5 ms·

Facebook creates fact-checking exemption for climate deniers

42 points by aspenmayer 6y ago

aspenmayer 6y ago
Click “Let me read it first” to see the article without subscribing. It’s a pretty nice flow for a newsletter site. > According to the Wall Street Journal, Facebook found that the misinformation about climate models was an "opinion" and, therefore, not eligible for fact-checking. > Now, the CO2 Coalition has announced its intention to exploit this loophole to spread climate misinformation on Facebook.
chillacy 6y ago
> After the quiet decision by Facebook, the coalition says it and other groups that attack consensus climate science can share content that climate scientists have labeled as misleading because Facebook will consider it "opinion" and therefore immune to fact-checking. Is this like some news organization recently argued in court that it's actually "entertainment" so it doesn't have to be factual?
missedthecue 6y ago
You have to wonder where the line should be drawn. Why shouldn't someone be allowed to share an opinion? Despite common misconceptions, most of climate discussion is not settled objective fact, but projections and models about whats probably going to happen in 100-200 years given constant assumed inputs. Most of these models are changing quickly as well. They are not what they were 10 years ago for instance. Should facebook really be expected to hire people to be deleting every opinion that doesn't perfectly match whatever the (always evolving) IPCC's opinion? At that point why not just ban any comment with certain keywords? This forum has an extreme bias against facebook, so I doubt this decision by them will be popular here, but I can completely understand that facebook would like to prevent echo-chambers.
- Schiendelman 6y ago
  This feels like a strawman to me. There are lots of things shared on Facebook which are unambiguously misinformation, no matter what model or IPCC opinion is the current state of our understanding. Sharing those things which are unambiguously misinformation creates the appearance of debate where none really exists (such as, "humans are causing a problem for ourselves").
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    Absolutely, but this wasn't one of those cases. The fact check of the article in question [1] was highly technical, including both things that are clearly differences of opinion ("focuses only on specific lines of evidence", "misses vital context") and factual claims that require a high degree of scientific knowledge to evaluate. [1] https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/washington-examiner-op-ed-cherry-picks-data-to-mislead-readers-about-climate-models-patrick-michaels-caleb-stewart-rossiter/ https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/washington-examiner-o...
  - missedthecue 6y ago
    Yes, but this is not what of those instances. Besides, you must think about it from the mile-high view for a moment. "Vaccines give you autism" and "Vaccines could cause harm" are both statements put forth by the anti-vaccine crowd. One is false. One does have some level of truth behind it. Most of this site would prefer they ban the second comment as well as the first even though in strict technical terms, it is a factual statement. The simple truth is that Facebook has to practice a lot of policing, and they're going to be stepping on a lot of toes. Just because all the content on facebook is not 100% aligned with your personal views does not mean it should come down. I think that is perfectly acceptable of facebook.
- scohesc 6y ago
  People in general have been segregated into specific ideals and beliefs while they're constantly pumped with "don't listen to those other guys", while any opinion that can threaten to crack their marble, gold gilded pillar of self-proclaimed "holier than thou" is shunned and ostracized immediately. I'm not sure of the cause of this, but I'm sure the creation and wide public adoption of the internet hasn't helped. I don't like Facebook in any way. They're a predatory, invasive, and privacy-destroying corporation built from the ground up to harvest user data and sell it to the highest bidder. A bit of a semi-related aside - this is why it will be interesting (to me) to see if section 230 gets changed/removed to deny companies like Facebook to act both as publisher and editor. They've obviously shown multiple times in the past that they have no internal guidelines as to how they block, censor, and encourage certain contributions to their platform - beholden to the screams of media and the vocal minority as to the "outrage du jour". Maybe if Facebook is having such a hard time regulating their online presence and is causing "an overabundance" of conflict on their platform, the giant monolith should be fragmented into smaller pieces and operated individually, sort of like how the USA split up the phone companies in the 70's/80's.
- Traster 6y ago
  I think a good start would be for the guy drawing the lines to acknowledge that he's been drawing the lines, and not continue with this ridiculous charade that he's not.
- Barrin92 6y ago
  man made climate change is a scientifically established fact. The models change only insofar as that the predictions tend to get worse in face of our inaction. Everyone who cares about the future of our planet should have a bias against facebook, because it is a giant machine that eats up people's attention and produces lies and misinformation. It's like we've actually invented the utility monster and pay the people who maintain it handsomely. In the future people will look back at us and think we lost our minds
  - missedthecue 6y ago
    Many 'climate-skeptics' do not deny in any way that climate change is man made and influenced. Their opinions vary from "It's beneficial" to "The solutions proposed by some are not best solutions". Facebook is saying that there is no reason to shut down that entire side of the conversation so long as basic rules are kept. (No profanity, calls for violence, doxxing etc).
    - Barrin92 6y ago
      where are you getting this from? The article explicitly talks about people who deny the validity of scientific predictions about man-made warming, that is to say, facts and not opinions. >But statements about the physical condition of the planet; the effect of carbon on the atmosphere; the historical accuracy of climate models--those are scientific in nature. “Those are not opinions,” Dessler said. “They’re either true or false.” “The earth is warming. Climate models have done a good job,” he added. “That should be covered by fact-checking.” This appears to not be covered by fact-checking any more, at the request of a fossil fuel sponsored organisation.
  - Thorentis 6y ago
    Facebook is a social media network, not a science journal. Can people not share things that are unscientific now? Goodness, it's as if we've gone backwards in time and sharing anything that isn't accepted by the scientific majority is heretical and ought to be censored ASAP. What will we have next, public burnings of Facebook profiles that have had too many 'misinformation' labels assigned to it? Facebook chose to step into the role of being an information arbiter instead of remaining neutral like it should. Facebook should be a facilitator not a gatekeeper. Imagine if during a public debate the moderator interrupted one side constantly with clarifications or "misinformation" corrections - it would be a boring debate, unfair to one side, and the moderator would be doing the job of the opponent. I don't want my information to be moderated. And since social networks should be about people sharing with other people, I don't want Facebook getting in between that.
thoughtstheseus 6y ago
This is why we shouldn’t push a climate change narrative. There’s too much of a gray area. Just say what we’ve observed- there is a great extinction event occurring today, excess carbon is a big part of the problem.

