Facebook freezes Venezuela president Maduro's page over Covid-19 • Hacker News Board

Re: Facebook freezes Venezuela president Maduro's page over Covid-19

#251

Post by m45t3r » Sun, Mar 28, 2021, 2:28 PM UTC

briandear wrote: post #55

m45t3r wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, context matters. OMS avoided recommending masks at the start of the pandemic since no study showed the efficacy of it, and there was no mass production of masks yet. So recommending it for general population would only generate shortage of masks for those who needed (frontline medics and nurses treating the cases). So this is why they're so against it.

> and there was no mass production of masks yet But that’s not what they said. Fauci said “healthy people do not need to wear masks.” So he either lied then or is lying now. The reason for the lie is irrelevant. If healthy people should wear masks, the lack of production capability doesn’t change the fact. If masks work and Fauci knew they worked, then his statement that healthy people don’t need masks was scientific…

The fact that he said "people keep fiddling with the mask and they keep touching their face" is exactly what I said about context: we still used to think that using alcohol and disinfecting surfaces are more effective than avoiding direct contact (at least for the general public). We now know that this isn't the truth, disinfecting surfaces are barely recommended nowadays since we know that the virus is airbone so masks and social distancing are the recommendation.

Re: Facebook freezes Venezuela president Maduro's page over Covid-19

#252

Post by macspoofing » Sun, Mar 28, 2021, 2:39 PM UTC

jjnoakes wrote: post #216

macspoofing wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would argue that people don't want the platforms to adjudicate THEIR views and THEIR side. They are fine with the other side getting the shaft. The woke, mainstream media and Democrats, the groups that are succeeding in pushing Twitter and Facebook and social media to increase censorship are doing it because it's advantageous to them because either their political opponents are being suppressed, or, as is the case…

I don't know how to speak on behalf of "people" in general but I know that I personally am in favor of some solution that weeds out misinformation while still giving all political parties voices. If you want to talk policy, values, goals, and agenda, go for it. If you want to talk hate or amplify things known to be factually untrue, you should be fact checked loudly and clearly, and if that doesn't change what you ar…

>I know that I personally am in favor of some solution that weeds out misinformation while still giving all political parties voices.

The way this will manifest itself is through a left-wing 20-something low-pay intern who will be tasked to decide whether something is or isn't true. Or put another way, you're delegating what you should or shouldn't see to that intern. Are you OK with that? Because I'm not. I neither want you, nor that intern, to decide for me.

>If you want to talk hate or amplify things known to be factually untrue, you should be fact checked loudly and clearly, and if that doesn't change what you are saying, you should not get to say it any more.

And who will arbitrate this?

And the context behind a statement like this is that your side is truthful and the other guys are liars because nobody thinks THEIR speech should be curtailed. For example, when Hillary Clinton went around and claimed Trump was an illegitimate President who stole the 2016 election [1] - should she be banned from all social media? By the way, most major media outlets have echoed this sentiment as a 'fact' many times since the 2016 election - the vast majority of which turned out to be bunk. Should the NY Times be banned for that? Or are you OK with only the NY Post being banned for reporting on a true story against Hunter Biden and his laptop?

How about when Democratic politicians and Democratic base claim that Republicans steal elections due to voter suppression, voter id, and gerrymandering - is that grounds for a ban? This happens after every major election Democrats lose. This is so normal you probably don't even notice it. Even today, there are outright lies being promulgated against Georgia's new elections laws by Democrats for partisan reasons - is that grounds for a ban? Or do you just want a laser focus on what Republicans are saying?

Right now on YouTube if you try to cast doubt on the outcome of the last election, it's an outright ban. OK. Let's make it so that this rule applies equally ... but then, I'm watching Sam Seder and he's got a video titled "How GOP Legislatures are already trying to steal the next election" [2] (which is one video in a long series of videos across years making this claim) - I guess it's OK to assert election theft as long as you just assert the Republicans are the ones doing the stealing (and by the way, Democrats have asserted the 2000, 2004 and 2016 presidential elections were stolen - "coincidentally" the ones they lost). Would you be OK with one set of standards by which everyone gets banned? Or do you want double-standards?

