5 ms·

>For claims that don’t directly result in physical harm, like conspiracy theories about the origin of the virus, we continue to work with our network of over 55

by theNJR 6y ago

>For claims that don’t directly result in physical harm, like conspiracy theories about the origin of the virus, we continue to work with our network of over 55 fact-checking partners covering over 45 languages to debunk these claims... Once a post is rated false by a fact-checker, we reduce its distribution so fewer people see it, and we show strong warning labels and notifications to people who still come across it, try to share it or already have. Does this pass the mask test? As we all remember, the WHO said to not wear masks early during the outbreak. Twitter users, in particular, was way ahead on urging people TO wear a mask. Would Facebook now block that or reduce its distribution and potentially risk lives?

cwkoss 6y ago
I think it is naive to believe there will be any sort of consistently applied rule. It will be based on the whims of whoever manages this initiative. They are only using fact checkers because it gives them someone to point to and say "Look we didn't make this call, they did". This is like a money laundering scheme but with brand reputation risk instead of money. Facebook will retain absolute control and the people running this initiative will do whatever the brass tells them to, this program is just for deflecting complaints.
aNoob7000 6y ago
The problem we have is that the WHO made a mistake early on in the pandemic and then changed course. As humans, we should be allowed to make mistakes, acknowledge the mistake when new information is presented, and then change course. The problem is with individuals and organizations that knowingly continue to promote misinformation like vaccines are bad for you.
CarelessExpert 6y ago
> Does this pass the mask test? As we all remember, the WHO said to not wear masks early during the outbreak. Honestly, this strikes me as simply a loaded question bordering on a dog whistle. I can't count the number of times that folks have used early mask recommendations during the pandemic as a way to a) undermine the authority of health institutions, while simultaneously b) positing the idea that there is no objective facts or truth. In short, I don't believe your question is being put forth in good faith. Please, disabuse me of this notion. Why should this one specific example be used as a justification for social networks not engaging in fact checking?
- clairity 6y ago
  yah, "mask test" as used here is most certainly a dog whistle for people who believe in masks religiously and righteously fight "anti-maskers". in reality both of these opposing factions have fallen for mediopolitical misinformation (i.e., propaganda), including from the CDC. but the passing criteria for a more rigorous mask test would be wearing one around non-household friends and family in tight quarters for prolonged periods of contact, and not wearing them in places where they do no good above and beyond distancing or environmental circumstances (like being outside or in low density/circulation areas indoors). an overwhelming majority of people fail this test, mostly because it defies our social instincts/conditioning promoting trust and closeness among the in-group and distrusting and distancing the out-group, but also because many have also fallen victim to pervasive and oft-repeated propaganda via social (and other) media.
warkdarrior 6y ago
What do you suggest Facebook should have done when WHO said to not wear masks? If they cannot rely on WHO for health expertise, whose expertise should they count on?
fractionalhare 6y ago
A principled commitment to fact-checking is more important than whether or not any particular fact-check is ultimately correct. Mistakes happen. If the effort results in more good calls than bad calls, it is a good initiative overall. What would you have Facebook do, fact check using Twitter because the CDC made this one bad call? Do you think the modal CDC consensus is worse than that of Twitter?
- thu2111 6y ago
  Facebook should just not use fact checkers at all. The sites were fine before that and "fact checkers" shoot themselves in the feet so frequently that ever fewer people take them seriously. Most such self-proclaimed checkers are far more interested in what authority figures say than what is true, hence why they're such a mess - the moment authority figures disagree it sends them into a tailspin of confusion and random, arbitrary decisions. Really, Facebook and others need to just give up on this. There is no principled commitment to anything here. "Misinformation" isn't even a meaningful concept. It's arrogant and abusive for randos at FB or other social media firms to believe they are so smart they can sift the entire world for what's true and what's not. Nobody can do that. Nobody.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  I would have them not make a blanket commitment to fact-checking, because I don't agree with the perspective that it's a good initiative if it makes mostly good calls. A "fake news suppressor" that's allowed to make any significant number of bad calls will inevitably be abused by bad actors who have specific topics they'd prefer people not to discuss.
  - fractionalhare 6y ago
    I guess, but even if it's imperfect it still seems better than the status quo.
zackees 6y ago
My mom is a flight attendant. I warned her in January that this virus was going to hit. In March 2020, her company, I won’t say which major one it was, banned her from wearing a mask, per guidelines of the WHO. This was about the same time that Amazon and Ebay purged large supplies of masks from their market places to protect consumers from “price gauging” right as the pandemic hit.
goalieca 6y ago
The mask test is an interesting one. Please don’t fry me for this, but the WHO has a report on mask usage from December that notes some inconclusiveness in community settings. It can be very hard to prove something with a rather small effect compared to real-world complexity. This is in contrast to vaccines that have a rather strong signal. Please read the whole section because I cherry picked just one paragraph without full context. I just wanted to demonstrate that nothing is actually all that obvious when it comes to the pandemic. > Evidence on the protective effect of mask use in community settings > At present there is only limited and inconsistent scientific evidence to support the effectiveness of masking of healthy people in the community to prevent infection with respiratory viruses, including SARS-CoV-2 (75). A large randomized community-based trial in which 4862 healthy participants were divided into a group wearing medical/surgical masks and a control group found no difference in infection with SARS-CoV-2 (76). A recent systematic review found nine trials (of which eight were cluster-randomized controlled trials in which clusters of people, versus individuals, were randomized) comparing medical/surgical masks versus no masks to prevent the spread of viral respiratory illness. Two trials were with healthcare workers and seven in the community. The review concluded that wearing a mask may make little or no difference to the prevention of influenza-like illness (ILI) (RR 0.99, 95%CI 0.82 to 1.18) or laboratory confirmed illness (LCI) (RR 0.91, 95%CI 0.66-1.26) (44); the certainty of the evidence was low for ILI, moderate for LCI. https://apps.who.int/iris/rest/bitstreams/1319378/retrieve https://apps.who.int/iris/rest/bitstreams/1319378/retrieve

by theNJR 6y ago

cwkoss 6y ago

I think it is naive to believe there will be any sort of consistently applied rule. It will be based on the whims of whoever manages this initiative. They are only using fact checkers because it gives them someone to point to and say "Look we didn't make this call, they did". This is like a money laundering scheme but with brand reputation risk instead of money. Facebook will retain absolute control and the people running this initiative will do whatever the brass tells them to, this program is just for deflecting complaints.