42 points by aspenmayer 6y ago

Click “Let me read it first” to see the article without subscribing. It’s a pretty nice flow for a newsletter site. > According to the Wall Street Journal, Facebook found that the misinformation about climate models was an "opinion" and, therefore, not eligible for fact-checking. > Now, the CO2 Coalition has announced its intention to exploit this loophole to spread climate misinformation on Facebook.

chillacy 6y ago

> After the quiet decision by Facebook, the coalition says it and other groups that attack consensus climate science can share content that climate scientists have labeled as misleading because Facebook will consider it "opinion" and therefore immune to fact-checking. Is this like some news organization recently argued in court that it's actually "entertainment" so it doesn't have to be factual?

missedthecue 6y ago

You have to wonder where the line should be drawn. Why shouldn't someone be allowed to share an opinion? Despite common misconceptions, most of climate discussion is not settled objective fact, but projections and models about whats probably going to happen in 100-200 years given constant assumed inputs. Most of these models are changing quickly as well. They are not what they were 10 years ago for instance. Should facebook really be expected to hire people to be deleting every opinion that doesn't perfectly match whatever the (always evolving) IPCC's opinion? At that point why not just ban any comment with certain keywords? This forum has an extreme bias against facebook, so I doubt this decision by them will be popular here, but I can completely understand that facebook would like to prevent echo-chambers.

