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.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 14 2019, @06:07PM (12 children)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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
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.