referred to as utter nonsense. All this because he went against consensus science.

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

8. Kristian Birkeland, the man who explained the polar aurorae, had his views disputed and ridiculed as a fringe theory by mainstream scientists until fifty years after his death. He is thought by some to have committed suicide. All this because he went against consensus science.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristian_Birkeland#Legacy

9. Gregor Mendel, founder of genetics, whose seminal paper was criticized by the scientific community, was ignored for over 35 years. Most of the leading scientists simply failed to understand his obscure and innovative work. All this because he went against consensus science.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel#Initial_receptio...

10. Michael Servetus discovered pulmonary circulation. As his work was deemed to be heretical, the inquisitors confiscated his property, arrested, imprisoned, tortured, and burned him at the stake atop a pyre of his own books. All this because he went against consensus science.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Servetus#Imprisonment_...

11. Amedeo Avogadro's atomic-molecular theory was ignored by the scientific community, as was future similar work. It was confirmed four years after his death, yet it took fully one hundred years for his theory to be accepted. All this because he went against consensus science.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amedeo_Avogadro#Response_to_th...

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

#428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody actually wants an "uncensored" Facebook. If you went there and your feed were full of spam, porn, and shock videos, you'd stop going.

Censoring that is in your control is filtering. Yes this is needed. Nobody wants censoring that is not in your control.

Quite a few people do want that. Even if they didn't, some content is outright illegal to host, so they can't take an entirely user directed approach even if they wanted.

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

#429
post #322

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…

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…

Excellent post!

Yes, Facebook has found itself wielding power that it could have never imagined. Nobody is prepared or qualified for that kind of power. That's why it took 700 years from the Magna Carta until the US Constitution to formulate a reasonable contract to limit such power.

Now you have the most dangerous combination of all. The two ingredients which when combined has resulted in horrific atrocities.

The paradox of tyranny 1) The desire to make the world a better place 2) The power and means to actually do so

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

#430
post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is an increasing infantilization world-wide where some group thinks it needs to "protect the others", assuming they are the single source of truth and that it's obvious they are. It's a well known bias which for some reason aligns with the current zeitgeist. As everything before, it shall too pass at some point.

Yes. 'some group thinks it needs to "protect the others"'. Virtual signaling and safetyism. Hilarious how the virtue signaling elite regularly close their conference calls with "everyone stay safe". Oh, I know you (don't) care about me.

If asking people to take a specific step that has a good chance of protecting them from disease or even death is “virtue signaling” and therefore evil, the concept has lost any meaning it may or may not have had.

Labeling something “virtue signaling” implies acceptance that the action in question is beneficial. So you agree that getting vaccinated is a good idea, but somehow manage to still take issue with people saying as much in a slightly more direct manner?

Yes, the group of unvaccinated people, making up 99.5% of recent US deaths even though they only represent about 40% of the population is, almost tautologically, in need of protection. Considering the US has, once again, managed to neatly divide into the same ideological camps as on any other issue, there is no obvious selfish motive for people of the one group to care for the other. This leaves the latter group stumped, because they can’t think of any non-selfish motives, forcing them come up with I’ll-defined terms such as “safetyism”.

The term you’re grasping for is “altruism”, by the way. Although I’ll freely admit, limited to me, personally, that it’s supply is running low and I mostly want people to get vaccinated to finally get this over with.

Post reply on HN