Facebook doesn't plan to take strong action against anti-vaccination posts • Hacker News Board

Re: Facebook doesn't plan to take strong action against anti-vaccination posts

#101

Post by emteycz » Wed, Sep 09, 2020, 5:31 PM UTC

baddox wrote: post #79

emteycz wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not about tradition breaking down, this is about many and many more people gaining a hearable voice.

I don’t think it’s that either. I think it’s about Facebook’s algorithm massively amplifying certain voices.

Facebook will happily amplify any voice, even incoherent rambling, and find customers for it. I welcome you to try - the only thing you have to do is write hundreds of comments in public groups. You will be successful immediately. The problem is the 'rational' side considers that 'below their level', often any Facebook usage at all is considered waste.

Re: Facebook doesn't plan to take strong action against anti-vaccination posts

#102

Post by bmh100 » Wed, Sep 09, 2020, 7:24 PM UTC

baddox wrote: post #75

bmh100 wrote: post #12

This is the problem with "fact checking". It positions the platform as an authority. Now, any claim that isn't "debunked" by this "fact checking" gains a certain amount of credibility by comparison. The moral hazards are enormous, multiplied by the opaque behavior of Facebook's algorithm and again multiplied by its unprecedented reach in society.

What about things that Facebook does take down, like fraud and scams or misinformation about voting requirements? Is that problematic because it positions Facebook as an authority about those things? Should Facebook remove posts which claim an election date has been moved, or that if you reply with your bank account details you will get some free money?

You make a good point that knowing the content is not worthy of removal does have implications. However, I think the non-removal implies that the content is not a threat with regards to making the user a victim of a crime. This is an important distinction from "fact checking", which is evaluating the accuracy of the content.

Re: Facebook doesn't plan to take strong action against anti-vaccination posts

#103

Post by bborud » Wed, Sep 09, 2020, 7:47 PM UTC

darepublic wrote: post #42

Don't use Facebook but I don't want any of the social media platforms performing any censorship beyond the legally mandated type (ie pirated material illegal porn etc)

Then I think you should get a Facebook account and and have a look and experience the problem of people spreading misinformation first hand.

I used to think that the right approach was to be completely hands off. The reason was that I thought it would have to be an all-or-nothing kind of affair. Because if you censor some of the crap, you have to be able to censor all of it or you will be sued into oblivion.

But "nothing" is considerably worse than "some" in this case. And if how law is practiced stops companies from doing some good and choosing to do nothing, that isn't a good way to go about it.

So I think there needs to be some legal protection for companies that do try to remove misleading information. So they don't get sued if they fail to remove all of it.

I can understand if you are against removing information on principle. I'm not fond of it either. But when people get hurt for absolutely no good reason, it starts to matter.

Re: Facebook doesn't plan to take strong action against anti-vaccination posts

#104

Post by ljm » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 6:56 PM UTC

ghostpepper wrote: post #31

ljm wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This article is practically misinformation in itself, and the body of the text confirms it: “The event is being investigated by an independent committee, and it is too early to conclude the specific diagnosis.” Here is an article from another newspaper, about the same thing: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/09/oxford-univers... The headline is: "Oxford University Covid vaccine trial put on hold due to possi…

Which word do you have an issue with in the NYT headline, 'reaction'? As in, the 'adversity' faced by this patient may not in fact be a 'reaction' to the vaccine?

The NYT makes the headline about an adverse reaction and the study is paused because of it. To my mind 'adverse reaction' means that they've established the cause and effect, and the study was halted because someone reacted badly to the vaccine.

My issue is that it's not clear whether the patient's illness is due to the vaccine or something else, so headlining with 'adverse reaction to the vaccine' is jumping to a conclusion. They don't say 'possible', which is the truth.