SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday March 22 2019, @03:45AM (10 children)
What you wrote about the SPLC has nothing to do with that stuff as well. That's the problem. The SLPC doesn't give useful information about such things.
I think you probably ought to rewrite that. And of course, you are not competent to make statements such as the last sentence by the same logic you are employing. Self-contradiction.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday March 22 2019, @10:56AM (9 children)
I think we're probably reasonably close to bedrock. You're not providing alternative data suggesting holocaust denial is declining, only questioning my source showing there's an increase or the potential of it. I'll stick with it rather than find another, and you can provide a counter-citation or counter-evidence if you want to question my conclusion and not just suggest that that SPLC is a "sham" as you have stated. I will acknowledge holocaust denial is a fringe position in any event. It is a fringe position not because racists would not like to believe in it, rather it is fringe because society has placed it there. Society has effectively made anyone who tries to argue the fact of whether it happened a marginalized position as it should be. My point. For any subunit of society where conversation takes place, the owner of that forum is free to completely eliminate that or any other topic of discussion. Again my point, and you have not argued that at all. Overall, it is fine and acceptable for any given society to establish its value parameters such that people who embrace blatant lies may be driven away from espousing those positions within the group, marginalizing the position, without state involvement and without physical punishment to the users thereof. Time will tell whether the anti-vaccine movement should be relegated to such status. It appears that enough people believe in anti-vaccine lies at the moment to not be there, although this move by Facebook is a positive development.
I won't rewrite what I wrote about those who use a term like "virtue signalling." It is not self-contradiction: I have laid out what my moral position is: Holocaust denial is wrong and those who espouse it should be shunned by modern society such that the topic is effectively banned from civil conversation. I expanded to that as an example of extreme topics which do not require any debate because they are falsehood to such extreme level that anyone who uses the term can be credibly accused of lying about what the facts are. You failed to indicate whether you recognize that my prime example fulfills that criteria. You have consistently failed to do lay out any kind of value position beyond a vague yet unstated notion that the freedom of a person to express whatever they will should be a sacrosanct thing and society should embrace all those positions. You have laid no foundation for why this value is preferable, but if that indeed represents your position I wish you well.
I have stated my values and have provided indicators that I actually live by them, although I'll be the first to admit that I'm not perfect at that yet. I am also professionally qualified to discuss and determine ethics, morals, virtues, and values, although I'm not going to provide you with the proof of that as I have no need to do so in this setting. I've done my best to not keep this personal although I slipped a bit, where I have already pointed out to you multiple occasions where you have stooped to personal insult to try and score debate points. You have not responded to those at all, so I assume you are comfortable with trying to place your moral judgment of others this way although again you have shown no values or virtues here which can justify them.
And for dessert I will assert that attempting to label someone as "SJW", another favorite term around here, is exactly the same thing: an insidious attempt to achieve virtue superiority by suggesting that the one the term is being used against is not personally committed to the principles being espoused. But that's a topic for another thread.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday March 22 2019, @12:42PM (8 children)
What is remarkable is that first, the SPLC data is for hate groups, not for Holocaust deniers, which presumably would be a subset niche. And second, the number of bogus groups mentioned in my quote is large enough that the number of hate groups could actually be declining! It's certainly the case that the SPLC has changed its methodology of determining what is a hate group. That alone can create the illusion of trends merely by triggering on more possible groups than the earlier methodology.
This is alternative data. It indicates, among other things, that the SPLC data doesn't actually show hate groups are on the rise.
No, it's a fringe position because there's a vast amount of evidence that the Holocaust occurred (eyewitnesses, massive Nazi documentation, etc).
This is the thing that puzzles me the whole time. Critical thinking is its own reward. Yet you would rather depend on a shifty and notoriously unreliable mechanism of societal shunning instead. Indeed, consider your hypothesis derived from the SPLC data. Suppose we really are seeing a huge exponential growth in hate groups? There's two obvious issues. First, societal shunning isn't stopping it.
Second, what happens if that exponential growth continues to the point that hate is the new majority? Well, the double edged sword of societal shunning cuts you instead. Denial of Holocaust denial is the new obvious lie.
No, it's not fine. Because society doesn't know what a lie is. Mobs are dumb, remember?
This very thread demonstrates a couple of flaws of the approach. Why haven't you been slightly marginalized for your use of leading questions?
Ad hominems?
And of course, the first quote at the top of my post is an example of confirmation bias. Earlier, I was willing to grant that you were trying out some sort of devil's advocate argument. But here, I repeatedly see indications that you aren't reasoning well, disregarding information and logic that could help you come to better conclusions. You can continue to ignore my "opinions". Or you can live a better life.
