3 ms·

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 th

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.