Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook overrides fact-checks when climate science is “opinion”

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 259 posts

Re: Facebook overrides fact-checks when climate science is “opinion”

#141

Post by thelightthat »

lazyjones wrote: post #69
jeffreyrogers wrote: post #49

Would be nice to know what the actual claims are. I'm not at all a climate change denialist, but some of the things claimed by people trying to raise awareness for climate change are outright false, or at least extremely unlikely, e.g. humans almost certainly aren't going to go extinct because of climate change. But it can still be catastrophic at a society level. It's a shame the issue is so polarized, because while…

Sounds like this is about Michael Shellenberger, the long-time climate activist recently turned climate realist. https://www.dailywire.com/news/shellenberger-on-behalf-of-en...

Do you have a mirror? It's behind a paywall

Re: Facebook overrides fact-checks when climate science is “opinion”

#142

Post by thaumasiotes »

jfengel wrote: post #75
curiousgal wrote: post #28

I don't understand why it's Facebook's role to teach people. Maybe if regulations were instead imposed on school curriculums we wouldn't have dumb adults arguing about climate change, flat earth or mask wearing. Combat issues at the root not the fruit.

Facebook endumbens people. It's there front and center of the stupidification process, whether it wants to be or not. And it wants to be: it's aware that the mechanisms it uses to attract eyeballs (and thus revenue) favor lies and propaganda over facts. Facts are boring. Proof that your ideological enemies are out to get you is endlessly fascinating. They want to have it both ways, to remain sticky but without having…

> Facebook endumbens people. It's there front and center of the stupidification process, whether it wants to be or not.

Facebook isn't making anyone dumb. They were already dumb; you just didn't notice before.

Re: Facebook overrides fact-checks when climate science is “opinion”

#143

Post by iron0013 »

stronglikedan wrote: post #101
jeffreyrogers wrote: post #49

Would be nice to know what the actual claims are. I'm not at all a climate change denialist, but some of the things claimed by people trying to raise awareness for climate change are outright false, or at least extremely unlikely, e.g. humans almost certainly aren't going to go extinct because of climate change. But it can still be catastrophic at a society level. It's a shame the issue is so polarized, because while…

The problem is there are three groups: climate deniers, climate alarmists, and climate realists. The first two are much louder than the third, so the debate quickly turns into an extremist yelling match full of misinformation in the public arena. Most people never settle into the minority middle ground of climate realist, because it can be difficult to muddle through the extremist views to get to the truth. And even…

Actual climate realists are climate alarmists. Self-described “climate realists” are just climate denialists trying out a new set of lies.

Re: Facebook overrides fact-checks when climate science is “opinion”

#144

Post by AlexandrB »

Nasrudith wrote: post #120
forgotmyhnacc wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does this argument apply to Google? When you search something e.g. is climate change real, Google ranks the results algorithmically. If Google doesn't do fact checking, are they liable for false statements?

It applies just as much because it is a fundamentally technically illiterate argument. It already ignores that the whole point of the algorithim is to prioritize. In this case just as much means "none" for both because it is asking for an outright contradiction to - provide prioritization without any bias. Or bias without bias. Nonsensical stupidity. The mobster with a cudgel making vague threats rhetoric is just ano…

I disagree. The "algorithm" is fundamentally an optimization problem and companies get to choose what the fitness function for each algorithm is. Facebook chooses "engagement". This is not an accident nor some fundamental property of math. It's a product decision made by a human. One that can be changed.

And there is a fundamental difference between Google's algorithm and Facebook's: control. Google requires user input through search, Facebook decides what shows up when you open the app/site based on an algorithmic feed. In one case the user has some idea that what they're doing is interacting with an algorithm and they can change their search terms if they're not satisfied with the results, in the other the algorithm is in the background making decisions without making itself obvious.

Re: Facebook overrides fact-checks when climate science is “opinion”

#145

Post by stronglikedan »

iron0013 wrote: post #143
stronglikedan wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is there are three groups: climate deniers, climate alarmists, and climate realists. The first two are much louder than the third, so the debate quickly turns into an extremist yelling match full of misinformation in the public arena. Most people never settle into the minority middle ground of climate realist, because it can be difficult to muddle through the extremist views to get to the truth. And even…

Actual climate realists are climate alarmists. Self-described “climate realists” are just climate denialists trying out a new set of lies.

