4 ms·

But the point is that one does this when traditional authorities have already broken down. When large numbers of people refuse to believe legitimate science, i

But the point is that one does this when traditional authorities have already broken down. When large numbers of people refuse to believe legitimate science, it's too late to be worrying about "moral hazards", the damage is already done. This is just an attempt to stem the bleeding by having entities like social media platforms step in and try to assume the role of the authorities that have been rejected. And yes, I get that your response is going to be something of the form "But how do you KNOW Facebook is actually right?". And again I point out that this is a practical problem and that the subject we are talking about is vaccines (about which you agree, right?), not an abstract idea of Facebook-blessed truth.

emteycz 6y ago
This is not about tradition breaking down, this is about many and many more people gaining a hearable voice.
- newacct583 6y ago
  So that they can be heard denying vaccine effectiveness, though. Again, it's a practical issue. Some messages, including this one, shouldn't get Facebook-level assistance with reaching listeners.
  - thu2111 6y ago
    They generally don't deny vaccine effectiveness. They take aim at vaccine safety. If you don't even know what these people are upset about how can you be so sure about denying them a voice?
- baddox 6y ago
  I don’t think it’s that either. I think it’s about Facebook’s algorithm massively amplifying certain voices.
  - emteycz 6y ago
    Facebook will happily amplify any voice, even incoherent rambling, and find customers for it. I welcome you to try - the only thing you have to do is write hundreds of comments in public groups. You will be successful immediately. The problem is the 'rational' side considers that 'below their level', often any Facebook usage at all is considered waste.
super_scooper 6y ago
You are being overly defensive of vaccines. They are a great and effective treatment for many diseases and I get the sense you are trying to make zuckerburg's comments seem more demonstrable then they really are. Considering Facebook's diligence in cutting off speech on their platform that is racisst, climate change denying, etc. I find it hard to believe that they will refuse to crack down on antivax advertisers and dedicated facebook pages. Tbh I have not done the research but I have no doubt there have been faulty or problematic vaccines at one time or another. Just like any other medical treatment there is a chance rhat they have defects, cause side effects, followed bad quality control protocol. Elevating vaccines to this status of being not allowed to be critisized for fear of our society being damaged seems like an almost equally dangerous alternative to what we have now. If people are legitimately hurt by a vaccine, they have a right to have a voice, and we have a responsibility as a society to hold those at fault accountable. That can't happen if we treat every person on facebook with even the slightest grievance about a vaccine like they are insane. And to address your point on practicality; the fact of the matter is, anti-vax movements have never been normalized. There is enough pressure from employers, schools, government, and scientists that most people will get vaccinated if it is found to be of personal or public benefit. Hardcore antivaxers are generally looked down upon by the public.

emteycz 6y ago

This is not about tradition breaking down, this is about many and many more people gaining a hearable voice.

newacct583 6y ago
So that they can be heard denying vaccine effectiveness, though. Again, it's a practical issue. Some messages, including this one, shouldn't get Facebook-level assistance with reaching listeners.
- thu2111 6y ago
  They generally don't deny vaccine effectiveness. They take aim at vaccine safety. If you don't even know what these people are upset about how can you be so sure about denying them a voice?
baddox 6y ago
I don’t think it’s that either. I think it’s about Facebook’s algorithm massively amplifying certain voices.
- emteycz 6y ago
  Facebook will happily amplify any voice, even incoherent rambling, and find customers for it. I welcome you to try - the only thing you have to do is write hundreds of comments in public groups. You will be successful immediately. The problem is the 'rational' side considers that 'below their level', often any Facebook usage at all is considered waste.

super_scooper 6y ago

You are being overly defensive of vaccines. They are a great and effective treatment for many diseases and I get the sense you are trying to make zuckerburg's comments seem more demonstrable then they really are. Considering Facebook's diligence in cutting off speech on their platform that is racisst, climate change denying, etc. I find it hard to believe that they will refuse to crack down on antivax advertisers and dedicated facebook pages. Tbh I have not done the research but I have no doubt there have been faulty or problematic vaccines at one time or another. Just like any other medical treatment there is a chance rhat they have defects, cause side effects, followed bad quality control protocol. Elevating vaccines to this status of being not allowed to be critisized for fear of our society being damaged seems like an almost equally dangerous alternative to what we have now. If people are legitimately hurt by a vaccine, they have a right to have a voice, and we have a responsibility as a society to hold those at fault accountable. That can't happen if we treat every person on facebook with even the slightest grievance about a vaccine like they are insane. And to address your point on practicality; the fact of the matter is, anti-vax movements have never been normalized. There is enough pressure from employers, schools, government, and scientists that most people will get vaccinated if it is found to be of personal or public benefit. Hardcore antivaxers are generally looked down upon by the public.