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

631–640 of 654 posts

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

#631

Post by tekknik »

intended wrote: post #553
tekknik wrote: post #541

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We’ve built systems that create content faster and better than a normal human BS filter can block. How does this work? Specifically the faster than a normal humans BS filter.

Without access to specialized knowledge, like being an expert in a subject, users will either check the authority/standing of the speaker, the emotional appeal of an argument, or the underlying logic of it. In my simple way of putting it - creating a website, or creating a post, and then having it disseminated is dirt cheap today. You can get an article on a news website, having it referenced by a youtube channel, ha…

If you’re gathering information faster than your BS filter can process it, then you’ve also exceeded your capacity to process the information your receiving. Assuming BS filter means some extension of comprehension

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

#632

Post by tekknik »

intended wrote: post #555
quotemstr wrote: post #551

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We’ve built systems that create content faster and better than a normal human BS filter can block. Maybe so, but I just don't trust that the "BS filter" big tech has constructed will block only "BS" and not true things inconvenient to a certain strident brand of west coast morality. The NY Post story from last year certainly wasn't "BS". I don't think algorithmic BS is anywhere near as big a risk as you think it is…

And my answer to people who believe this is always the same - please volunteer your their time to an active subreddit of your choice, preferably one with an active political aspect. Look, I am not unsympathetic. I have personally gone through the whole cycle - I started from "the antidote to bad speech is more speech, not censorship", To advocating for better tools to handle misinformation. I would honestly LOVE for…

> please volunteer your their time to an active subreddit of your choice, preferably one with an active political aspect.

Why reddit? That site is a soup of immaturity, did you expect otherwise? On reddit you have people with 5 accounts creating conversations to control narratives and make it look like you have a larger group than you do supporting your case. This is more difficult to do on FB because they do a bit of account validation and other measures.

And your example of a political forum on reddit is a great example of why we don’t want censorship. On reddit admins ban for simply not speaking to the narrative or saying something that is not misinformation yet the admins don’t like. This is literally the same problem we have with FB now. The moral of the story is, stop censoring. It’s ok someone doesn’t say what you think is the truth, I promise the world will keep spinning.

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

#633

Post by tekknik »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #629
tekknik wrote: post #613

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We're already past the testing period. The phase 3 trials of multiple vaccines are concluded and analyzed. From the FAQ on the Pfizer vax: "The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine is an unapproved vaccine..." "The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine has not undergone the same type of review as an FDA-approved or cleared product. FDA may issue an EUA when certain criteria are met, which includes that there are no adequate…

Correct, the approval is not complete yet. I said that in my last comment. But the testing is done on some. You can go read the results, or have an expert read them for you. For example: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577 Isn't that the better option anyway, if you don't trust the government?

> Isn't that the better option anyway, if you don't trust the government?

/me reviews history of Fauci speaking…

Nope.

When approval gets completed and the left quits trying to force the vaccine on people and implying they are too stupid to understand why they need it, when they quit trying to censor information they don't like (what do you think the #1 cause of gov mistrust is these days? how do I know the paper you posted isn't gov propaganda? you see how deep and dangerous censorship is?) maybe you’ll get more traction.

Further what you’re implying with these types of statements is that science never makes a mistake. We both know that’s not true don’t we? So while in aggregate the risk to an individual is limited, individually it’s their life and the only one they get. Let them make their own decisions. With delta now we can’t get herd immunity anyways.

And while we’re here, how many people do you know that have had COVID? Also stop telling people they need an expert to explain it to them.

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

#634

Post by kortilla »

majewsky wrote: post #505
morpheos137 wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You lost me at pack it out. Do other animals pack it out?

The purpose of a nature preserve, unsurprisingly, is to preserve nature as it exists within this space. Any human interference with nature inside the preserve runs the risk of tipping the scales of the natural lifecycle's balance. 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 pre…

Deer are oversized rats that have frequent overpopulation problems. Not really the best example.

