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

581–590 of 654 posts

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

#581

Post by stjohnswarts »

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.

I'd rather them try than do nothing. If you aren't on facebook regularly you simply don't understand how much crap they do find and cut. Also the sheer number of groups they have to remove to prevent complete misinformation and terrorist groups like qanon is insane.

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

#582

Post by munk-a »

13years wrote: post #423
munk-a wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

This is a case of an algorithm doing stupid stuff and misclassifying things - it's also perfectly fair to criticize whether FB should actually control the classification algorithm for this particular type of statement. A misbehaving algorithm doesn't prove the lack of a system though - it just proves that the current one is broken.

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

#583

Post by ineedasername »

lobocinza wrote: post #577
ineedasername wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm not saying there's an perfect answer for this. But signs that don't take basics of human psychology into account are flawed by design. 1) The lawmakers problem. People in positions of power tend do be a mix of corrupt, biased and stupid. I'm afraid there's no solution to that either. But people can be: - educated about the importance of some things; - involved in the decision-making process.

educated about the importance of some things;

Information is pretty easily available, especially as it pertains to things like the "don't feed the animals" sign in the GGP post, and it's not unreasonable to expect people to seek out an explanation (e.g. park staff) rather than just ignore the rule. The problem often comes down to people-- at all stations of society-- believing they shouldn't have to follow certain rules all of the time. People know that going 20mph/30kmh over the speed limit is more dangerous for themselves and others, but lots of people still do it. On more complex topics, explanation are available. But most people want simple answers, and complex issues don't have them. So when they disagree with something but don't have the full explanation to understand and determine things for themselves, they will listen a person who gives easy answers. And they'll tend to listen to whichever person gives an easy answer they already agree with. 99% of political rhetoric is about giving easy answers to complex problems, most of which would have been solved long ago if there was an obvious easy answer instead of countless details and edge cases and other factors to consider.

I don't know how you solve this problem. Human nature means most people don't spend a ton of time trying to understand all aspects of a problem that may only vaguely impact them personally. I don't expect anyone but a very small minority will study geopolitical history & current circumstance enough to have a well-informed opinion on something like whether the US should stay in, or withdraw, from a missile treaty. There's countless other examples of that sort too.

involved in the decision-make process

I'm not sure how you get around the lawmakers problem. Everyone can't weigh in individually on decisions made in a massively complex society. Being involved in the decision-making process means voting for people to handle those things. Are there other models of citizen involvement that better limit the impact of corrupt/biases/stupid lawmakers?

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

#584

Post by SlowRobotAhead »

SquareWheel wrote: post #81
underseacables wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely zero. People would find another way to communicate, socialize, or whatever. The loss of Facebook would be a loss of jobs and income for people, but that’s it. Facebook serves no positive purpose in society, and it seems the best thing a person can do, is to delete their Facebook account.

Zero damage? No way. Millions of people would lose contact with friends and family that they have no other connections with. Companies that depend on Facebook advertising would disappear. People would be locked out of OAuth accounts on thousands of websites. It would be catastrophic.

> It would be catastrophic.

Yea! How did people communicate or companies advertise before Facebook!? They couldn’t.

I mean, maybe some old fashioned things no one remembers, but we’d be talking all the way back to 2004 here.

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

#585

Post by readflaggedcomm »

l-_l-_l-_lo_ol wrote: post #338
MeinBlutIstBlau wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not the same person you were talking to but no where does it say he recommends others take it. He is just saying he takes it. You're completely changing his words to suit your narrative that he said something when he never did. This is exactly why people are up in arms over Facebooks censorship. They let people skew other peoples words and present them as fact when they are libel at best.

Yes. Perhaps he shouldn't have been taking it. But he certainly didn't say, as the person I was responding to clearly asserted, that it is a cure for Corona. And here we are, you and I, getting 0'd out by people who apparently can't read. And people apparently who go along with whatever is printed in left-wing media without fact checking.

He probably should. Studies show protease inhibitors are effective treatment: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcpt.13356 But don't say this here, because HN downvotes science. Their religion is against it.

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

#586

Post by asabjorn »

cbsmith wrote: post #475
asabjorn wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you go into the wayback machine WHO says in plain wording that the PCR false positive rate was higher than desired: https://web.archive.org/web/20210120083427/https://www.who.i...

"Higher than desired" is a given. Particularly the early WHO tests had accuracy and sensitivity problems.

The consequences of this is not neutral because false positives were treated for Covid. No one knows what the consequences of that medical misapplication of treatment was.

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

#587

Post by blindmute »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #572
blindmute wrote: post #570

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 majority would have said it's a crazy idea. >Calling getting vaccines and wearing masks indoors "locking the whole country down indefinitely" is definitely hyperbolic. You can say that not everything is still locked dow…

Once again , don't pretend that lockdowns is what the argument is about. That is a straw man . It is about whether companies should be obligated to spread misinformation about vaccines and diseases without getting to mark that as misinformation — they aren't. It is about whether that "infantilization" of the users of the platform is new — it isn't.

That's what this thread is about, but it's not what this subthread or the post you replied to is about.

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

#588

Post by bmcahren »

lmm wrote: post #454
bmcahren wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is incredibly off-base. The truth is they have outsourced fact checking to the "International Fact-Checking Network at Poynter" who has to uphold standards not just freely enforce whatever ideology tickles their fancy. Knowing one low-level employee of one of the subcontractors involved; it works something like this: 1. An article is posted to Facebook/Twitter/etc and is automatically flagged based on keywords o…

> 6. Your answers are judged vs the final determination. Those who consistently skew in any direction are dismissed from eligibility to participate in the future. And if it later turns out that the final determination was wrong, do they go back and reverse this? I'm sure that there's any amount of process in place, but ultimately if you rely on comparing people to the consensus of their peers then you're going to get…

I am fairly certain they aren't naive about setting up their fact checking organization. They want to be taken up by anyone trying to verify facts so it's not in their interest to integrate bias.

Yes, there are revisions and the fact checkers fact check the fact checkers. They aren't colluding to implement left or right bias here. They are just making matter of fact statements like "it's false that the pfizer vaccine modifies your DNA" and providing sources that verify the claim and "no, politician X did not say Y"

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

#589

Post by bmcahren »

phy6 wrote: post #413
bmcahren wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is incredibly off-base. The truth is they have outsourced fact checking to the "International Fact-Checking Network at Poynter" who has to uphold standards not just freely enforce whatever ideology tickles their fancy. Knowing one low-level employee of one of the subcontractors involved; it works something like this: 1. An article is posted to Facebook/Twitter/etc and is automatically flagged based on keywords o…

It's worth seeing who else besides Facebook funds the fact checkers. https://www.poynter.org/major-funders/

Both the left and right are donors, nice.

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

#590

Post by ddvvff »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #108
ddvvff wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of small businesses thrive on Facebook pages, restaurants too, at least in my country. Those would go under fast

Would they? If I'm looking for a restaurant, and Facebook suddenly disappeared, I'd still be looking for a restaurant. I just would have to use Google Maps or something to find one.

Many times they don't work from a physical location, they do, but a phone number is harder to keep track of than Facebook messages
Post reply on HN