Live data from Hacker News

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

i.postimg.cc

461–470 of 654 posts

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

#461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a global pandemic killing thousands of people and there's a sizeable portion of the American population spreading misinformation that's causing a significant number of people to not get the vaccine, in turn endangering both themselves and others. It seems obvious to me that there would be people researching how to either stop this misinformation being spread, or educate people enough to stop believing it. Thi…

316 people have died of Covid in the last 7 days in the US, according to the CDC.

I believe the correct number is over 2100, and it's up nearly 15% week-over-week.

Hopefully we are near a peak, but it never seems to register with some people that deaths lag cases by a few weeks, whatever the ratio may be.

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

#462

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But Facebook is a private company & Facebook can do whatever it wants...And Facebook, being a Corporation, has the same rights as a person... A glib argument? Sure. But this was the same argument used to censor other political speech. What's good for the goose is good for the gander...

The private company defense might become a moot point. There are numerous lawsuits now alleging these companies as state actors and some with actual receipts showing direct government communication and result action. And just last week we have the white house essentially openly confirming state involvement.

> The private company defense might become a moot point. There are numerous lawsuits now alleging these companies as state actors and some with actual receipts showing direct government communication and result action.

Arguably, any entity that submits articles of incorporation to any jurisdiction is an extension of the that jurisdiction.

And in practice, it works out this way. Modern examples: CCP board members on top china tech co's and NSA PRISM integrations with top US tech cos…

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

#463
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…

They chose to do algorithmic timelines.

They could do a chronological timeline. They could choose to not do any editorializing. They chose instead to get into the content promotion business.

Their active choices lead to this result

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

#464
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…

This might be the best comment I've ever seen on this web site.

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

#465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> do they just think that everyone else is so easily manipulated, but somehow they're above the fray? Based on my own anecdotal evidence, it’s exactly this. The people that went down the rabbit hole of QAnon on YouTube are, in their mind, the informed ones. They’re the ones that went out of their way to do the research and the rest of us are just lemmings. Thus, spending hours staring at an algorithmically generated…

>The people that >They >us How do you know “your side” is right? Read your comment again, but consider a hypothesis that you are entirely wrong about most things - how would you know? Everyone seems to lack a consideration that there is even a possibility they could be wrong. If they are exposed two sides, and you one, how do you know you are right? You probably are. But… it’s the absolutism that is starting to becom…

While there is disinformation out there, it is rare to see completely fabricated primary sources. For example, when a bunch of news sources are saying things like the election was rigged, you can go to the published court cases and the handwritten affidavits. You can then see that 87 judges of all types totally rejected the ridiculous arguments. You can then read through about 250 pages of affidavits and see that they are nothing but vaguely racist, speculative garbage.

Regarding things like the covid vaccine, you can look at the 96% vaccination rate of doctors or you can listen to basically every single immunology or virology expert. It is quite telling that pretty much the only doctors making the media rounds fear mongering about the vaccine are gastroenterologists, opthalmologists, or other unrelated fields.

So no, nothing is certain, but some things are pretty close to certain.

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

#466
post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I don't disagree about the knee-jerk reaction, the Guttenber comparison isn't quite apples-to-apples: When Guttenberg made the press, access to it's output had a strong filter: most people couldn't read, and anyone who could read was highly educated for the times. Social media doesn't have a filter like that, and higher levels of education generally correlate to lower levels of belief in things like conspiracy…

> Also keep in mind that the T+60 years conflict you're referencing, while greatly assisted by the printing press, was also greatly pushed along by the masses being told what to think by their preachers or by powerful elite looking to destabilize the status quo to their own benefit. The peasants of the peasant revolution weren't reading criticisms of the Catholic Church and coming to their own country conclusions, th…

That... Yes, thanks for pointing that out. Took me a second to realize I'd somewhat argued around my initial point. I suppose my initial point was simply that with the printing press, it all still required a direct middleman: most people still didn't have much greater access to the required material to make up their own minds. These days with the internet, that access actually exists, yet most people aren't really seeking it out. Possibly because, given that access, people are more likely to feel they've made an informed choice even if to more comprehensive information goes u used? Maybe?

I'm not sure, but there's a different dynamic at play. Both "revolutions" had (and have) great potential to allow individuals to make more informed choices, but in the case of Guttenberg the educational bottleneck to get there was still narrow... These days for some reason the bottleneck is more if a self-imposed barrier.