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

#635

Post by kortilla »

bmcahren wrote: post #588
lmm wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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

This isn’t true. It’s easier to get business if you’re a “fact checking” organization that always fact checks in a favorable direction to a major political view.

The people who want truth is a much smaller group than the people who want their views reinforced.

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

#636

Post by Dylan16807 »

tekknik wrote: post #633
Dylan16807 wrote: post #629

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct, the approval is not complete yet. I said that in my last comment. But the testing is done on some. You can go read the results, or have an expert read them for you. For example: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577 Isn't that the better option anyway, if you don't trust the government?

> Isn't that the better option anyway, if you don't trust the government? /me reviews history of Fauci speaking… Nope. When approval gets completed and the left quits trying to force the vaccine on people and implying they are too stupid to understand why they need it, when they quit trying to censor information they don't like (what do you think the #1 cause of gov mistrust is these days? how do I know the paper you…

> /me reviews history of Fauci speaking…

> Also stop telling people they need an expert to explain it to them.

I said to read it yourself or get an expert, the latter meaning one you choose.

I didn't say anything about Fauci, and I didn't say you need an expert.

> how do I know the paper you posted isn't gov propaganda?

If that's the worry why does FDA approval matter?? this doesn't make any sense.

> Further what you’re implying with these types of statements is that science never makes a mistake.

No I'm not. I'm just saying that the vaccine is quite tested at this point, comparable to other vaccines.

And the rest of what you said about trying to convince people isn't related to what I said.

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

#637

Post by lmm »

bmcahren wrote: post #588
lmm wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

There's no explicit collusion, but they operate in a particular social culture and the biases of that culture will permeate everything they do. The news organisations that they're fact-checking have the same reasons to become reputable suppliers of truth; I don't see how a fact checker would end up any less biased than a newspaper, since they're ultimately subject to the same incentives.

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

#638

Post by tekknik »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #636
tekknik wrote: post #633

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Isn't that the better option anyway, if you don't trust the government? /me reviews history of Fauci speaking… Nope. When approval gets completed and the left quits trying to force the vaccine on people and implying they are too stupid to understand why they need it, when they quit trying to censor information they don't like (what do you think the #1 cause of gov mistrust is these days? how do I know the paper you…

> /me reviews history of Fauci speaking… > Also stop telling people they need an expert to explain it to them. I said to read it yourself or get an expert, the latter meaning one you choose. I didn't say anything about Fauci, and I didn't say you need an expert. > how do I know the paper you posted isn't gov propaganda? If that's the worry why does FDA approval matter?? this doesn't make any sense. > Further what you…

> I said to read it yourself or get an expert, the latter meaning one you choose.

Great! Don't tell someone to get an expert unless you want them to not listen to you. OK?

> I didn't say anything about Fauci, and I didn't say you need an expert.

I did say something about Fauci. He's an expert no?

> If that's the worry why does FDA approval matter?? this doesn't make any sense.

Because that's why some people are hesitant, lack of approval. Others like myself won't believe pretty much anything put out by the left.

> And the rest of what you said about trying to convince people isn't related to what I said.

It 100% is, you're just avoiding it because it's difficult. Just like before you weren't downvoting and yet now you are. It's pretty clear the convo didn't go the way you wanted it to.

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

#639

Post by cat_plus_plus »

cududa wrote: post #565
zdragnar wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You give people too much credit. Tuskegee experiment cast a very long shadow and contributes a significant reason for the racial divide in vaccination rates for covid. No research needed, the bias is built into cultural memory.

No idea why you got downvoted so much. This is very much so a reason people are untrusting. One method a Black pastor and I came up with for our county and surrounding ones was to bring the parishioners to a county vax clinic with white folks also present, and let them point in the pan of pre-drawn needles for which one they wanted, so they didn’t have to fear they were getting a “Black” vaccine

That's an excuse, not a reason. The reason for both whites and blacks acting like idiots is lack of mastery of even kindergarden-level critical thinking among US adults.
Post reply on HN