4 ms·

> The core statement "Lee opposed both secession and slavery" is too poorly defined to have an objective answer ... ? Doesn't the burden of factuality go the

> The core statement "Lee opposed both secession and slavery" is too poorly defined to have an objective answer ... ? Doesn't the burden of factuality go the OTHER way though? It's an objective-sounding statement of what purports to be a fact. But it's belied by other obvious facts about the man's life. It makes him sound like a union abolitionist and not a slave-holding confederate, which is misleading. I suppose you might (barely) get away with similar statements. For example "Lee opposed secession prior to the war, and claimed to oppose slavery later in life." That still leaves out context, but at least hints at its existence. > Does placing the warning imply that the inverse is true and "Lee supported both secession and slavery". No, it does not. But other statements might be: "Lee owned other human beings" is a clearly factual statement. "Lee fought against the United States" is another.

s1artibartfast 6y ago
I think there mere fact that the two of us can read the same political article and then debate the interpretation of "opposition" in this context lends credence the idea it is a statement of interpretive history, and not fact. Similarly, it is open to the reader's interpretation. You read it as making him sound like a union abolitionist, I did not. I totally agree that "Lee owned other human beings" and "Lee fought against the United States" are factual statements, and could be fact checked. So could statements that "Prior to the war, Lee wrote that slavery was evil" and "Both Lee and Lincoln would be considered a racist by modern standards, and had very similar opinions on slavery." I agree that facts can lead readers to misinterpretations. Given how hard it is to verify actual facts, I don't think it should be Facebook's job protect readers from facts which are accurate, but could lead to undesirable world views. In this instance, one group clearly wants to paint Lee as a moral man trying to navigate the political and economic realities of the antebellum south. Another group clearly wants to paint a picture of Lee as a symbol of southern racism and oppression. These are interpretations of history.
- newacct583 6y ago
  > You read it as making him sound like a union abolitionist, I did not. Of course not. Because you know the context and have made your own decision to excuse his slave holding and treason when deciding whether he should be celebrated with giant statues. Which is your call to make, I guess. But the point is that not everyone knows that context. And for those who don't, this advertisement, which is designed to affect public policy, is prima facie misleading because it presents two facts that are (at best) subjects of controversy. You'd never allow this about other stuff you care about. Imagine a Facebook story with "The constitution gives you no right to own an assault rifle". Equally true, by your standards. Not really acceptable though, right? > In this instance, one group clearly wants to paint Lee as a moral man trying to navigate the political and economic realities of the antebellum south. Another group clearly wants to paint a picture of Lee as a symbol of southern racism and oppression. These are interpretations of history. And Facebook wasn't labeling considered interpretations. It was labeling something that looked like a fact. I don't think it's so heavy a burden for those who want to write a defense of Lee not to engage in the kind of spin in that story, is it?
  - s1artibartfast 6y ago
    > Of course not. Because you know the context and have made your own decision to excuse his slave holding and treason when deciding whether he should be celebrated with giant statues. Which is your call to make, I guess. Ignoring the ad hominem, the context I had was the fact Lee was a confederate general and the article you linked. I approached it with skepticism, eg this is a nebulous and unverifiable claim. You it approached it assuming an uncharitable interpretation. >But the point is that not everyone knows that context. And for those who don't, this advertisement, which is designed to affect public policy, is prima facie misleading because it presents two facts that are (at best) subjects of controversy. This is only prima facie misleading if you ascribe to a specific interpretation and the facts challenge this this interpretation. You are starting backwards with a subjective opinion and then defining facts that do not lead to the same conclusion, as problematic. However, you will allow them if they are accompanied by enough additional facts for the reader to come to the same subjective interpretations as you. My entire point is that if we want to control misinformation, limiting the presentation of "incomplete" fact patterns is a step too far. >Imagine a Facebook story with "The constitution gives you no right to own an assault rifle". Equally true, by your standards. Not really acceptable though, right? I have no problem with this. It looks like the title to 100 other garbage opinion pieces. >And Facebook wasn't labeling considered interpretations. It was labeling something that looked like a fact. Then it should be more careful to discern between verifiable facts and statements that look like facts.

s1artibartfast 6y ago

I think there mere fact that the two of us can read the same political article and then debate the interpretation of "opposition" in this context lends credence the idea it is a statement of interpretive history, and not fact. Similarly, it is open to the reader's interpretation. You read it as making him sound like a union abolitionist, I did not. I totally agree that "Lee owned other human beings" and "Lee fought against the United States" are factual statements, and could be fact checked. So could statements that "Prior to the war, Lee wrote that slavery was evil" and "Both Lee and Lincoln would be considered a racist by modern standards, and had very similar opinions on slavery." I agree that facts can lead readers to misinterpretations. Given how hard it is to verify actual facts, I don't think it should be Facebook's job protect readers from facts which are accurate, but could lead to undesirable world views. In this instance, one group clearly wants to paint Lee as a moral man trying to navigate the political and economic realities of the antebellum south. Another group clearly wants to paint a picture of Lee as a symbol of southern racism and oppression. These are interpretations of history.

newacct583 6y ago
> You read it as making him sound like a union abolitionist, I did not. Of course not. Because you know the context and have made your own decision to excuse his slave holding and treason when deciding whether he should be celebrated with giant statues. Which is your call to make, I guess. But the point is that not everyone knows that context. And for those who don't, this advertisement, which is designed to affect public policy, is prima facie misleading because it presents two facts that are (at best) subjects of controversy. You'd never allow this about other stuff you care about. Imagine a Facebook story with "The constitution gives you no right to own an assault rifle". Equally true, by your standards. Not really acceptable though, right? > In this instance, one group clearly wants to paint Lee as a moral man trying to navigate the political and economic realities of the antebellum south. Another group clearly wants to paint a picture of Lee as a symbol of southern racism and oppression. These are interpretations of history. And Facebook wasn't labeling considered interpretations. It was labeling something that looked like a fact. I don't think it's so heavy a burden for those who want to write a defense of Lee not to engage in the kind of spin in that story, is it?
- s1artibartfast 6y ago
  > Of course not. Because you know the context and have made your own decision to excuse his slave holding and treason when deciding whether he should be celebrated with giant statues. Which is your call to make, I guess. Ignoring the ad hominem, the context I had was the fact Lee was a confederate general and the article you linked. I approached it with skepticism, eg this is a nebulous and unverifiable claim. You it approached it assuming an uncharitable interpretation. >But the point is that not everyone knows that context. And for those who don't, this advertisement, which is designed to affect public policy, is prima facie misleading because it presents two facts that are (at best) subjects of controversy. This is only prima facie misleading if you ascribe to a specific interpretation and the facts challenge this this interpretation. You are starting backwards with a subjective opinion and then defining facts that do not lead to the same conclusion, as problematic. However, you will allow them if they are accompanied by enough additional facts for the reader to come to the same subjective interpretations as you. My entire point is that if we want to control misinformation, limiting the presentation of "incomplete" fact patterns is a step too far. >Imagine a Facebook story with "The constitution gives you no right to own an assault rifle". Equally true, by your standards. Not really acceptable though, right? I have no problem with this. It looks like the title to 100 other garbage opinion pieces. >And Facebook wasn't labeling considered interpretations. It was labeling something that looked like a fact. Then it should be more careful to discern between verifiable facts and statements that look like facts.