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

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

#221

Post by bmarquez » Tue, Jul 21, 2020, 10:33 PM UTC

Nasrudith wrote: post #140

bmarquez wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Consider the outrageous claim Is it really outrageous when NYT has previously threatened to dox people? Most recently the owner of Slate Star Codex, which recieved a lot of attention on HN. https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/06/22/nyt-is-threatening-my-...

Yes, because you can't dox known public figures by definition. Donald Trump resides in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Look I just doxxed the president! To claim knowingly claim something impossible by definition is outragous.

Just because Tucker is a public figure doesn't mean his private residence needs to be publicized by the NYT. Regardless, the rest of his family who live with him aren't public figures.

Willfully conflating the White House and Tucker's house is disingenuous.

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

#222

Post by newacct583 » Tue, Jul 21, 2020, 10:34 PM UTC

s1artibartfast wrote: post #201

newacct583 wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once again, reasons and motivations aren't the subject of "fact checking" in the sense we're discussing. That's interpretive history, not factual stuff. And I'd be shocked beyond belief if Facebook was actually stepping in here, which is why I asked for a cite. I'll be blunt: this didn't happen. They never fact checked a post about a confederate general, and if they did it was over some kind of obviously false thing…

Thanks for finding the article. I would argue that this is clearly in the realm of interpretive history. The core statement "Lee opposed both secession and slavery" is too poorly defined to have an objective answer. It is a question of what a historical figure thought and felt comes with all the nuance of a real human being. Part of what I object to with the "fact checking" is that it often tries to adjudicate questi…

> The core statement "Lee opposed both secession and slavery" is too poorly defined to have an objective answer

... ?

Doesn't the burden of factuality go the OTHER way though? It's an objective-sounding statement of what purports to be a fact. But it's belied by other obvious facts about the man's life. It makes him sound like a union abolitionist and not a slave-holding confederate, which is misleading.

I suppose you might (barely) get away with similar statements. For example "Lee opposed secession prior to the war, and claimed to oppose slavery later in life." That still leaves out context, but at least hints at its existence.

> Does placing the warning imply that the inverse is true and "Lee supported both secession and slavery".

No, it does not. But other statements might be: "Lee owned other human beings" is a clearly factual statement. "Lee fought against the United States" is another.

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

#223

Post by triangleman » Tue, Jul 21, 2020, 11:24 PM UTC

newacct583 wrote: post #163

s1artibartfast wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not particularly familiar with the matter, but the actions and wirittings are still subject to interpretation. Some examples might be: What was the reason for the confederacy to declare independence. What were General E Lees motivations for joining the war. What was the motivation for most soldiers (who were not slave owners) joining the war. You can find hundreds of books disputing these topics.

Once again, reasons and motivations aren't the subject of "fact checking" in the sense we're discussing. That's interpretive history, not factual stuff. And I'd be shocked beyond belief if Facebook was actually stepping in here, which is why I asked for a cite. I'll be blunt: this didn't happen. They never fact checked a post about a confederate general, and if they did it was over some kind of obviously false thing…

This whole things stinks. Why does Facebook need to stick its nose in a viral post about a historical figure? I suppose the possible real-world repercussions of this "fact-checking" are not, like, genocide or anything, but the disposition of various Robert E Lee statues? Or is Facebook really trying to promote Truth as an end in itself? And they enlist Snopes to help them in this Noble endeavor and declare "mostly false" beyond their standards? Really? And you're defending this shit?

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

#224

Post by newacct583 » Tue, Jul 21, 2020, 11:36 PM UTC

triangleman wrote: post #223

newacct583 wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once again, reasons and motivations aren't the subject of "fact checking" in the sense we're discussing. That's interpretive history, not factual stuff. And I'd be shocked beyond belief if Facebook was actually stepping in here, which is why I asked for a cite. I'll be blunt: this didn't happen. They never fact checked a post about a confederate general, and if they did it was over some kind of obviously false thing…

This whole things stinks. Why does Facebook need to stick its nose in a viral post about a historical figure? I suppose the possible real-world repercussions of this "fact-checking" are not, like, genocide or anything, but the disposition of various Robert E Lee statues? Or is Facebook really trying to promote Truth as an end in itself? And they enlist Snopes to help them in this Noble endeavor and declare "mostly fa…

It's not just a "post about a historical figure" though, is it? I mean, if you want to spin a fictionalized yarn about Hammurabi I'm sure they'll allow it.

