Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by chromas on Thursday March 14 2019, @01:20PM   Printer-friendly
from the threw-the-facebook-out-with-the-vax-water dept.

Facebook cracks down on vaccine misinformation

In a blog post, the Menlo Park, Calif. company said it will reject any ads containing misinformation about vaccines, remove any targeted advertising options like 'vaccine controversies,' and will no longer show or recommend content containing this type of misinformation on Instagram Explore or hashtag pages."

Submitted via IRC for FatPhil

Combatting Vaccine Misinformation

We are working to tackle vaccine misinformation on Facebook by reducing its distribution and providing people with authoritative information on the topic.

[...] Leading global health organizations, such as the World Health Organization and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, have publicly identified verifiable vaccine hoaxes. If these vaccine hoaxes appear on Facebook, we will take action against them.

For example, if a group or Page admin posts this vaccine misinformation, we will exclude the entire group or Page from recommendations, reduce these groups and Pages’ distribution in News Feed and Search, and reject ads with this misinformation.

We also believe in providing people with additional context so they can decide whether to read, share, or engage in conversations about information they see on Facebook. We are exploring ways to give people more accurate information from expert organizations about vaccines at the top of results for related searches, on Pages discussing the topic, and on invitations to join groups about the topic. We will have an update on this soon.

We are fully committed to the safety of our community and will continue to expand on this work.


Original Submission 0; Original Submission 1

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday March 14 2019, @02:07PM (12 children)

    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday March 14 2019, @02:07PM (#814200) Homepage Journal

    You get that it's mostly anti-corporate-sentiment-having folks who push the anti-vax movement, yes? Those generally don't vote R all that much.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday March 14 2019, @02:18PM (4 children)

    by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Thursday March 14 2019, @02:18PM (#814208) Journal

    A quick google gave me this [precisionvaccinations.com].

    That ‘who-to-blame’ question has been endlessly debated by both political sides, generally without quality third-party evidence.

    Several very reputable organizations have published answers to this divisive, vaccine bias debate.

    In 2015, the Pew Research Center conducted a survey of 2 thousand adults which concluded about 12 percent of liberals and 10 percent of conservatives believed that childhood vaccines are unsafe.

    I had been inclined to believe that anti vaxxers would predominately be R's.

    I think what might be at work with the bias I had is that Rs are the ones seen as anti-science.
    * Climate Change
    * Evolution
    * Teach the Controversy (not the facts, all you need is one differing view to manufacture controversy)
    * Kids cannot know how their bodies work, what causes pregnancy, and effective ways to prevent it

    So it becomes easy for someone, such as myself, to naturally associate anti vaxxers with R's.

    --
    To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 14 2019, @02:27PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 14 2019, @02:27PM (#814213)

      In 2015, the Pew Research Center conducted a survey of 2 thousand adults which concluded about 12 percent of liberals and 10 percent of conservatives believed that childhood vaccines are unsafe.

      I'm guessing that 12% vs. 10% isn't statistically significant in this case.

      It just shows that stupid knows no boundaries.

      It's depressing to think about. Especially on pi day [wikipedia.org]. Sigh.

    • (Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 14 2019, @02:54PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 14 2019, @02:54PM (#814230)

      You skipped over this anti-science nonsense:

      * Gender being a social construct
      * Nothing mental being an innate inheritable trait

      Also, the bit about climate change is more complicated. Did it happen, will it happen, are humans a significant cause, can we do a damn thing about it, should we do a damn thing about it, is it even bad? Then add in the need to PRETEND it doesn't exist because the proposed solution is an all-encompassing government-controlled planned economy, more or less communism, either allowing other countries to cheat and get ahead of us or forcing us to go to war with them. If your solution sucks ass and the only way to stop it is to deny the problem, well that is obviously what we will do.

      Another observation is that college majors with the least science are completely dominated by leftists. Compare engineering with grievance studies.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 14 2019, @06:10PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 14 2019, @06:10PM (#814353)

      Where do you find more conservatives, in art school or engineering school? Who thus seems to like science and be better at it?

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 14 2019, @06:19PM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday March 14 2019, @06:19PM (#814356) Journal

      I think what might be at work with the bias I had is that Rs are the ones seen as anti-science.

      There's plenty of anti-science bias out there among all parties. Economics is particularly notorious for it.

      For example, there's a famous example from the early days of Obama's administration where a couple of pet economists projected that a stimulus bill was necessary to mitigate massive unemployment a huge recession (Projection [nytimes.com] versus reality [google.com], see page 41).

      The actual unemployment that happened on the heels of the successful stimulus bill was worse than the projected outcome of no stimulus. Their excuse? The recession was worse than we knew. My take is that the stimulus plan was worse than they presented.

      Now, I'm sure I'm going to hear from people that economics isn't science. Because somehow, when you introduce people, then the scientific method breaks. Or something. But in the above example, a falsifiable prediction was made, and well, it got falsified. Falsifiability is one of the key requirements for any predictions made from scientific theories.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 14 2019, @02:21PM (6 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 14 2019, @02:21PM (#814210)

    I figured that Blaming George Soros *and* claiming he's literally Hitler would be a positive.

    Dale Carnegie has failed me again. Sigh!

    • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday March 14 2019, @03:24PM (3 children)

      by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Thursday March 14 2019, @03:24PM (#814250) Journal

      Oh, I thought he had put the word *literally* Hitler in asterisks to point out the absurdity of using the word literal.

      Maybe X is *figuratively* Hitler. But not literally Hitler unless Hitler has been resurrected / reincarnated or something into the form of the person X.

      --
      To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 14 2019, @04:08PM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 14 2019, @04:08PM (#814274)

        Oh, I thought he had put the word *literally* Hitler in asterisks to point out the absurdity of using the word literal.

        Maybe X is *figuratively* Hitler. But not literally Hitler unless Hitler has been resurrected / reincarnated or something into the form of the person X.

        Original AC here. I should have said:

        Soros is *literally* a Hitler. He's the love child of evil Adolph and a tasty little Hungarian jew girl who was passed around Nazi high command before being shipped off to the death camps.

        My apologies for the confusion.

        • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 14 2019, @06:57PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 14 2019, @06:57PM (#814375)

          Thanks for the clarification. You are still a dumbass, though.

          • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 14 2019, @09:06PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 14 2019, @09:06PM (#814467)

            Thanks for the clarification. You are still a dumbass, though.

            Thanks! That may the nicest thing anyone's said to me all day. *purrs*

    • (Score: 2) by captain normal on Thursday March 14 2019, @04:03PM (1 child)

      by captain normal (2205) on Thursday March 14 2019, @04:03PM (#814270)

      Here's a quick review of "How to win friends and influence people":
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Win_Friends_and_Influence_People [wikipedia.org]
      Especially look at "Twelve Ways to Win People to Your Way of Thinking" if you want to improve your moderation points.

      --
      When life isn't going right, go left.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 14 2019, @04:11PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 14 2019, @04:11PM (#814276)

        Here's a quick review of "How to win friends and influence people":
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Win_Friends_and_Influence_People [wikipedia.org] [wikipedia.org]
        Especially look at "Twelve Ways to Win People to Your Way of Thinking" if you want to improve your moderation points.

        Gosh. I tried hard to avoid Poe's Law [wikipedia.org], but I guess wasn't over the top enough. I'll do better next time. Kissy Kissy!