5 ms·
People should be allowed to be wrong. It's that simple. If you disagree with this you're not a very good person (fact).
by c72a7fd0 7y ago
People should be allowed to be wrong. It's that simple. If you disagree with this you're not a very good person (fact).
- bilekas 7y agoWell why fact check anything then ? If you're going to do it as a company, I don't know why you have two standards..
- pnako 7y agoThat's a good point. I think Facebook made a mistake by doing this. They should only vet ads for legality in the target jurisdiction (to some extent, false advertising is a crime, so they might need some minimum fact checking there). Generally I think those companies are making a huge mistake if they slightly deviate from absolute neutrality in the area of politics/geopolitics. Any deviation is seen as taking sides by both sides, and from that point onward everyone will basically judge those companies as taking part in partisan divides. Nothing to gain from that.
- delusional 7y agoDoing nothing is an action. Inaction is not what neutrality means. It is not neutral to let foreign powers interfere with elections (in any country, whether it be the US in a Russian one or Russia in a US one).
- thu2111 7y agoDoing nothing is an action. No it's not. Doing nothing is the opposite of action. Please don't twist the language like this - if doing nothing is an action then everyone is engaged in action all the time and the entire concept loses all meaning. Inaction is not what neutrality means Not intervening in a situation is practically the definition of neutrality. That's why Switzerland is described as neutral during World War 2 - they had a policy of no action taken.
- HorkHunter 7y agoWater is not wet. It's that simple. if you disagree with me you're not a very good person(fact)
- chrisseaton 7y agoI don’t have a problem with you advertising that water is not wet on Facebook using your own money.
- Fnoord 7y agoIt is easily verified to be false. Vaccines causing autism, is more difficult, and requires expertise. That's the problem with fact checking; the material is vastly complex. One way to tackle it is to go after specific claims. Doing that sometimes means quotes are taken out of context.
- jfengel 7y agoI'd have a problem with it if it was part of a campaign to replace all water with Gatorade. People spending their money to be publicly stupid is not a problem, but people spending their money to make other people be stupid in ways that impact my life is. Our democratic policy is resilient against a certain level of deliberately-induced stupidity, since stupidity does tend to be self-defeating. But at sufficient levels, it can do a lot of damage to everybody else before it finally defeats itself. I'm not saying that this can be fixed by the trivial addition of fact checkers. But I don't think that "it's your money" is sufficient reason not to try various solutions. Your right to swing your money around ends where my nose begins.
- chrisseaton 7y agoCan you not just disagree with it? Why do you need to ban it?
- jfengel 7y agoI didn't say "ban it". I said that a variety of options were on the table. As for disagreeing with it... I can disagree with it until it takes on the force of law. Then I'm required to agree with it, or at least, to live with the consequences. Political speech takes on an aspect of force in a way that other speech doesn't.