This was a post about a topical issue of public policy. Not Lee the man of 1865, but whether or not to remove a statue of Lee in 2020. Isn't that exactly the kind of thing that Facebook's fact check policy is designed to regulate?

You aren't allowed to lie (though to be fair this was a lie of omission) to influence a contemporary policy debate, and if you do they'll put a warning on your post that points to a clearer exposition of the truth.

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

#225

Post by unishark » Tue, Jul 21, 2020, 11:50 PM UTC

indigochill wrote: post #139

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…

> 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…

> 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 Z rate of lung cancer.

Apart from the specific problems we have ever proving causality. both these statements are still conclusions based to varying degrees on beliefs which may be wrong. The people in the study might have lied. The cancer test might have been flawed. Ultimately the feeling of knowing a fact is an emotion. In science all we can do is be as careful as possible in stating how an experiment or study was performed and what happened. People certainly gain in their confidence of these broader statements as the evidence piles up. But from the perspective of science this reliance on beliefs created by previous studies is a form of bias which can be a bad thing.

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

#226

Post by jacobr1 » Wed, Jul 22, 2020, 12:06 AM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #76

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…

> 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…

> can all agree that there are certain things which are provably not facts?

In the abstract, sure, presuming your interlocutor shares a common enough epistemic framework, but good rhetoricians can craft slippery arguments.

Instead of "anthropogenic climate change is bollocks and climatologists are all paid-off liars," how about "climate change models have been shown to have errors". The first statement itself is bollocks, but that latter is true (if also misleading).

It is unlikely but possible the moon is made of cheese. Cheese is delicious on crackers. If astronauts ate moon-cheese, it would be delicious on crackers.

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

#227

Post by ouid » Wed, Jul 22, 2020, 12:07 AM UTC

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…

It seems to me that the problem lies not in the fact that our information is unreliable, but that the social contract has broken down. If you want to foster an environment where honestly is viable, you have to start from the very foundations of society.

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

#228

Post by CarbyAu » Wed, Jul 22, 2020, 12:19 AM UTC

xaedes wrote: post #124

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…

That is why I recently said: Fact checking == Truth Factory. Lets open a ministry for that, guess the name.

Uh, Ministry for Science?

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

#229

Post by perl4ever » Wed, Jul 22, 2020, 2:04 AM UTC

xg15 wrote: post #207

ballenf wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are costs to living in a free society. Harm from letting people believe falsehoods is one of them. Soldiers dying to protect you from those seeking to destroy you is another. If people aren't free to believe false things and even to try to spread those falsehoods to others, then it's no longer a free society. And one day, a thing you know to be true will be deemed false and you might still think that the proble…

"some of you may die, but this is a sacrifice I'm willing to make." Like, are you aware how high those costs can actually get? Who decided that the costs are worth it? Like, would you say the costs of leading someone into drinking bleach will be worth it? I absolutely support the right for everyone to have an opinion, but we have to acknowledge that now all opinions are equally valid - otherwise, were regressing from…

>Like, would you say the costs of leading someone into drinking bleach will be worth it?

Not to take sides, but one could argue the costs of the statement you're talking about are insignificant.

The assumption would be that anyone who is that easily influenced to do something that severely harms themselves is subject to many such influences and therefore adding or subtracting a single one doesn't change the probability of disaster noticeably in the long run.

If a straw can break a camel's back, does that mean burning a million straws saves a million camels?

...but if it can save just one...

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

#230

Post by filoeleven » Wed, Jul 22, 2020, 2:17 AM UTC

s1artibartfast wrote: post #195

filoeleven wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Your policy is still ill-defined, though. Do you mean ALL female nipples, or just human ones? Does the ban extend to babies? Who’s going to police that, and how? Radiolab did an episode on all kinds of Facebook rules, covering the nipple con…

I agree there are edge cases. Are you saying the nipple issue is harder than moderating politically contested statements of fact regarding the nature of the world we live in?

I thought you were saying that “universal rules for nudity (subcontent: nipples)” are easier to write than “universal rules for fact-checking.“ If so, I disagree. They are either:

a) equally hard, given the common understanding of what “facts” mean nowadays, or

b) nudity is harder, given cultural contexts.

Culture makes a lot of difference for what’s considered nudity (e.g. women breastfeeding goats, as illustrated in the link), and it should matter less for statements about average temperatures for a given region, etc. But the “facts” as presented are contested anyway, since they are derivations based on data + interpretation, even if the interpretation is from >95% of scientists in the relative field.

That makes me lean more towards (a) even though I wish it was (b).