Live data from Hacker News

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

arstechnica.com

171–180 of 259 posts

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

#171

This problem was created by social media by choosing which articles to show in your news feed based on engagement. That is, how much you'll emotionally react to it. The solution is not to add another layer of "fact checking". That's super dubious. Get rid of what got us here. News feeds organized by engagement are evil. Dismantling them would solve both the production and consumption of emotion driven information.

Traditional news media is also organized by engagement: an entire department is responsible for picking the home page of a newspaper and importance of each story. The major publications do a better job at not sensationalizing everything, but this has been a problem since 1890 at least: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism That social media naturally tends to become a tabloid magazine may be more a reflecti…

I agree. That's a problem, too.

The reason it became so pronounced is that social media got very good at it and then taught the lesson to traditional media. They, too, now use metrics of engagement to choose what they show.

It is true also that it is a weakness of people. But there are other weaknesses that we regulate in the interest of a healthy society.

I'm not a fan of regulation but a general awareness of the core issue would go a long way towards a solution.

Right now, the talk about the issue seems misdirected. I can only see the proposed solutions putting immense power of controlling narrative in a few hands.

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

#172
post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ideally, facts could assert themselves. Unfortunately, humans are needed to assert facts, and therefor any judgements based on facts require human interpretation. We can dissolve interpretations down as far as we like to leave as little room for bias and dishonesty (and that is a useful effort), but ultimately there will always be POWER in the hands of those who we abdicate arbitration authority to. ...and power corr…

> The alternative is creating a diverse ecosystem of organizations/individuals who's analysis/logic people can choose to subscribe to Allowing people to "choose" to subscribe to certain things has the ability to get them and others killed. That's why I mentioned the blood libel, while desperately casting around for something that people on HN wouldn't pointlessly dispute as subjective. The bar for "this is genuinely…

Not allowing people to subscribe to facts can also get people killed. How many had to die pointlessly before the Germ theory?

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

#173
post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The alternative is creating a diverse ecosystem of organizations/individuals who's analysis/logic people can choose to subscribe to Allowing people to "choose" to subscribe to certain things has the ability to get them and others killed. That's why I mentioned the blood libel, while desperately casting around for something that people on HN wouldn't pointlessly dispute as subjective. The bar for "this is genuinely…

> the question of "what is a fact" could easily absorb a large part of an undergraduate History and Philosophy of Science degree Is it really that complicated? It seems like, at least if you subscribe to a certain definition of fact, it becomes straightforward. Example Fact: I observed that in a sample of X smokers who smoked Y cigarettes a day, Z developed lung cancer. Example non-Fact: Smoking causes approximately…

Yes. For one, you don't take into account outright lying about results (which is shockingly common) - also by your definition we can never really agree on anything.

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

#174
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook can’t have it both ways. They can’t tell Congress they are like the telephone company (an agnostic communication channel) and then turn around and censor whatever they feel like. Either take responsibility for the content or stay out of it.

The whole point of section 230 of the CDA was to say that they can. Before 230, there had been court rulings that said if a platform moderated user supplied content they were liable for that content. Section 230 was written to reverse those rulings. I'm not sure why, but a myth has taken hold that under 230 you have to be neutral to get the liability shield.

That section doesn't allow you to lie to Congress, which is what gp was complaining about.

Facebook can defend itself in the court of public opinion by claiming to be neutral, but when they are in fact discriminating against certain viewpoints they end up facing critisism and potential boycots for that, regardless of whether it is legal.

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

#175
post #74

I think the problem with Facebook and similar platforms is that they tend to merge everything into one stream. You see news, opinion, humor, satire, and ads all in one continuous feed, often not labeled as to which type it is (except ads usually say "sponsored" or something like that). Furthermore, they are designed to get you to consume as much of this stream as possible. They would rather have you shallowly engage…

This was Neil Postman's critique of (pre-Facebook, pre-WWW) media in Amusing Ourselves to Death, originally published in 1987.

https://www.worldcat.org/title/amusing-ourselves-to-death-pu...

The underlying criticism of news media is rather older.

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

#176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But this is exactly what the public seems to be demanding of Facebook - i.e. take responsibility for censoring your content, but only the content I disagree with. FB is in a no-win situation unless they can offload the content moderation to a government entity.

> FB is in a no-win situation unless they can offload the content moderation to a government entity. Content moderation is something the US government very specifically can't do.

By force, but the US government can come out with guidelines and Facebook can choose to block posts that goes against those guidelines, essentially outsourcing their content moderation to the US government while facing only a small amount of the flack (Facebook does not have an opinion on the wearing of masks, we do not allow posts that go against the scientifically backed recommendations of AGENCY).

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

#177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can sue anyone for everything. Do you stand a chance? No. The platform/publisher dichotomy is mostly just a right-wing talking point with absolutely no basis in law. As your example alludes to, a website can well be both at the same time. For text that is Facebook’s own editorial content, the liability standard generally applied to any speaker, but historically tested in relation to news media and book publishers…

Facebook is an international company and should comply with local laws, if it wants to do local advertising. My country bans propagation of certain ideologies, due to our history. For example Heineken can not use its logo here. It would be criminal offense, not civil lawsuit. Another possible problem is anti free Hong Kong propaganda and lattest presidential decree. I dont really care about politics. Just showing it…

The red star, specifically?

Eastern Europe?

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

#178
post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ideally, facts could assert themselves. Unfortunately, humans are needed to assert facts, and therefor any judgements based on facts require human interpretation. We can dissolve interpretations down as far as we like to leave as little room for bias and dishonesty (and that is a useful effort), but ultimately there will always be POWER in the hands of those who we abdicate arbitration authority to. ...and power corr…

> The alternative is creating a diverse ecosystem of organizations/individuals who's analysis/logic people can choose to subscribe to Allowing people to "choose" to subscribe to certain things has the ability to get them and others killed. That's why I mentioned the blood libel, while desperately casting around for something that people on HN wouldn't pointlessly dispute as subjective. The bar for "this is genuinely…

> Allowing people to "choose" to subscribe to certain things has the ability to get them and others killed.

I shouldn't be allowed to choose what I think?

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

#179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We've already seen well known EFF activists rated untrue for their arguments against warrantless surveillance Got a link about that?

From my understanding the story is: * Patriot act is up for renewal * Amendment proposed to not allow section 215 to be used to search internet history W/O warrant. * Patriot act reauthorized W/O internet history protection amendment. * PF rules "[Congress] voted for federal agencies to have access to your internet history without obtaining a warrant." is false because of semantic word games. https://www.politifact.c…

Politifact seems extremely dishonest in this. Even with these semantic word games "[Congress] voted for federal agencies to have access to your internet history without obtaining a warrant." is still true.

Thank you a lot. Do you happen to have a source for "I've seen arguments about Confederate generals rated as false because of modern news events - in ways that disagree with well tenured academic historians" as well maybe?

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

#180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> FB is in a no-win situation unless they can offload the content moderation to a government entity. Content moderation is something the US government very specifically can't do.

By force, but the US government can come out with guidelines and Facebook can choose to block posts that goes against those guidelines, essentially outsourcing their content moderation to the US government while facing only a small amount of the flack (Facebook does not have an opinion on the wearing of masks, we do not allow posts that go against the scientifically backed recommendations of AGENCY).

Granted, that is exactly how the government lends teeth to sexual harassment policies it would be legally unable to enforce itself.

But I don't think a policy of "nobody can dispute the government's official statements" would fly, even with the enforcement done by Facebook.

Post reply on HN