Combating Misinformation • Hacker News Board

Re: Combating Misinformation

#41

Post by SpicyLemonZest » Thu, Mar 25, 2021, 6:33 PM UTC

fractionalhare wrote: post #31

theNJR wrote: post #4

>For claims that don’t directly result in physical harm, like conspiracy theories about the origin of the virus, we continue to work with our network of over 55 fact-checking partners covering over 45 languages to debunk these claims... Once a post is rated false by a fact-checker, we reduce its distribution so fewer people see it, and we show strong warning labels and notifications to people who still come across it…

A principled commitment to fact-checking is more important than whether or not any particular fact-check is ultimately correct. Mistakes happen. If the effort results in more good calls than bad calls, it is a good initiative overall. What would you have Facebook do, fact check using Twitter because the CDC made this one bad call? Do you think the modal CDC consensus is worse than that of Twitter?

I would have them not make a blanket commitment to fact-checking, because I don't agree with the perspective that it's a good initiative if it makes mostly good calls. A "fake news suppressor" that's allowed to make any significant number of bad calls will inevitably be abused by bad actors who have specific topics they'd prefer people not to discuss.

Re: Combating Misinformation

#42

Post by goalieca » Thu, Mar 25, 2021, 6:40 PM UTC

theNJR wrote: post #4

>For claims that don’t directly result in physical harm, like conspiracy theories about the origin of the virus, we continue to work with our network of over 55 fact-checking partners covering over 45 languages to debunk these claims... Once a post is rated false by a fact-checker, we reduce its distribution so fewer people see it, and we show strong warning labels and notifications to people who still come across it…

The mask test is an interesting one. Please don’t fry me for this, but the WHO has a report on mask usage from December that notes some inconclusiveness in community settings. It can be very hard to prove something with a rather small effect compared to real-world complexity. This is in contrast to vaccines that have a rather strong signal.

Please read the whole section because I cherry picked just one paragraph without full context. I just wanted to demonstrate that nothing is actually all that obvious when it comes to the pandemic.

> Evidence on the protective effect of mask use in community settings

> At present there is only limited and inconsistent scientific evidence to support the effectiveness of masking of healthy people in the community to prevent infection with respiratory viruses, including SARS-CoV-2 (75). A large randomized community-based trial in which 4862 healthy participants were divided into a group wearing medical/surgical masks and a control group found no difference in infection with SARS-CoV-2 (76). A recent systematic review found nine trials (of which eight were cluster-randomized controlled trials in which clusters of people, versus individuals, were randomized) comparing medical/surgical masks versus no masks to prevent the spread of viral respiratory illness. Two trials were with healthcare workers and seven in the community. The review concluded that wearing a mask may make little or no difference to the prevention of influenza-like illness (ILI) (RR 0.99, 95%CI 0.82 to 1.18) or laboratory confirmed illness (LCI) (RR 0.91, 95%CI 0.66-1.26) (44); the certainty of the evidence was low for ILI, moderate for LCI.

https://apps.who.int/iris/rest/bitstreams/1319378/retrieve

Re: Combating Misinformation

#43

Post by reubenswartz » Thu, Mar 25, 2021, 6:42 PM UTC

CarelessExpert wrote: post #21

reubenswartz wrote: post #14

Stepping away from the specifics of Facebook's history, does anyone have solid ideas for how globe-spanning communities should function? It seems next to impossible to both allow individuals to share things and make sure that you only see "true" things in that community. And it seems that given the numbers involved, there will always be some amount of "accidental" misinformation that has a real impact, and deliberate…

> does anyone have solid ideas for how globe-spanning communities should function? Your mistake is thinking the problem is in the communities, as opposed to the technology platforms themselves. Personally, as a starting point I'd want them to: 1. Kill algorithmic curation that is based on "engagement". These digital skinner boxes are a cancer on society. 2. Introduce much stronger privacy laws that discourage or prev…

1. I agree, but they are also the business model. If one platform doesn't use them, another that does will come to predominate.

2. This has some merit and would be a great start (we can dream, right?), but I don't think it would solve misinformation.

3. That sounds nice, but how would it work in practice. What if moderators get death threats from bad actors?

Re: Combating Misinformation

#44

Post by reubenswartz » Thu, Mar 25, 2021, 6:45 PM UTC

simmanian wrote: post #29

reubenswartz wrote: post #14

Stepping away from the specifics of Facebook's history, does anyone have solid ideas for how globe-spanning communities should function? It seems next to impossible to both allow individuals to share things and make sure that you only see "true" things in that community. And it seems that given the numbers involved, there will always be some amount of "accidental" misinformation that has a real impact, and deliberate…

To answer your question, you must begin with the metaphysics i.e. our worldview. Our civilization currently operates under the assumption that there exists one truth and everyone must adhere to that truth. It worked out fine when we were in small towns, but now that literally billions of people are connected, we're realizing that not everyone can be in sync. To cut the long story short, there are many people who beli…

I don't know if we currently operate under the assumption of a single truth.

There's also a big difference between different perspectives and things that are blatantly wrong.

Decentralization is interesting, but 20 years ago, there were many small "social networks", even if they didn't go by that name. FB and it's portfolio are the first ones to create 1B+ member "communities". There are very strong economic incentives for smaller communities to grow into larger communities (FB illustrates the possibilities and perils of focusing on growth).

