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This discussion has been archived.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: 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?