Facebook overrides fact-checks when climate science is “opinion” • Hacker News Board

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

#181

Post by xg15 » Tue, Jul 21, 2020, 6:57 PM UTC

vorpalhex wrote: post #162

pjc50 wrote: 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…

This is normally why we have limits on behavior like using violence to push viewpoints. You can't reason someone out of something they didn't reason themselves into, but we also know that if you try to suppress them then they'll double down on their viewpoint. The best way to push a cause is to have a martyr. There is no person fit to play the censor. Power corrupts. What starts as an intent to stop climate change de…

OK, so... now what?

You've correctly identified a number of practical problems with combatting misinformation. However, this does not change the fact that misinformation exists and does real harm.

So if you can neither change a person's opinion, nor keep them from influencing others, what would you propose we do?

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

#182

Post by phatfish » Tue, Jul 21, 2020, 6:58 PM UTC

smt88 wrote: post #81

refurb wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup. This is why I actually agree with Zuckerberg on his “no censorship” approach. He’s smart enough to recognize that taking on the burden of what should be censored and what shouldn’t is a quagmire he’d prefer to avoid. No matter how “good” your filters are, you’re going to piss off a massive group of customers, despite all the effort. It’s just a massive time sink with little to no benefit. “The only way to win is…

I think it's fine for Facebook to opt out of fact-checking, as long as they also opt out of algorithmic syndication of content. If my feed is going to have posts shared by others (even non-friends) or, worse, op-eds in it, then FB is vouching for whatever I see. If they share a link with 50 million people, they're certainly responsible for the consequences. Worse is the ad side, where Facebook wants to continue to pr…

Agree completely.

Of course this is exactly how Facebook want it. To appear as the light touch impartial platform where "everyone is free" to communicate. Except in the background they play with who sees what to increase engagement and run experiments.

With the black-box of algorithms used to target content we can only guess what is really happening. But as every media company knows, controversy sells. So I'll need a lot of proof that generating controversy isn't exactly what Facebook is doing on their platform.

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

#183

Post by meheleventyone » Tue, Jul 21, 2020, 6:59 PM UTC

thecureforzits wrote: post #113

koheripbal wrote: post #68

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…

If you step off the edge of a cliff, the fact of gravity will assert its existence on you whether you choose to subscribe to it or not.

But gravity is an explanation of what we know will happen. You can believe you will fall to your death without needing to believe in gravity. Classical mechanics is enough to model the situation accurately enough but also incorrect. We don’t have a unified model either. A lot of our facts in regard to explanations of observed phenomena are much more loose. Rather they are our best explanations. Don’t confuse the map for the terrain.

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

#184

Post by vangelis » Tue, Jul 21, 2020, 6:59 PM UTC

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...

Here's a response for diversity of viewpoints: https://sciencefeedback.co/evaluation/article-by-michael-she...

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

#185

Post by dfxm12 » Tue, Jul 21, 2020, 7:01 PM UTC

catalogia wrote: post #170

dfxm12 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that's the case, the problem isn't with video evidence, the problem is people don't know how to make logical arguments. Facebook didn't say they would be moderating discussion in that way.

I don't think it's just a matter of people being illogical, (although it's certainly the case that all people will be illogical at least some of the time.) How people interpret what they observe is fundamentally subjective. > "Facebook didn't say they would be moderating discussion in that way." Sure, I'm responding more to the notion of "Unfortunately, not everyone is willing to believe facts" My point is that video…

If a person uses a video as evidence to conclude something that isn't evident in the video, it is not an issue about subjectivity. It's an issue with the person; they're being illogical, or acting in bad faith.

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

#186

Post by mturmon » Tue, Jul 21, 2020, 7:05 PM UTC

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…

This trichotomy is not really helpful.

Here's a more helpful one: people who actually have expertise and peer-reviewed publications, people who at least pay attention to the above, and everyone else.

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

#187

Post by xg15 » Tue, Jul 21, 2020, 7:05 PM UTC

koheripbal wrote: post #68

pjc50 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that there is a well-funded war on facts. This isn't new either; the legacy version was the systematic denial that smoking caused cancer. This has been going on since the 1950s, and is still being litigated. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3490543/ The result of this is that any single point of fact-determination becomes a target. It's good of Facebook to take some kind of stand against th…

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…

So, how would you decide on an actual action in this system?

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

#188

Post by xg15 » Tue, Jul 21, 2020, 7:08 PM UTC

ksdale wrote: post #154

indigochill wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

And then, assuming you can get people to agree on the accuracy of the observation and on the causation , people can still argue about the best course of action to address a problem. Assuming people don't agree on causation, you might never get enough trials of solutions to learn anything about what a best solution might look like.

Whether or not people agree on something is completely irrelevant to whether or not it is a fact. Earth will orbit the sun, no matter how many people may or may not be comfortable with it.

Finding out what is and what is not a fact can be extremely difficult. However, we've spent the last few centuries developing tools to tackle this problem in the for of the scientific method.

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

#189

Post by saghm » Tue, Jul 21, 2020, 7:17 PM UTC

njarboe wrote: post #151

pjc50 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that there is a well-funded war on facts. This isn't new either; the legacy version was the systematic denial that smoking caused cancer. This has been going on since the 1950s, and is still being litigated. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3490543/ The result of this is that any single point of fact-determination becomes a target. It's good of Facebook to take some kind of stand against th…

I agree with your post in general but consider that accuracy and being correct is hard and takes time and consideration. This is something almost no people value when speaking in normal conversations or the equivalent online venues (Twitter, Facebook, reddit, HN, etc.). Take your post, for example, with its incorrect use of "heliocentricity". It means an astronomical model in which the Earth and planets orbit the Sun…

> I agree with your post in general but consider that accuracy and being correct is hard and takes time and consideration

This seems like an even stronger argument for Facebook to defer to the independent fact checking rather than overruling it

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

#190

Post by jfengel » Tue, Jul 21, 2020, 7:24 PM UTC

thaumasiotes wrote: post #142

jfengel wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're correct that they were already dumb, but it does actively remove knowledge from their heads and replaces it with harder-to-budge falsehoods. That sclerosis of the neurons makes them act like people even dumber than their natural state of stupefaction.