Re: Combating Misinformation

#45

Post by readflaggedcomm » Thu, Mar 25, 2021, 6:46 PM UTC

fractionalhare wrote: post #23

goalieca wrote: post #19

Who decides the truth? I don’t want to muddy the waters too much but i am concerned with current trend to appeal to science as an authority of truth to justify whatever public policy is in play. Scientific publishing can be a chaotic process where a healthy skepticism should be maintained. The truth is never easy to ascertain. In fact, one of the highest cited papers from an epidemiologist is titled « Why Most Publis…

Online discourse would be vastly improved if everyone meticulously cited peer reviewed papers and used no other substantiation. It still wouldn't be perfect, but at least there'd be a commitment to rigor. The current status quo is telling people they're wrong, citing nothing, and telling them they "just haven't done enough research."

Maybe it wouldn't improve because people mostly argue over differing values, not differing research.

Re: Combating Misinformation

#46

Post by CarelessExpert » Thu, Mar 25, 2021, 6:48 PM UTC

reubenswartz wrote: post #43

CarelessExpert wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> does anyone have solid ideas for how globe-spanning communities should function? Your mistake is thinking the problem is in the communities, as opposed to the technology platforms themselves. Personally, as a starting point I'd want them to: 1. Kill algorithmic curation that is based on "engagement". These digital skinner boxes are a cancer on society. 2. Introduce much stronger privacy laws that discourage or prev…

1. I agree, but they are also the business model. If one platform doesn't use them, another that does will come to predominate. 2. This has some merit and would be a great start (we can dream, right?), but I don't think it would solve misinformation. 3. That sounds nice, but how would it work in practice. What if moderators get death threats from bad actors?

1. That's one of the reasons we have governments: to regulate industry so capitalism doesn't run amok.

2. Nothing I listed would "solve" it. There is no one "solution".

3. We already have laws to deal with harassment.

Frankly, I feel like you're falling for the nirvana fallacy, here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy

Re: Combating Misinformation

#47

Post by readflaggedcomm » Thu, Mar 25, 2021, 6:50 PM UTC

quijoteuniv wrote: post #15

I lost my faith in Facebook moderation the day I reported a Coke ad as scam (water with color and sugar, is the greatest scam of the century) . After they review it, they did not consider it was a scam. I do not trust this guys anymore.

Was their ad fraudulent? Just because Coca-Cola doesn't share your values doesn't mean it's misinformation or a scam.

Re: Combating Misinformation

#48

Post by minsc__and__boo » Thu, Mar 25, 2021, 6:50 PM UTC

cowabungabruce wrote: post #28

warkdarrior wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might as well ask to shut down the whole Internet. Even if Facebook disappears tomorrow, there are plenty of other social platforms to allow the spread of disinformation.

Gotta starve the beast somehow. Then worry about the other minnows.

There are plenty of other beasts, with different revenue streams and incentives, that are ready to fill the power/market vacuum.

Re: Combating Misinformation

#49

Post by reubenswartz » Thu, Mar 25, 2021, 6:52 PM UTC

kikokikokiko wrote: post #27

j4yav wrote: post #12

Whatever the solution is for misinformation, if there is one, I am quite certain that it will not be invented by Facebook.

The ONLY way to fight misinformation, intentional or not, is to allow a free exchange of ideas. The stupid ones, in the end would be shown as stupid and sink. But in todays world people seem to think that other people, "being the dumb ones", need to be protected from their stupidity, and "us being the sage ones" need to hide the dumb ideias from the dumb ones. Such arrogance.

I'm very wary of censoring ideas, but we do have laws around things like fraud and truth in advertising. Should we get rid of those?

Re: Combating Misinformation

#50

Post by clairity » Thu, Mar 25, 2021, 7:06 PM UTC

CarelessExpert wrote: post #18

theNJR wrote: post #4

>For claims that don’t directly result in physical harm, like conspiracy theories about the origin of the virus, we continue to work with our network of over 55 fact-checking partners covering over 45 languages to debunk these claims... Once a post is rated false by a fact-checker, we reduce its distribution so fewer people see it, and we show strong warning labels and notifications to people who still come across it…

> Does this pass the mask test? As we all remember, the WHO said to not wear masks early during the outbreak. Honestly, this strikes me as simply a loaded question bordering on a dog whistle. I can't count the number of times that folks have used early mask recommendations during the pandemic as a way to a) undermine the authority of health institutions, while simultaneously b) positing the idea that there is no obje…

yah, "mask test" as used here is most certainly a dog whistle for people who believe in masks religiously and righteously fight "anti-maskers". in reality both of these opposing factions have fallen for mediopolitical misinformation (i.e., propaganda), including from the CDC.

but the passing criteria for a more rigorous mask test would be wearing one around non-household friends and family in tight quarters for prolonged periods of contact, and not wearing them in places where they do no good above and beyond distancing or environmental circumstances (like being outside or in low density/circulation areas indoors). an overwhelming majority of people fail this test, mostly because it defies our social instincts/conditioning promoting trust and closeness among the in-group and distrusting and distancing the out-group, but also because many have also fallen victim to pervasive and oft-repeated propaganda via social (and other) media.