Earlier quoted context omitted.
Although we should be careful not to lump everyone opposed to the current vaccines in with the anti-vaxers.
How many people are opposed to all of the major covid vaccines, but are not anti-vaxers?
Facebook is now claiming official CDC.gov links are “False Information”
501–510 of 654 posts
Re: Facebook is now claiming official CDC.gov links are “False Information”
#502Earlier quoted context omitted.
Vaccines have saved hundreds of millions of human lives. Human lives are valuable. Refusal to get vaccinated against things like measles, polio, smallpox, or COVID-19 cause a lot of unnecessary deaths, which destroys a lot of valuable things. Just as spending on loss prevention in stores can easily produce a net positive impact on the store's balance sheet, reducing the rate of unnecessary destruction of human life (…
The thing that really hammers home that there's something to study here is that we basically eliminated polio through vaccination campaigns, and we did this in my lifetime. The Global Polio Eradication Initiative was launched in 1988 (one year after I was launched), and since then the number of annual cases has dropped by 99.9%, from 350/year to a handful. 2% of the people that contracted polio suffered paralysis, wh…
And what's more, that's not even the impressive part of the curve in terms of magnitude. Polio was once so commonplace that the idea of being anti-vax would have been completely absurd to everyone just some 40/50 years ago, when you had someone crippled by childhood paralysis (of which Polio is the most common cause) living in basically every city block. And even in the White House, from 1933 to 1945.
Re: Facebook is now claiming official CDC.gov links are “False Information”
#503Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
They defer to the scientific consensus of people who specialize in understanding how PLANET ORBITS work. Consensus brought us an earth centric solar system and low fat heart healthy grains with an obesity epidemic and rampant heart disease.
Re: Facebook is now claiming official CDC.gov links are “False Information”
#504Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 recogni…
No surprise, it appears to be staffed by people who were selected for their middle-of-the-road "you must censor a bit but not too much" type of views. It gave them a limp wristed rap on the knuckles when they banned Trump, said it was arbitrary and didn't follow the same rules enforced on everyone else, but that they still agreed with doing it.
I think what we're seeing here is what happens when you lack some sort of free speech libertarian fundamentalism. Facebook don't have to engage in "statecraft", whatever that is, no more than the designers of SMTP did. They could choose not to. They could say "we will shut down accounts when under court order to do so, end of story". Then governments who think a citizen is breaking a law about speech would have to go to court, win, and then the judge would say, here is an order requiring Facebook to shut down the account of this law breaker (which could automatically hide all content they created). All the evolved mechanisms, the checks and balances of the actual state would be in effect.
But Facebook is based in Silicon Valley and like most firms there, has systematically made deals with far-left devils in order to hire them and put them to work, often without really understanding if it's worth the cost. Does Google actually need 144,000 employees for example? It hardly seems more productive than when I started there and it had 10,000. Their "hire first ask questions later" approach inevitably leads to hiring lots of extremists and wingnuts, people who are there primarily to get closer to a nexus of power they can wield for their own political agendas. The constant dramas we see emanating from Mountain View, Palo Alto and San Francisco are the inevitable consequence.
Tech firms could fix this problem very quickly if they wanted to: just announce a renewed commitment to freedom of speech, platform principles and passive moderation. Any employee who doesn't like it can leave. Many would, but those companies are so over-staffed they'd barely notice, and the environment for those who remain would be drastically more pleasant.
Re: Facebook is now claiming official CDC.gov links are “False Information”
#505Earlier 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…
You lost me at pack it out. Do other animals pack it out?
If someone were to bring their dog into the preserve and hunt and kill some rabbits, it would probably be quite obvious that they would be disturbing the natural balance that the nature preserve is supposed to protect. Leaving your excrements is prohibited for the same reason, although on a subtler level. Your excrement can contain germs not native to the area which could start an epidemic if stuff goes really bad.
Just today, there was news that the National Forest Service estimates half of all deer to already have been infected with SARS-CoV-2. Now thankfully, Covid-19 does not seem to be a dangerous disease in deer. Just imagine if it weren't that benign and a significant amount of deer had been wiped out by it nationwide (or even worldwide). That's the kind of low-probability-but-high-danger scenario that packing it out is supposed to prevent.
Re: Facebook is now claiming official CDC.gov links are “False Information”
#506Facebook 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…
You’ll be surprised at how many people will believe anything if it’s from a source they “trust”.
Re: Facebook is now claiming official CDC.gov links are “False Information”
#507Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
Yes, I know what you're talking about, but it has nothing to do with the post. Someone posted a link to a CDC page on Facebook, and Facebook flagged it as misinformation. Maybe someone, somewhere used this link to argue something misleading, but as I said before, you can do that with any fact.
Re: Facebook is now claiming official CDC.gov links are “False Information”
#508Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can't respond to the first, but it's pretty clear that those groups that think they are the single source of truth would probably include any self-proclaimed "fact checkers", which seems to now also include Facebook itself -- and would normally also include the CDC (excepting the ironic title of this thread, of course!)
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?
Very few fact checking organizations appear to actually use critical thinking of any kind. They claimed they would be but they're just journalism interns normally, so they just degrade to assuming that whatever the government or ideologically aligned academics say, is the truth, and anything else is wrong.
Re: Facebook is now claiming official CDC.gov links are “False Information”
#509Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you believe "the vaccine turned people into the Hulk", thats a mental health problem. But when inconvenient claims, like "vaccines can cause blood clots in rare cases", often flagged as misinformation, you don't instil much confidence with the public. And so they go out and get information from other sources.
"If you believe "the vaccine turned people into the Hulk", thats a mental health problem." Then half the population is mentally ill. Come to think of it, that would explain a lot of issues we are dealing with...
Re: Facebook is now claiming official CDC.gov links are “False Information”
#510Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm not making the connection between an algorithmic feed and anything I wrote. > The title of this thread is '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 You say you don't believe (a), and you state that the problem is (b). I'm seeing "belief" without subst…
I have a friend who posts once in a blue moon. When he posts, it's usually the first thing on my feed, even many days later. My wife's cousin posts batshit stuff multiple times a day. I fail to see how a strict timeline won't result in my stream being more looney?
...Upon rereading, I realize that I'm probably implying my own preferences as universal.