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This discussion has been archived.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: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 14 2019, @02:58PM (21 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 14 2019, @02:58PM (#814232)

    It isn't anti-science to educate people about the fact that some vaccines are still manufactured using cell lines that were created from aborted babies. (the abortions happened half a century ago, and the cells are still kept alive today)

    That is 100% true. It is anti-science to hide this fact.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   -1  
       Troll=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Troll' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   -1  
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by DannyB on Thursday March 14 2019, @03:32PM (17 children)

    by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Thursday March 14 2019, @03:32PM (#814254) Journal

    It is not anti-science to hide that fact, if your reason for doing so is simply to point out that fact.

    It is anti-science if pointing that out is for the purpose of casting doubt on the effectiveness of vaccines.

    If you're not pointing it out to cast doubt on the effectiveness of vaccines, then why bother to point it out at all?

    Off topic . . . maybe it is about aborted babies? I wish there would not be any abortions at all ever. But making them illegal won't stop them. They have always been done. And will continue to be done even if no longer legal or medically safe. I may not like it. You may not like it. I have the compassion to think that if someone is going to make that difficult choice, they shouldn't have to put their life at risk, or at more risk. And as for the 'liberal birth abortions', I think that if someone waits until delivery day to have an abortion, then it is probably a bona fide medical emergency. Someone using an abortion as a form of birth control (which I think should not be done) is not going to wait nine months and then suddenly decide to have an abortion at the last minute. Do people realize the absurdity of that? How difficult it is to carry that child all that time if they really don't want it?

    --
    People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
    • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday March 14 2019, @03:33PM

      by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Thursday March 14 2019, @03:33PM (#814255) Journal

      > It is not anti-science to hide that fact, if your reason for doing so is simply to point out that fact.

      I really screwed that sentence up.

      --
      People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
    • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday March 14 2019, @05:52PM (2 children)

      by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Thursday March 14 2019, @05:52PM (#814341) Homepage Journal

      Oh Danny Boy [youtube.com], given your name (assuming it's not short for Danielle or similar) I'd say that it's really not any of your business what a woman chooses to do with her body.

      It's not a public policy issue. It's not a public health issue. It's a personal and very private decision to be made by individuals with a functioning uterus. If you don't have one, it's not really anything with which you need to concern yourself.

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
      • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday March 14 2019, @08:07PM (1 child)

        by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Thursday March 14 2019, @08:07PM (#814417) Journal

        There are plenty of other men (hint R's) who are FAR more concerned with what women do with their bodies than I am.

        --
        People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Thursday March 14 2019, @08:13PM

          by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Thursday March 14 2019, @08:13PM (#814423) Homepage Journal

          There are plenty of other men (hint R's) who are FAR more concerned with what women do with their bodies than I am.

          Heinlein (as usual) has an appropriate response for that:

          The correct way to punctuate a sentence that states: "Of course it is none of my business, but -- " is to place a period after the word "but." Don't use excessive force in supplying such a moron with a period. Cutting his throat is only a momentary pleasure and is bound to get you talked about

          --
          No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 14 2019, @06:07PM (12 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 14 2019, @06:07PM (#814349)

      The purpose is to cast doubt on the morality of vaccines. By using them, you profit from the killing of an unborn human being.

      Well, sort of killing... they are kind of immortal now, being a cell line, but that doesn't count or is possibly worse. A living human has sort of been turned into a factory device or microorganism.

      Is the above information to be blocked now? It is not anti-science. It reveals science.

      BTW, there is no medical condition that requires a late-term abortion. There are rare conditions that require a premature birth.

      • (Score: 2) by MostCynical on Thursday March 14 2019, @07:22PM (8 children)

        by MostCynical (2589) on Thursday March 14 2019, @07:22PM (#814390) Journal

        If the mother-to-be is unable to care for herself or the child, either by accident or illness, and an appropriately qualified doctor says that the safety or wellbeing of the mother-to-be is in jeopardy because of the child.. then there is a medical condition requiring late-term abortion.

        If there is one, there will be many, but one is enough.

        Also, it isn't, and shouldn't be, your decision. It is only the prospective mother's issue, and society should stay out of the way. As it is going to happen anyway, society needs to ensure it haappens as safely as possible, which doesn't include imposing judgement, but does include access to support and doctors.

        --
        "I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
        • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 14 2019, @08:08PM (4 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 14 2019, @08:08PM (#814418)

          And because people cannot stick to medically valid reason but use it as a wedge for infanticide at will, those few mothers will have to die. It is much rarer occurrence than occurrence of "I'm a selfish cunt who doesn't want the responsibility."

          • (Score: 4, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Thursday March 14 2019, @08:15PM (2 children)

            by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Thursday March 14 2019, @08:15PM (#814424) Homepage Journal

            Do you have a functioning uterus? No?

            Then shut the fuck up.

            --
            No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 15 2019, @06:48AM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 15 2019, @06:48AM (#814684)

              You're telling me to shut up about a murder just because I'm not present at the scene of the crime.