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-trum...

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ITlaEXJGVk

Re: Facebook freezes Venezuela president Maduro's page over Covid-19

#253

Post by snypher » Sun, Mar 28, 2021, 3:57 PM UTC

mc32 wrote: post #33

abhinav22 wrote: post #2

Not sure about this - I don’t think government leaders or anybody should be censored. Better to have public health messages as part of the platform than to censor It’s a fine line between hate and misinformation and dissent (Clearly the content in question is wrong; but in other cases, WHO and others been proven incorrect - eg on masks and asymptotic transmission) Don’t know what the answer is, we don’t want echo cha…

Obviously Maduro is a problematic despotic leader, but who are Facebook to be arbiters of thrush and falsehood? We’ve gone down the path of good intentions that leads to hell. Does this not interfere with self determination? Is there one true north now? Have Facebook found all truth? This is getting ridiculous.

You can't just shoehorn words like 'obviously' and 'despotic' into your opening sentence then move onto attacking a platform for interference. I would suggest reading into the history of who installed and backed Juan Guido and for what reason. Facebooks 'narrative management' of this issue is just another aspect of that.

Re: Facebook freezes Venezuela president Maduro's page over Covid-19

#254

Post by loveistheanswer » Sun, Mar 28, 2021, 4:04 PM UTC

TulliusCicero wrote: post #214

loveistheanswer wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>How is this even a question? >Since when are private actors obligated to let them speak on private platforms? This is the same argument slave owners used to defend their "private property", and that business owners used to ban black people from their private property. So, judging by the history of human rights, it's a perfectly valid question

> This is the same argument slave owners used to defend their "private property" The difference is that slavery is inherently wrong, whereas deciding on your own internal membership policies for some club, or internet forum, or what have you, is not inherently wrong. This is pretty obvious, because nobody's mad about the small private actors doing the same kind of thing. 99.9999% of the companies or private groups ar…

>But the right solution is still alternatives, not the government micromanaging and second guessing every single decision they make.

Agreed! Perhaps a publicly funded (not advertising funded) digital public square which protects lawful speech could be a potential solution?

>The difference is that slavery is inherently wrong, whereas deciding on your own internal membership policies for some club, or internet forum, or what have you, is not inherently wrong.

What is and is not "inherently wrong" is subjective and always changing.

Anyone who pretends that they do not believe in things which will be considered "inherently wrong" 10, 50, or 100 years from now has a god complex and is deeply ignorant of human psychology and history.

Re: Facebook freezes Venezuela president Maduro's page over Covid-19

#255

Post by shpongled » Sun, Mar 28, 2021, 4:41 PM UTC

Izkata wrote: post #237

shpongled wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is one case where the XKCD strip is clearly wrong. How so? > Is the Brazilian Journal of Microbiology not trusted or something? Well it's not Nature, that's for sure

The premise of the XKCD strip is that whatever was being tested isn't necessarily safe for humans. This however we already know is safe for humans because it's available in over-the-counter supplements, and the herb it comes from is used in cooking.

What? That is not the premise of the XKCD strip at all. Not even close.

"When you see a claim that a common drug or vitamin 'kills cancer cells in a petri dish', keep in mind, so does a handgun"

Re: Facebook freezes Venezuela president Maduro's page over Covid-19

#256

Post by chillacy » Sun, Mar 28, 2021, 5:15 PM UTC

chmod600 wrote: post #191

Can we just all agree that censorship is bad? All this "nuance" about censorship vs deplatforming, or worries about misinformation, just sound like rationalizing something we know is wrong. This power is always abused. It's always just another way to say "sure, I believe in democracy, so long as I get to 'educate' you and prevent you from hearing anything that might change your mind about who to vote for". Religion i…

You say “we” but there’s slim chance that everyone reading this even on HN would agree with this value (and I say value because “censorship is wrong” is a normative assumption).