aNoob7000 6y ago

The problem we have is that the WHO made a mistake early on in the pandemic and then changed course. As humans, we should be allowed to make mistakes, acknowledge the mistake when new information is presented, and then change course. The problem is with individuals and organizations that knowingly continue to promote misinformation like vaccines are bad for you.

CarelessExpert 6y ago

> Does this pass the mask test? As we all remember, the WHO said to not wear masks early during the outbreak. Honestly, this strikes me as simply a loaded question bordering on a dog whistle. I can't count the number of times that folks have used early mask recommendations during the pandemic as a way to a) undermine the authority of health institutions, while simultaneously b) positing the idea that there is no objective facts or truth. In short, I don't believe your question is being put forth in good faith. Please, disabuse me of this notion. Why should this one specific example be used as a justification for social networks not engaging in fact checking?

clairity 6y ago
yah, "mask test" as used here is most certainly a dog whistle for people who believe in masks religiously and righteously fight "anti-maskers". in reality both of these opposing factions have fallen for mediopolitical misinformation (i.e., propaganda), including from the CDC. but the passing criteria for a more rigorous mask test would be wearing one around non-household friends and family in tight quarters for prolonged periods of contact, and not wearing them in places where they do no good above and beyond distancing or environmental circumstances (like being outside or in low density/circulation areas indoors). an overwhelming majority of people fail this test, mostly because it defies our social instincts/conditioning promoting trust and closeness among the in-group and distrusting and distancing the out-group, but also because many have also fallen victim to pervasive and oft-repeated propaganda via social (and other) media.

warkdarrior 6y ago

What do you suggest Facebook should have done when WHO said to not wear masks? If they cannot rely on WHO for health expertise, whose expertise should they count on?

fractionalhare 6y ago

A principled commitment to fact-checking is more important than whether or not any particular fact-check is ultimately correct. Mistakes happen. If the effort results in more good calls than bad calls, it is a good initiative overall. What would you have Facebook do, fact check using Twitter because the CDC made this one bad call? Do you think the modal CDC consensus is worse than that of Twitter?

thu2111 6y ago
Facebook should just not use fact checkers at all. The sites were fine before that and "fact checkers" shoot themselves in the feet so frequently that ever fewer people take them seriously. Most such self-proclaimed checkers are far more interested in what authority figures say than what is true, hence why they're such a mess - the moment authority figures disagree it sends them into a tailspin of confusion and random, arbitrary decisions. Really, Facebook and others need to just give up on this. There is no principled commitment to anything here. "Misinformation" isn't even a meaningful concept. It's arrogant and abusive for randos at FB or other social media firms to believe they are so smart they can sift the entire world for what's true and what's not. Nobody can do that. Nobody.
SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
I would have them not make a blanket commitment to fact-checking, because I don't agree with the perspective that it's a good initiative if it makes mostly good calls. A "fake news suppressor" that's allowed to make any significant number of bad calls will inevitably be abused by bad actors who have specific topics they'd prefer people not to discuss.
- fractionalhare 6y ago
  I guess, but even if it's imperfect it still seems better than the status quo.

zackees 6y ago

My mom is a flight attendant. I warned her in January that this virus was going to hit. In March 2020, her company, I won’t say which major one it was, banned her from wearing a mask, per guidelines of the WHO. This was about the same time that Amazon and Ebay purged large supplies of masks from their market places to protect consumers from “price gauging” right as the pandemic hit.

goalieca 6y ago

The mask test is an interesting one. Please don’t fry me for this, but the WHO has a report on mask usage from December that notes some inconclusiveness in community settings. It can be very hard to prove something with a rather small effect compared to real-world complexity. This is in contrast to vaccines that have a rather strong signal. Please read the whole section because I cherry picked just one paragraph without full context. I just wanted to demonstrate that nothing is actually all that obvious when it comes to the pandemic. > Evidence on the protective effect of mask use in community settings > At present there is only limited and inconsistent scientific evidence to support the effectiveness of masking of healthy people in the community to prevent infection with respiratory viruses, including SARS-CoV-2 (75). A large randomized community-based trial in which 4862 healthy participants were divided into a group wearing medical/surgical masks and a control group found no difference in infection with SARS-CoV-2 (76). A recent systematic review found nine trials (of which eight were cluster-randomized controlled trials in which clusters of people, versus individuals, were randomized) comparing medical/surgical masks versus no masks to prevent the spread of viral respiratory illness. Two trials were with healthcare workers and seven in the community. The review concluded that wearing a mask may make little or no difference to the prevention of influenza-like illness (ILI) (RR 0.99, 95%CI 0.82 to 1.18) or laboratory confirmed illness (LCI) (RR 0.91, 95%CI 0.66-1.26) (44); the certainty of the evidence was low for ILI, moderate for LCI. https://apps.who.int/iris/rest/bitstreams/1319378/retrieve https://apps.who.int/iris/rest/bitstreams/1319378/retrieve