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

251–259 of 259 posts

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

#251

Post by Covzire »

jmcqk6 wrote: post #250
Covzire wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Allow people to speak. To use your climate change example, climate change experts need to engage the public, even people they disagree with. The fact that they're not creates the appearance they are dishonest or have alternative agendas. Universities are the worst for this, they no longer allow free speech almost anywhere, and do not engage with anyone who disagrees with them once they've decided they have all the fa…

>The fact that they're not creates the appearance they are dishonest or have alternative agendas. What are you talking about? They are constantly trying to engage. Your comment about universities doesn't ring true to me either. Universities are where you're most likely to find free exchanges of ideas today. You can cherry pick counter examples, but that ignores the larger truth, and the reality of larger society. Peo…

We seem to be at an impasse. You're saying they're constantly trying to engage, but I see something different. Reddit won't even allow "deniers" or anything that smells like a "denier" to speak. The scientific complex will absolutely ostracize anyone who tries to take any funding to research anything that could discredit the mainstream narrative. There is no public debate anymore, as Al Gore famously said, "The debate is over".

Anyway I've given what I believe strongly is the only solution, and ideas like that espoused in this article are dangerous and won't help you or me.

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

#252

Post by filoeleven »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #235
filoeleven wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

>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: I think we still have a misunderstanding. I am saying that enforceable rules for nipples are easier to write, regardless of the cultural approval of those rules. A well written rule can be enforced by only looking at the content that is on…

I think I’m with you now. The nature of a factual claim is that it refers to other things that must be examined in order to determine if it passes or fails a rule, whereas for many kinds of images there is no external reference that has to be consulted: the content is all right there in the image itself.

In which case I’d have to agree! Thanks for taking the time to clarify it for me.

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

#253

Post by BTCOG »

The bottom line is that much of the climate science is nothing more than conjecture and you can get as mad about it as you like, and call it "misinformation" all you like. There is no evidence. Several million years ago we can tell that ppm levels of CO2 were over 1,000 and could climb higher than that. Today, we are way lower in comparison, and we face more pollution than anything. I find often times that people like to argue and conflate pollution with global warming. We have evidence of pollution. We don't have evidence that the poles shifting and climate shifting is actually man made, or that it WILL factually be detrimental. The planet is still here and spinning although it's seen CO2 atmospheric levels over 1200 ppm/ppb in past centuries, prior to industrialization. So much drama is involved in these tightly held opinions based in conjecture.

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

#254

Post by BTCOG »

floatrock wrote: post #114
Covzire wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More insidiously, it's another drumbeat for the idea that we need classical media gate keepers to invade people's personal space and "correct" any wrong-think. Very dangerous and unwelcome idea for a free society. The media has no valid purpose for having the power to amend private citizens conversations, we wouldn't tolerate at a bar and we shouldn't on our personal web space.

The greatest trick the devil ever pulled is making you think he doesn't exist. Even without active censorship, Facebook very much is a gate keeper invading your personal space. It's just rather than building up walls around you, it's merely giving you a shovel and showering you with dopamine bursts every time you dig yourself down into your own personal hole. The end effect is the same, though -- all you hear is echo…

Completely wrong. You do not have to at all use Facebook, or Twitter. They are a private website, and it is you and others who so choose to go onto their platform and post your own private information, and allow them to moderate your own private conversations. The problem is that all these people never should have allowed that from day one. I can 100% honestly say that I work professionally in network engineering and I do not and have never used Twitter, Facebook, or even a LinkedIn profile. They are not required, they are information silos and you've chosen to go into someone else's domain and host your private thoughts there for others to moderate. That's the problem. Create your own hosted website like the web is made for, and keep your conversation and your own personal control there. Period.

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

#255

Post by BTCOG »

Stop using someone else's domain and server space to act like that is where you deserve unhindered free speech. I'm so tired of hearing the bitching about Facebook or Twitter on HN lately. The future of the web will be decentralized. It never made sense to use your real identity and then go and post totally private conversations, unencrypted, on someone else's machines! Create your personally hosted cheap blog and post your thoughts there, where YOU control them. I think Facebook should start charging like $50/month to use it so it would wake everyone up to the simple fact it isn't your service. It isn't your server. You are choosing to be moderated in your "private" conversations, because you choose to do so. We should have millions of personal websites and blogs that are solely controlled by the individual but instead, millions of people flock to private web servers, for free, and act like they own it!Absurd.