Re: Facebook freezes Venezuela president Maduro's page over Covid-19

#257

Post by chillacy » Sun, Mar 28, 2021, 5:17 PM UTC

mullingitover wrote: post #239

ativzzz wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US hasn't been a neutral third party in any worldwide matter since WW1. The U.S's foreign policy is aggressively selfish (which is good for US citizens)

Every state is selfish, it's one of the fundamental principles of foreign relations. Even when states are altruistic (e.g. the US Centers for Disease Control doing epidemic surveillance and distributing Ebola vaccines in Africa, or sending foreign aid to poverty-stricken countries) ultimately it's for self-serving reasons. The global system is essentially anarchism.

This is sadly under appreciated. Realpolitik is as essential to understanding geopolitics as supply and demand is to understanding microeconomics.

Re: Facebook freezes Venezuela president Maduro's page over Covid-19

#258

Post by alacombe » Sun, Mar 28, 2021, 6:31 PM UTC

sofixa wrote: post #238

alacombe wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Good, let's try to convince anti-vaxxers, Q people, Covid-deniers and what not of that, it will surely work! You don't seem to understand. Don't tell them on Day 1 that mask are useless, and on Day 2 that mask are mandatory under threat of jail. Tell them on Day 1 that you fucked up and destroyed mask supplies a few years before and that you're not prepared anymore. Though, that will never happen as these people wa…

Or maybe our knowledge of the situation and the unknown virus was evolving? And the rate of asymptomatic cases, and the fact that they still spread the virus wasn't initially known/certain? Why the binary approach?

> Why the binary approach?

It has nothing to do with a binary approach. The anti-masks arguments were very much a red-herring argument really being all about on anti-hoarding and anti-panic arguments from unprepared institutions (despite hoarding taxpayers dollars for years). A couple of month earlier, just mentioning the damn thing was enough to get you banned from social media. I was even arguing about the difference between test positivity rate and actual cases (including asymptomatic ones) early on, especially wrt. seasonal flu numbers, being treated like a complete fool (and still am).

The amount of layers upon layers upon layers of ass covering about all this has been staggering.

Re: Facebook freezes Venezuela president Maduro's page over Covid-19

#259

Post by jjnoakes » Sun, Mar 28, 2021, 11:19 PM UTC

macspoofing wrote: post #252

jjnoakes wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know how to speak on behalf of "people" in general but I know that I personally am in favor of some solution that weeds out misinformation while still giving all political parties voices. If you want to talk policy, values, goals, and agenda, go for it. If you want to talk hate or amplify things known to be factually untrue, you should be fact checked loudly and clearly, and if that doesn't change what you ar…

>I know that I personally am in favor of some solution that weeds out misinformation while still giving all political parties voices. The way this will manifest itself is through a left-wing 20-something low-pay intern who will be tasked to decide whether something is or isn't true. Or put another way, you're delegating what you should or shouldn't see to that intern. Are you OK with that? Because I'm not. I neither…

There are way too many strawmen here to rebut, but I'll take on a couple.

> The way this will manifest itself is through a left-wing 20-something low-pay intern who will be tasked to decide whether something is or isn't true.

I mentioned above that I don't know if this ideal can be met, but I still think it is ideal to me. I do believe there are other ways beyond your suggestion (was it as serious one? You couldn't think of any other ways?)

> How about when Democratic politicians and Democratic base claim that Republicans steal elections due to voter suppression, voter id, and gerrymandering - is that grounds for a ban?

Be careful... I never called for banning sides or people, only statements. And yes, saying things that are proven untrue should not be allowed by anyone in government or politics or public positions. (It isn't relevant but I'm not a Democrat, fyi).