Facebook is now claiming official CDC.gov links are “False Information” • Hacker News Board

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

#641

Post by wrycoder » Mon, Aug 02, 2021, 11:47 PM UTC

Dove wrote: post #625

exikyut wrote: post #612

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regarding the Ministry of Information concept, I recently realized that one potential motivation for the large-scale end-to-end encryption agenda is to move the "keys to the kingdom" for the world's trillions of chat messages (and attached media) to end-user devices, *and* loudly signal that this shift has taken place by taking advantage of the very loud minority of security-conscious folks that implicitly trust and…

I don't think Facebook literally thinks they're a web site -- I think they know something extraordinary is going on. Probably much better than I do. But I do know that what they set out to do, and what they found themselves doing, are very different, and the head shift has been difficult. This is why, when people come to them with questions and requests and complaints that seem a little more appropriate to ask a judg…

I think this subthread assumes FB is politically neutral. I don’t think that’s a good assumption.

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

#642

Post by intended » Tue, Aug 03, 2021, 11:40 AM UTC

tekknik wrote: post #632

intended wrote: post #555

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

How does that work? reddit speech is not worthy of being heard? Its too immature to be even worth experimenting with moderation?

If people are creating 5 accounts to create a narrative, well then thats the job isn’t it? Stopping those 4 fake accounts.

But that would be censorship. So what is your solution for the problem you yourself have described?

Plus, If your first option is to choose a forum where you self select out of dealing with messy problems, then your experience is invalid for guidance on dealing with messy problems - no?

I can’t seem to see anything but a contradiction of your own purposes here.

Perhaps you see how these things are not contradictory>?

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

#643

Post by intended » Tue, Aug 03, 2021, 11:42 AM UTC

tekknik wrote: post #631

intended wrote: post #553

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Yes, I think so too. However people still will consume content as long it gives those dopamine hits. The brain makes you think you are doing something, even if its not really comprehending what its consuming.

Which is getting closer to the problem as I see it - the tech infrastructure has out scaled the default biological tools we are born with.

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

#644

Post by tekknik » Tue, Aug 03, 2021, 1:33 PM UTC

CRConrad wrote: post #619

tekknik wrote: post #614

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually most people aren't. There's like 8 billion people in the world and 2-3 billion people on FB. That means those on FB are a minority.

True, thanks for the perspective. Then again, among this crowd here... I think most people I know are. You?

Most people I know are not and left it a few years back during the first exodus. 1/3 of Americans are not on FB.

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

#645

Post by tekknik » Tue, Aug 03, 2021, 1:34 PM UTC

jkestner wrote: post #620

tekknik wrote: post #615

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can generally trace it back to someone they know on Facebook or Tucker Carlson. Dems would serve themselves better by not trying to point fingers on where to aim the ban cannon. This is only going to cause more mistrust. Actually visit the areas with hesitancy, then come back and see if you say the same. I know some 100 people that are hesitant. Not a one of them are on FB, nor listen to anything FOX puts out. It…

What actions caused their mistrust of the government? Where did they learn about these actions?

CNN, the left, etc

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

#646

Post by tekknik » Tue, Aug 03, 2021, 1:40 PM UTC

intended wrote: post #643

tekknik wrote: post #631

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Yes, I think so too. However people still will consume content as long it gives those dopamine hits. The brain makes you think you are doing something, even if its not really comprehending what its consuming. Which is getting closer to the problem as I see it - the tech infrastructure has out scaled the default biological tools we are born with.

If you’re consuming information but comprehending it then this is listening vs hearing. This is my original problem with this “faster than BS filter”. If you claim that information is coming too fast for them to comprehend then they are not comprehending it and therefore not getting the information. Which would make this all false.

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

#647

Post by tekknik » Tue, Aug 03, 2021, 2:12 PM UTC

intended wrote: post #642

tekknik wrote: post #632

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 o…

How does that work? reddit speech is not worthy of being heard? Its too immature to be even worth experimenting with moderation? If people are creating 5 accounts to create a narrative, well then thats the job isn’t it? Stopping those 4 fake accounts. But that would be censorship. So what is your solution for the problem you yourself have described? Plus, If your first option is to choose a forum where you self selec…

> How does that work? reddit speech is not worthy of being heard? Its too immature to be even worth experimenting with moderation?