My view on the whole thing is that Holocaust denial and such is way overblown, as is the societal reaction to it. There is so much of society that just doesn't matter to what one's political beliefs are. I don't care what the paramedic believes on political or historical matters when they've giving me life-saving treatment. Societal shunning could harm us in ways we don't see by excluding people from critical jobs and tasks that they can do well despite their belief disability.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday March 22 2019, @04:44PM (7 children)
You might have missed where "holocaust denial" is a category that can be selected on that map, not sure. And yes, it is certainly possible that the data is faulty or doesn't show the conclusion that I intend. It's only indicative of something I've been observing in general, anyway. But what you're forwarding is criticism of the data I presented, not establishing your own sources refuting what I have claimed. Your right, since I'm the one making the claim. But you haven't refuted what I've said by introducing your own facts as much as criticizing the source of mine, in a method that dismisses the organization outright. But I've already said more than enough.
The evidence for it, though, may be dismissed with the flick of the wrist. It's rather concerning since the oldest Jewish survivors of the camps are now 75 or older. All those overwhileming proofs are dismissable by individuals. Society does keep such belief on the margins where discussion of the topic seriously (as in lack of existence of it) does not occur.
I didn't say I'm not willing to allow critical thinking, merely that we have many better things to use it on in life than wasting it on positions which do not require it. And that a given body of people might find methods to keep such beliefs there.
Extermination of such beliefs isn't the end goal, either, for you are right that should a different group take power one might find oneself on that same fringe.
Then next time the denial of the denial of the denial shall come to pass. Eventually we will find that it's denial all the way down. Or one could take the view that the truth has a surprising way of becoming known over time, and the examples that DannyB chose above (mostly) involve falsehoods of magnitudes which society has already judged as fringe-worthy.
Society =/= mob, although I'll acknowledge that it does reach a mediocrity and is not welcoming of ideas which challenge the status quo. Another error here is we haven't defined "society" because it too is gelatinously definable. But yes you have a point.
I don't know, why haven't I been marginalized for slighting you, and why you haven't for slighting me? A working hypothesis might be that we're the only ones who care about this at this point. A secondary is that the rules of Soylent might be different from those that could be applied to "the mob" as you put it. (What is "mod as troll/disagree/offtopic/spamming/more?" but allowing the community to set those parameters, while simultaneously allowing AC posting? I'd say that this is a very effective way for the Soylent society to banish beliefs to the fringes of -1 land. Without eliminating them in virtually all cases.)
A third might be because I can and did readily recognize the point made way back in the anon poster (was that you?) about an infinite series of .9's being the equivalent of 1 has mathematical validity. Yet it doesn't change the truth that objects which are only available as integers makes 1+1=2 still valid in the real world, as well as such sophistries missing the real point I was making. (Why anyone hasn't questioned that 1.5 + .5 also equals 2 is what's beyond me although that's hard for someone who believes only in Integers to understand). But I have digressed a bit. If you don't want to be placed into those categories, this is fine. "I'm not a holocaust denier nor someone who places antivax ads on Facebook, and you've missed the point Lawn," and you have an apology. Actually you have an apology without that because you've also proven yourself too intelligent on too many occasions to buy those things as I portrayed them. But there does come times and places (not in a long running thread on an internet forum that nobody is paying attention to) when one must declare what one's beliefs are and draw lines in the sand as to what is acceptable in life.
Well spoken, though I have to object to just a couple of things. First, I'll heartily acknowledge that logic and reason are very useful tools. But I also believe, apologies to Nimoy at the same time they're the beginning or wisdom, not the end. Society does not always have to be logical or reasonable to reach beneficial ends.
The last element is I think you're trying to peg me as a paramedic? (I'm flattered that you'd believe such if so, although that isn't my profession at this time nor the source of my professional competency in morals and ethics.) Or you are? (Which would be cool.) I'd agree that it doesn't matter to a lifesaver what beliefs a person has on either end of such an experience. Are we talking shunning of an individual, or shunning of an idea? Above you asked me if I had no shame. Was that not an attempt to question my morals -to indicate that I'm going beyond the bounds of civil conversation? I'm not trying to call you out here - only to recognize that individuals and communities do have limits. Those limits do not have to be restricted by logic in order to be acceptable. So, can repugnant ideas be repudiated and the beliefs in them shunned while not damaging the integrity of the person so expressing such nastiness..... Give me a century or two unless you have an idea about that.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday March 23 2019, @01:51AM (6 children)
Not feeling the need to care. It's still the SPLC with the imaginary groups.
And? These aren't the people I want policing my meme space for obvious lies.
You should have started with that rather than go with some broken society-level mechanism. As I noted, critical thinking works better than hoping people stay rational enough that your opinions don't become thoughtcrimes.
Because it wouldn't be relevant to any point anyone was making. That's why.
Hope you actually thought about it when you draw that line.
