Facebook removed a fact-check on anti-abortion video after Ted Cruz complained

Post by cannonedhamster » Fri, Sep 13, 2019, 9:07 PM UTC

kadoban wrote: post #67

claar wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment has it correct; she defines abortion in a specific way (a common practice in documents / research papers / etc), and then makes a claim using this specific definition. The definition is left out of the headline, understandably and predictably, leaving a flamewar about a straw man.

This does not sound like a good-faith definition of terms. It's a no-true-scottsman instead, which is not a common practice, or at least not a reputable one.

Post by danShumway » Fri, Sep 13, 2019, 9:08 PM UTC

pessimizer wrote: post #93

danShumway wrote: post #74

I'm seeing a couple of comments on here to the effect of, "what did you expect when you started asking companies to screen/moderate content?" This is not a good example of screening being impossible to do, or being too subjective to nail down. Facebook moderated the video on largely neutral terms; not asserting that abortion was right or wrong, just that the claims the video made were scientifically false. It should…

> This specific story isn't that Facebook can't fact-check, it's that ultimately Facebook is willing to define neutrality based on what Lawmakers are complaining about at the moment. No, for me it's that what constitutes "neutrality" shifts with the powers that be, and in this case it shifted quickly; because abortion is an issue that facebook doesn't care about, it was willing to go with a scientific consensus, but…

Post by rand4321 » Fri, Sep 13, 2019, 9:13 PM UTC

bdamm wrote: post #59

cybersnowflake wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

8 murders in 42 years for something as hotbutton as abortion? Wow...given how the msm constantly carries on about this stuff you'd think prolifers were flying planes into abortion clinics every other day. Every so often I see stories of people murdered because they didn't want an abortion, why not keep a running tally of that? How does that stack up against the 60 million deaths since 73 for the other side? How many…

Unborn babies are always biologically distinguishable from babies that are already born. Unborn babies haven't yet taken a breath, have not been exposed to light, and still gather nutrients from the placenta. Inflation of the lungs happens immediately after birth, among a cascade of other events that happen quickly following birth, clearly distinguishing an unborn baby from a born baby.

Post by kelnos » Fri, Sep 13, 2019, 9:17 PM UTC

29_29 wrote: post #70

ASK HN: We really need a politics tab at the top of hackernews. Can we make that happen?

Post by SamReidHughes » Fri, Sep 13, 2019, 9:27 PM UTC

simion314 wrote: post #58

ceejayoz wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Supreme Court's rightward shift under Trump is likely to have significant impact on the legality of abortion in the US.

Is Trump and his group declared anti-abortion? Would this gain more votes the one lost? I was thinking that our politicians would use a technique to say or do something controversial at convenient time so all media and public would be distracted from the actual thing happening. This smells like such a thing but it is probably what you said;