Although education is still a factor: I try to read news sources from the full range of points of view, but they all may report on something like the latest bit of research-by-PR release differently. I have enough of an education to know I should seek out the research publication itself and I understand how to approach a formal writeup of research to provide me with at least a low pass filter against poor quality work. I have enough of an education to be skeptical of simple solutions to complex problems and instead thing about edge cases and failure modes or poor incentive structure.

I can absolutely still be wrong, but if I'm wrong I will still have failed after going through a more rigorous process in an attempt to figure things out. I'm still more likely to ultimately accept a result that runs counter to my initial-- perhaps emotionally charged-- response on an issue as a result.

And perhaps of equal importance at a time where tribal loyalty often demands complete condemnation if anyone outside the group, I understand enough to realize that people with another viewpoint aren't inherently bad/evil/anti-patriotic because reasonable people can disagree, less reasonable people are still complex and not one-dimensionlly defined by a particular belief, and lines between spectrums if belief and just that-- on a spectrum rather than clear cut all or nothing lines in the sand.

I don't know... Maybe that's just me patting myself on the back. But even if educationally institutions can be inadvertently biased towards specific viewpoints, I still believe they expose people to many more ways of looking at something from multiple directions, in a less emotionally charged venue than social media in the internet. I've had teachers that I consider to be the model for how that should occur when I found out afterwards that the points of view they were encouraging me to consider went completely counter to their own strongly held beliefs.

Absent straw men, you aren't going to get anything near that approach from whatever talking head you're watching on TV or YouTube, or captioned meme photo that comes across your social media feed.

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

#467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I agree that FB disappearing wouldn't be that big a deal, the idea that email is an "obvious" alternative is quite problematic for the younger folk. Data point: In 2009, the admin assistant in my department at university told me she's been getting quite a few upset incoming freshmen because of the requirement to have an email address for university classes - many of them had never used email before, and had com…

I agree email isn't the best for social communication, but I find it silly young people would get upset about needing an email address. It seems pretty obvious to me that an email is required for a number of basic adult functions, especially if one doesn't want to make a lot of phone calls. I was in high school in 2009 and my entire peer group was already using email for things like summer job applications and bookin…

They were assigning them .edu addresses. Their complaint was more about the school requiring them to use email (e.g. to get updates from classes, registration, etc).

I'm not saying all those who complained did not have email - likely many/most did. They didn't like being required to use it. However, there were quite a few who claimed they had never used email. I suspect that they likely had, but only for a few formal things (university applications, etc) - something they used perhaps once every few months. They probably didn't like the idea they'd have to check their emails so frequently.

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

#468
post #26

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.

I don't really think there's enough reason for recommendation algorithms to be publicly reviewable, in many cases the algorithm itself is the most important asset of the product, and in a competitive business environment, you can't really force them to disclose it.

What would be ideal is to think of an incentive for these companies to give users an option to disable the use of their algorithm, aka natural flow. That's unfortunately not the trend things are moving, and even services that still have something like that employ dark-patterns to throw user back into their "controlled" timeline (Twitter for example reverts you back "Home" after a few days with a tiny message that is barely noticeable.)

I'm even willing to pay for a feature that "turns off" the algorithm, unfortunately that would never happen because it'd entail these companies admitting that they design their algos not for the benefit of the user but for stickiness and the dreaded "engagement", which shouldn't be a problem in itself, but then it'd quickly become obvious when they're acting sanctimonious.

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

#469

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…

Conservatives are vaccinating at a fraction of the rate they should be, and it's pretty much directly attributable to directed misinformation. Yeah, I think there's plenty of evidence to suggest misinformation works, and it's potentially extremely damaging. How many more people have died due to Covid because of people downplaying the virus? We still have Trump supporters claiming it's not real.

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

#470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There have always been rules like this. Turn off your lights when the air raid siren is running, for example. What you're noticing now is a significant portion of the population simply throwing away common sense because obeying common sense somehow infringes on their rights.

>What you're noticing now is a significant portion of the population simply throwing away common sense because obeying common sense somehow infringes on their rights. It's not common sense, it's mass brainwashing. If you'd asked people two years ago what they thought about the idea of locking the whole country down indefinitely for a virus with a 99% survival rate (and over 99.9% for people under 50), the vast majori…

Calling getting vaccines and wearing masks indoors "locking the whole country down indefinitely" is definitely hyperbolic. Is the germ theory of disease really not common sense anymore?
Post reply on HN