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

#256

Post by s1artibartfast »

newacct583 wrote: post #238
s1artibartfast wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there mere fact that the two of us can read the same political article and then debate the interpretation of "opposition" in this context lends credence the idea it is a statement of interpretive history, and not fact. Similarly, it is open to the reader's interpretation. You read it as making him sound like a union abolitionist, I did not. I totally agree that "Lee owned other human beings" and "Lee fought a…

> You read it as making him sound like a union abolitionist, I did not. Of course not. Because you know the context and have made your own decision to excuse his slave holding and treason when deciding whether he should be celebrated with giant statues. Which is your call to make, I guess. But the point is that not everyone knows that context. And for those who don't, this advertisement, which is designed to affect p…

> Of course not. Because you know the context and have made your own decision to excuse his slave holding and treason when deciding whether he should be celebrated with giant statues. Which is your call to make, I guess.

Ignoring the ad hominem, the context I had was the fact Lee was a confederate general and the article you linked. I approached it with skepticism, eg this is a nebulous and unverifiable claim. You it approached it assuming an uncharitable interpretation.

>But the point is that not everyone knows that context. And for those who don't, this advertisement, which is designed to affect public policy, is prima facie misleading because it presents two facts that are (at best) subjects of controversy.

This is only prima facie misleading if you ascribe to a specific interpretation and the facts challenge this this interpretation. You are starting backwards with a subjective opinion and then defining facts that do not lead to the same conclusion, as problematic. However, you will allow them if they are accompanied by enough additional facts for the reader to come to the same subjective interpretations as you.

My entire point is that if we want to control misinformation, limiting the presentation of "incomplete" fact patterns is a step too far.

>Imagine a Facebook story with "The constitution gives you no right to own an assault rifle". Equally true, by your standards. Not really acceptable though, right?

I have no problem with this. It looks like the title to 100 other garbage opinion pieces.

>And Facebook wasn't labeling considered interpretations. It was labeling something that looked like a fact.

Then it should be more careful to discern between verifiable facts and statements that look like facts.

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

#257

Post by s1artibartfast »

filoeleven wrote: post #252
s1artibartfast wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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: I think we still have a misunderstanding. I am saying that enforceable rules for nipples are easier to write, regardless of the cultural approval of those rules. A well written rule can be enforced by only looking at the content that is on…

I think I’m with you now. The nature of a factual claim is that it refers to other things that must be examined in order to determine if it passes or fails a rule, whereas for many kinds of images there is no external reference that has to be consulted: the content is all right there in the image itself. In which case I’d have to agree! Thanks for taking the time to clarify it for me.

Exactly! I would say that many other common rules follow the feasibility of images. For example it is easy to test if a post is doxxing, contains swear words, ect.

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

#258

Post by jmcqk6 »

Covzire wrote: post #251
jmcqk6 wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The fact that they're not creates the appearance they are dishonest or have alternative agendas. What are you talking about? They are constantly trying to engage. Your comment about universities doesn't ring true to me either. Universities are where you're most likely to find free exchanges of ideas today. You can cherry pick counter examples, but that ignores the larger truth, and the reality of larger society. Peo…

We seem to be at an impasse. You're saying they're constantly trying to engage, but I see something different. Reddit won't even allow "deniers" or anything that smells like a "denier" to speak. The scientific complex will absolutely ostracize anyone who tries to take any funding to research anything that could discredit the mainstream narrative. There is no public debate anymore, as Al Gore famously said, "The debat…

So we have a disagreement about the fundamental facts, and your solution is to stop the conversation.

Thank you for perfectly illustrating the problem I'm talking about.

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

#259

Post by xg15 »

koheripbal wrote: post #245
xg15 wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Consensus. Which means promoting education and intelligence is critical to having a functioning government. ...and the first rule the consensus should pass is that experts in the field should provide the consensus within their domain area. ie. Climate Scientists should decide whether Climate Change is real (as a matter of policy) - not the general public.

> ...and the first rule the consensus should pass is...

I mean you've just declared your own opinion to be the consensus.

I too can design a system of governance that works via "have a spirited debate in which every opinion is valid, then do what I say" :)

Post reply on HN