              Pointing this stuff out seems to annoy you, probably because you are a sick fuck and you know it. Killing children for convenience is pure evil.

              I think there is only one taboo left. You might as well add some teriyaki sauce and get a fork.

              • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday March 15 2019, @09:50AM

                You're telling me to shut up about a murder just because I'm not present at the scene of the crime.

                Pointing this stuff out seems to annoy you, probably because you are a sick fuck and you know it. Killing children for convenience is pure evil.

                I think there is only one taboo left. You might as well add some teriyaki sauce and get a fork.

                You do not control the bodies of others. Don't like that you're not allowed to abridge the rights of others in the US? Too fucking bad.

                If it bothers you that much, why don't you move to Gabon, Senegal, Iraq, Angola or some other shithole where people are just as dismissive of the rights of others as you are.

                Let's put a really fine point on it. Don't like pregnancy terminations? Don't have one. That's your choice. BUT YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO DECIDE WHAT OTHERS DO WITH THEIR OWN BODIES. Full stop.

                You decide what you do with *your own* body. You have no say in others do with theirs.

                Don't like abortions? Think they are wrong/evil? Don't have one.

                If you think there's a crime in progress, call 911 to report it. Then the cops can laugh at your stupid ass too.

                --
                No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
          • (Score: 3, Informative) by MostCynical on Thursday March 14 2019, @09:50PM

            by MostCynical (2589) on Thursday March 14 2019, @09:50PM (#814504) Journal

            Zygote =/= infant
            Blastocyst =/= infant
            Foetus =/= infant

            infant

            Stop conflating.

            --
            "I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
        • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 14 2019, @08:35PM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 14 2019, @08:35PM (#814439)

          If the safety or wellbeing of the mother-to-be is in jeopardy because of the child.. then there is a medical condition requiring... BIRTH.

          We induce labor or perform a Cesarean section, delivering a cute little baby. If the mother just hates her child, she can give it away.

          Also, it isn't, and shouldn't be, your decision. It is only the child's issue, and society should stay out of the way. That includes access to support and doctors.

          Society needs to ensure removal happens as safely as possible, which doesn't include deadly actions like ripping arms and legs off or injecting poison.

          • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by NotSanguine on Thursday March 14 2019, @09:08PM (1 child)

            by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Thursday March 14 2019, @09:08PM (#814470) Homepage Journal

            Do you have a functioning uterus? No?

            Then shut the fuck up.

            --
            No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
            • (Score: 0, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 15 2019, @06:40AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 15 2019, @06:40AM (#814683)

              Are you still in a uterus? No?

              Then shut the fuck up.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 14 2019, @08:15PM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 14 2019, @08:15PM (#814425)

        BTW, there is no medical condition that requires a late-term abortion.

        Actually, yes, there are. One case I am familiar with is if the baby has died in the uterus. It happens. I'm sure there are other medically necessary reasons for requiring a late-term abortion. In future, please educate yourself before making such emphatic--and patently wrong--assertions.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 14 2019, @08:37PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 14 2019, @08:37PM (#814441)

          If the baby has died in the uterus, an abortion is impossible. The only option left is a stillbirth. Assuming the child wasn't deliberately killed, a stillbirth is not an abortion.

          • (Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Tuesday March 19 2019, @06:47PM

            by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Tuesday March 19 2019, @06:47PM (#817092) Journal

            Medically an abortion is a loss of pregnancy before viability and the expulsion of the birth products. It does not matter to the definition why the pregnancy aborted (spontaneous or induced).
            I can find you any number of medical sources that assert this if you are unconvinced. Or you can just look at Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]. And the Wikipedia section about "confusion" has more to do with how lay and legal definitions are frequently used which are at odds with the medical definition and so medical practioners become confused when defintions other than the medical standard enter conversation or law. I know of no provider who does not recognize the above definition.

            --
            This sig for rent.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 14 2019, @03:48PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 14 2019, @03:48PM (#814262)

    Science isn't concerned with facts in the layman's sense. To a scientist, a "fact" is just something that there is expert consensus regarding.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 14 2019, @05:29PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 14 2019, @05:29PM (#814326)

      I.e. did that paper get in or not.

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 14 2019, @07:31PM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday March 14 2019, @07:31PM (#814393) Journal

      To a scientist, a "fact" is just something that there is expert consensus regarding.

      My expert consensus [*] is that your shit receptacle is 100% full. That makes it a fact!

      [*] While I can understand the reader's concern about this consensus of one SN poster, remember I'm an expert in this area and you're not. Thus, one's opinion doesn't have scientific relevance. Unless it happens to agree with my opinion, of course.

      TL;DR: layman facts are scientist facts. There's no special category of subjective consensus making that changes that.

      Here, the facts are not just that there is some dependence on human cell lines, but also that the diseases being vaccinated against cause a lot more harm than the scenario of harvesting cells from a few aborted fetuses would. Why should we be willing to committed a greater evil to avoid a lesser one?