I didn't say it wasn't worthy of being heard, I said it's immature and there's zero cost to account creation and therefore you have literal children going to that site and spitting nonsense. Moderating that site is like herding cats.

> If people are creating 5 accounts to create a narrative, well then thats the job isn’t it? Stopping those 4 fake accounts. But that would be censorship.

Yup, banning them would. Did I say ban them? It was used as a reference to immaturity, because immature / crazy people create accounts to make a cohort that does not exist.

> So what is your solution for the problem you yourself have described?

In short, change the way these people are raised. Change what they're being taught in schools that enables this behavior. It's unacceptable to throw online temper tantrums when you don't get your way. It's also unacceptable to attempt to force those into your beliefs. So start by teaching children that instead of raising the entitled society that we have today.

For those, seemingly like yourself, who thinks the world will end if a group of people start believing the world is flat, I'd say learn to ignore people.

> Plus, If your first option is to choose a forum where you self select out of dealing with messy problems, then your experience is invalid for guidance on dealing with messy problems - no? I can’t seem to see anything but a contradiction of your own purposes here. Perhaps you see how these things are not contradictory>?

How about let me speak for myself and quit carrying the conversation forward using assumptions from yourself?

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

#648

Post by kortilla » Tue, Aug 03, 2021, 10:48 PM UTC

chris_wot wrote: post #476

kortilla wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Your Facebook Jefferson would still have to build an online system that prioritizes facebook’s financial health. Why do you think that?

Because that’s the way it is currently.

It’s not though. Companies function with significant amounts of waste that are related to internal fiefdoms and have very little relationship to the bottom line.

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

#649

Post by Dylan16807 » Wed, Aug 04, 2021, 4:44 AM UTC

tekknik wrote: post #638

Dylan16807 wrote: post #636

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> /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 hesit…

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

Does the 'or' not make sense here? If you don't feel qualified, you can get anyone you trust that is. If you do feel qualified, then go read it yourself.

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

In a way that makes no sense as a counterargument. If I say you can fix your own car or get a mechanic to do it, there's no reason for you to name some famous mechanic you hate and act like I meant them.

> Just like before you weren't downvoting and yet now you are.

It's impossible to downvote replies to your own comments.

> It's pretty clear the convo didn't go the way you wanted it to.

This conversation just confuses me. All I wanted to do is explain that the vaccine is tested. And there are plenty of non-'left' people that can confirm the numbers and the underlying science, if you're honestly looking for the truth.

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

#650

Post by tekknik » Wed, Aug 04, 2021, 11:58 AM UTC

Dylan16807 wrote: post #649

tekknik wrote: post #638

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 hesit…

> Great! Don't tell someone to get an expert unless you want them to not listen to you. OK? Does the 'or' not make sense here? If you don't feel qualified, you can get anyone you trust that is. If you do feel qualified, then go read it yourself. > I did say something about Fauci. He's an expert no? In a way that makes no sense as a counterargument. If I say you can fix your own car or get a mechanic to do it, there's…

> Does the 'or' not make sense here? If you don't feel qualified, you can get anyone you trust that is. If you do feel qualified, then go read it yourself.

OK so I'll try again. If you want someone to listen to anything you have to say, do not start off implying they need someone to interpret information for them. Fix your language or not, I don't really care anymore.

> In a way that makes no sense as a counterargument. If I say you can fix your own car or get a mechanic to do it, there's no reason for you to name some famous mechanic you hate and act like I meant them.

Famous mechanic? Just curious, can you list any famous mechanics that anybody would know? Anyways, since this one is too difficult for you (see how offensive that is?) I'll explain more. Last year how many times did these people step on their toes when speaking to the public? That mask vs no mask thing early on in the pandemic. What became clear is that these "experts" will say whatever is needed to get people to do what they want. Be it get vaccinated or stay indoors. They lied to attempt to control people, and destroyed all the trust they had on the way.

> This conversation just confuses me. All I wanted to do is explain that the vaccine is tested. And there are plenty of non-'left' people that can confirm the numbers and the underlying science, if you're honestly looking for the truth.

It is tested in that we've stuck in in arms and most people don't die. Please explain to me in excruciatingly great detail what will happen to our bodies as a result of this shot in 5 years. When you can answer that question, then it's tested