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This discussion has been archived.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, @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.