Thank you for, perhaps unintentionally, proving my point.

Re: Facebook overrides fact-checks when climate science is “opinion”

#146

Post by Karunamon »

sneak wrote: post #38
Karunamon wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Users still read at least five other websites. Three of those are entirely Chinese and can be discounted from this conversation due to government. That leaves two sites run by the same company, all of which are headquartered in the same general area and have similar culture, and both have ongoing censorship/misinformation controversies.

Ok, what about all of the other websites on the internet ?

The fact that other sites exist does not diminish the impact of the most prominent ones.

Re: Facebook overrides fact-checks when climate science is “opinion”

#147

Post by shadowgovt »

tabtab wrote: post #119
vorpalhex wrote: post #7

I remember being very concerned that the fact checkers wouldn't be operating in a vacuum and we'd have a bunch of facebook execs being arbiters of truth. And that appears to be exactly what has happened. This is terrifying. A handful of mainstream publications and a bunch of basically unknown facebook folks are now the censors. We've already seen well known EFF activists rated untrue for their arguments against warra…

Re: "This is terrifying. A handful of mainstream publications and a bunch of basically unknown facebook folks are now the censors." It's not much different than when the TV news was controlled by 3 networks.

And in fact, there is a huge difference between this era and that era---people who don't like Facebook's tone can use a different site (or run their own) for much lower cost and fewer governmental barriers to entry than the FCC represents to the television industry.

Re: Facebook overrides fact-checks when climate science is “opinion”

#148

Post by oh_sigh »

thelightthat wrote: post #141
lazyjones wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like this is about Michael Shellenberger, the long-time climate activist recently turned climate realist. https://www.dailywire.com/news/shellenberger-on-behalf-of-en...

Do you have a mirror? It's behind a paywall

http://archive.is/wLPcG

Allegedly a postscript was added to the first article referring to the facebook fact checking, so I imagine this is actually the original article and not the updated one.

Re: Facebook overrides fact-checks when climate science is “opinion”

#149

Post by shadowgovt »

chrisco255 wrote: post #67
Broken_Hippo wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... And before that, there was local news and newspapers. Some time before that it might be your boss, your parents, or the local clergy. This is no change, but business as normal. What has changed is that we actually have easy access to information outside of the keyholders. So when the government and some in society dismiss complaints about police brutality, we can have the retribution of actual video (an example w…

There's quite a difference between social media interjecting its opinion into your private, personal conversations and whatever the clergy at your local church back in the 90s would have said. They would not have even had visibility into say, what you might be talking about at the local pub or hanging out with your neighbors. A local newspaper might pitch a story, but editorials were clearly labeled and there were of…

Are Facebook walls "private, personal conversations?" "Wall" implies they aren't.

Mechanically, they clearly aren't; they're passing through Facebook's servers and FB doesn't pretend to treat them as unfiltered content (in fact, the feed algorithm complaints are much older than the fact-checking complaints).

Re: Facebook overrides fact-checks when climate science is “opinion”

#150

Post by AlexandrB »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #123
vkou wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The grey area and room for debate is much greater for truth than nudity and sexuality. That's your subjective opinion. Different cultures will significantly disagree with you (and with the Zuck) on what the gray area for nudity and sexuality is.

Different cultures may disagree on what the policy should be, but Zuckerberg has the ability to create nudity rules that are objective, whether you agree with them or not. For example, FB can make a policy that says no exposed nipples for females. There may be different opinions on the value of such a policy, but not the execution/implementation. This is much more difficult for a policy stating that content must not…

The problem in the linked article doesn't seem to be that the rules were ambiguous. Instead it seems as though they were perfectly clear but overruled by leadership because of external pressure. Plus there's this:

> Last week, however, ProPublica reported that explicit misinformation about voting remains rampant on the platform.

Voting misinformation is not ambiguous in the way you describe, yet Facebook doesn't care.

Post reply on HN