Schiendelman 6y ago
This feels like a strawman to me. There are lots of things shared on Facebook which are unambiguously misinformation, no matter what model or IPCC opinion is the current state of our understanding. Sharing those things which are unambiguously misinformation creates the appearance of debate where none really exists (such as, "humans are causing a problem for ourselves").
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  Absolutely, but this wasn't one of those cases. The fact check of the article in question [1] was highly technical, including both things that are clearly differences of opinion ("focuses only on specific lines of evidence", "misses vital context") and factual claims that require a high degree of scientific knowledge to evaluate. [1] https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/washington-examiner-op-ed-cherry-picks-data-to-mislead-readers-about-climate-models-patrick-michaels-caleb-stewart-rossiter/ https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/washington-examiner-o...
- missedthecue 6y ago
  Yes, but this is not what of those instances. Besides, you must think about it from the mile-high view for a moment. "Vaccines give you autism" and "Vaccines could cause harm" are both statements put forth by the anti-vaccine crowd. One is false. One does have some level of truth behind it. Most of this site would prefer they ban the second comment as well as the first even though in strict technical terms, it is a factual statement. The simple truth is that Facebook has to practice a lot of policing, and they're going to be stepping on a lot of toes. Just because all the content on facebook is not 100% aligned with your personal views does not mean it should come down. I think that is perfectly acceptable of facebook.
scohesc 6y ago
People in general have been segregated into specific ideals and beliefs while they're constantly pumped with "don't listen to those other guys", while any opinion that can threaten to crack their marble, gold gilded pillar of self-proclaimed "holier than thou" is shunned and ostracized immediately. I'm not sure of the cause of this, but I'm sure the creation and wide public adoption of the internet hasn't helped. I don't like Facebook in any way. They're a predatory, invasive, and privacy-destroying corporation built from the ground up to harvest user data and sell it to the highest bidder. A bit of a semi-related aside - this is why it will be interesting (to me) to see if section 230 gets changed/removed to deny companies like Facebook to act both as publisher and editor. They've obviously shown multiple times in the past that they have no internal guidelines as to how they block, censor, and encourage certain contributions to their platform - beholden to the screams of media and the vocal minority as to the "outrage du jour". Maybe if Facebook is having such a hard time regulating their online presence and is causing "an overabundance" of conflict on their platform, the giant monolith should be fragmented into smaller pieces and operated individually, sort of like how the USA split up the phone companies in the 70's/80's.
Traster 6y ago
I think a good start would be for the guy drawing the lines to acknowledge that he's been drawing the lines, and not continue with this ridiculous charade that he's not.
Barrin92 6y ago
man made climate change is a scientifically established fact. The models change only insofar as that the predictions tend to get worse in face of our inaction. Everyone who cares about the future of our planet should have a bias against facebook, because it is a giant machine that eats up people's attention and produces lies and misinformation. It's like we've actually invented the utility monster and pay the people who maintain it handsomely. In the future people will look back at us and think we lost our minds
- missedthecue 6y ago
  Many 'climate-skeptics' do not deny in any way that climate change is man made and influenced. Their opinions vary from "It's beneficial" to "The solutions proposed by some are not best solutions". Facebook is saying that there is no reason to shut down that entire side of the conversation so long as basic rules are kept. (No profanity, calls for violence, doxxing etc).
  - Barrin92 6y ago
    where are you getting this from? The article explicitly talks about people who deny the validity of scientific predictions about man-made warming, that is to say, facts and not opinions. >But statements about the physical condition of the planet; the effect of carbon on the atmosphere; the historical accuracy of climate models--those are scientific in nature. “Those are not opinions,” Dessler said. “They’re either true or false.” “The earth is warming. Climate models have done a good job,” he added. “That should be covered by fact-checking.” This appears to not be covered by fact-checking any more, at the request of a fossil fuel sponsored organisation.
- Thorentis 6y ago
  Facebook is a social media network, not a science journal. Can people not share things that are unscientific now? Goodness, it's as if we've gone backwards in time and sharing anything that isn't accepted by the scientific majority is heretical and ought to be censored ASAP. What will we have next, public burnings of Facebook profiles that have had too many 'misinformation' labels assigned to it? Facebook chose to step into the role of being an information arbiter instead of remaining neutral like it should. Facebook should be a facilitator not a gatekeeper. Imagine if during a public debate the moderator interrupted one side constantly with clarifications or "misinformation" corrections - it would be a boring debate, unfair to one side, and the moderator would be doing the job of the opponent. I don't want my information to be moderated. And since social networks should be about people sharing with other people, I don't want Facebook getting in between that.

thoughtstheseus 6y ago

This is why we shouldn’t push a climate change narrative. There’s too much of a gray area. Just say what we’ve observed- there is a great extinction event occurring today, excess carbon is a big part of the problem.