I guess my point was that shunning ideas routinely slides into shunning the people holding those ideas for a variety of unrelated human activities. For example, SN covered several cases where this happened. Two are particularly ridiculous. Brendan Eich was fired [soylentnews.org] from Mozilla within a couple of weeks of being made CEO because he had donated to a political campaign against same sex marriage - despite this firing being illegal discrimination in the state of California where Mozilla is incorporated.
Second, Larry "Crell" Garfield was expelled [soylentnews.org] from the "Drupal Community" for practicing Gorean and BDSM beliefs (the former comes from a fantasy series of pulp fiction books). No actual reason for concern was ever given. It was a bunch of babble about his off duty behaviors, none which were shown to be relevant to his work or interactions with other developers.
The point here is that we see numerous times what happens when people can shun for your supposedly good reasons. They shun for all sorts of spurious reasons instead and this boils over on a regular basis to areas where the shunning has no business being.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Saturday March 23 2019, @03:52AM (5 children)
And I apparently agree with you if you understood me. I do not want holocaust deniers (who blithely suggest that those Jews are just liars) to have an equal voice on saying what truth is. "It" in my sentence was the existence of the holocaust and it was deniers I was speaking of who will overturn all the evidence you want to present to them with a flick of the wrist. If that makes no difference to you, very well. But if you do truly believe the mob cannot think, then why do you believe that the mob will respect critical thinking in acknowledging a preponderance of evidence when it comes time to decide whether we landed on the moon (to change my metaphor, but it applies either to either circumstance)?
For the following items: holocaust denial, flat earth, moon landing hoax? Not likely. There are certainly others one can add that do not take much thought, but we handle most of those as criminal matters (and ought to, for whatever values you would define 'crime' to truly be) and I've already hyperbolized enough. And surely there are much much tougher ones where the lines aren't clear at all.
I'm not really sure the examples you cited are ringing endorsements for your position. Eich's case becomes a lot more tenuous if you are a gay Mozilla employee. And his departure was certainly not over that alone. Garfield's is a whole lot murkier, yes. He wasn't a CxO. But on the other hand, he wasn't shunned by a society as a whole. He was fired by an individual for reasons that Buytaert says are not public, despite Garfield's self-outing. If Garfield is to be believed, he is a victim of doxxing, and if Buytaert is to be believed there's more under the surface than what has been revealed to date.
I'd like to get past that, though, because I do believe I understand your point or at least part of it. And because I sought your opinion out, I want to affirm that allowing a society to set anything is indeed a risky thing to do. Nevertheless communities and societies do indeed set expectations. Are they good? What is a good reason might be up for debate, but neither of your examples match the "good" criteria I was proposing at all as far as I can see. ("My" good reasons as you put it.) At least, I see no case where either "shunned" individual you listed was purporting beliefs that are objectively demonstrable as false, unless you can clarify where they were or where such beliefs are incorrectly false.) It's a core ethical question: What is a "good" and how does one prioritize "good" over "less good." Maybe the better question is what "good" do you think I'm aiming for? And I'll think about that too as I do have it but can't phrase it succinctly yet.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday March 23 2019, @04:43AM (4 children)
Instead, you're proposing a mechanism by which they can have a more than equal voice. They just need enough to dominate. I don't think Holocaust deniers will. But there's plenty of bad ideas where those came from.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Saturday March 23 2019, @05:42AM (3 children)
I'm proposing a mechanism by which if they can dominate they may have earned the right to control, yes. Because that seems like reality to me. Which is why I'm damned sure that in this instance they should never earn that ability, unlikely as that may be. And surely there are plenty of bad ideas, and the vast majority of them are not clear cut - I think that we agree on. For me, that's why I'm not saying throw critical thinking or logic out the window (far from it) and trust all to the might of the majority every time. It reminds me just a tad of the Heinlein bit about democracy and autocracy. Neither make a lot of sense on their own. But one thing that does seem clear is that societies do exist and it will exert themselves. However society exerts itself there are groups which should not or must not gain control. And it would surprise me if most of us don't have some list of who those groups are. I don't think I believe any single method will or should direct that process. Not logic. Not emotion. Not unlimited freedom nor absolute autocracy. Not that either you or I can control that.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday March 23 2019, @01:25PM (2 children)
Or even if they haven't earned the right, but just took over the mechanism.
Perception != reality.
If such a tendency existed in the first place, we wouldn't have had things like the Nazi takeover of Germany.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Monday March 25 2019, @03:01PM
Which might be prima facie evidence that they have earned the right, in the sense of survival of the fittest - if they gain a majority they have the control.
Perception ∧ reality for most values of both.
Or the Nazi takeover of Germany and the memory of the holocaust is what feeds the desire to ensure that they cannot earn the ability again. And what makes such mechanisms sadly necessary, dangerous as they are.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Monday March 25 2019, @03:16PM
On the other other hand, I may be wrong. [soylentnews.org]
This sig for rent.