4 ms·

Conventional wisdom in the US is that Maduro is a ruthless, violent dictator, who has suppressed opposition, smuggled drugs, funded terrorism, violated human ri

by Lazare 6y ago

Conventional wisdom in the US is that Maduro is a ruthless, violent dictator, who has suppressed opposition, smuggled drugs, funded terrorism, violated human rights, etc. But that doesn't get you kicked off Facebook. Facebook and Twitter happily provide platforms to violent, human rights abusing regimes. ...but recommend one snake oil cure for Covid-19, and suddenly the hammer drops, I guess? Interesting priorities.

Sebb767 6y ago
> But recommend a snake oil cure for Covid-19, and you'll be in real trouble. Except if you're in a position to get them in trouble. Remember that Trump (mostly) got away with this while in office.
mountainb 6y ago
Don't expect consistency: they just do whatever they think other people want them to do. You're expecting a higher level of thought than is really present. Their 'moral' guidepost is just whatever the blob of upper middle class fashionable opinion is.
- nradov 6y ago
  Or rather they do whatever seems least likely to upset their major advertising customers. And that's not a bad thing: they have a business to run.
agumonkey 6y ago
First issues are fully political, the oil thing is mostly medical, it's less sensitive.
alkonaut 6y ago
I can kind of see the difference possibly being that Politics is slow moving. Journalists will call out bad behavior and other journalists will call out bad journalism. With some events - such as the pandemic, or the aftermath of the US election, information doesn’t have time to pass through the normal cycle. The damage is already done if a lie gets viral the wrong way. It’s better to suppress one truth and one lie (overreact) then. The key differentiator isn’t “how bad is this” but “how damaging is it if this information reaches X million people in 48 hours?”.
- luckylion 6y ago
  Following that line of thought, the best option for journalists is to only tell the truth if it coincides with "what's best to tell the public" and lie otherwise. I believe that centrally planning "public opinion" is similar to centrally planning the economy. It's alluring because it'd solve so many problems, it takes a gigantic ego to think one was able to, and it usually doesn't end well.
  - alkonaut 6y ago
    > Following that line of thought, the best option for journalists is to only tell the truth if it coincides with "what's best to tell the public" and lie otherwise. Journalists wouldn’t remain credible (and thus relevant) that way. This isn’t about states centrally planning opinion. This is about everyone’s duty to not do harm by relaying bad information. That includes journalists who should properly vet information - but not resort so self-censorship, as well as social media that shouldn’t let “a lie travel half way around the globe before the truth can get its boots on”.
seanmcdirmid 6y ago
They have a specific policy against bad medical advice (which is easy to determine), but not against being a ruthless dictator (which can be very subjective). Seems consistent to me.
- wpasc 6y ago
  Bad medical device is easy to determine? Are masks effective or ineffective against covid? Are fats good or bad for you? Are carbs bad for you? How many times a day should you eat? How much cholesterol in your food matters? What's the perfect amount of water to drink? Is veganism healthy? is paleo healthy?
  - nouveaux 6y ago
    No it's not easy but why would Facebook be bad at it? They can consult with the worlds best. Is there any reason to believe they have performed poorly in this regard?
  - notafraudster 6y ago
    Your questions seem to exploit an asymmetry between the comment you're responding to and your examples. I can't tell you "how many times a day should you eat", but I can tell you there are theoretically claims about eating which are obviously beyond the pale -- for example claims about Mystical Gurus who live for years without eating off the sunlight. I would imagine that if I were asked to determine whether something is bad medical advice, I might consider some of the following questions: - What is the strength of the consensus on the issue? - Does the claim advance evidence that the consensus is wrong which actually engages with the consensus? - Does the claim advance a powerful cause to action? - If wrong, is the claim likely to lead to immediate or irreparable harm if followed? - Is the claim posed authoritatively or speculatively? - Is the person doing the posing attempting to convince others, or just expressing themselves? - Does the claim engage with its own shortcomings or leave room for the possibility that it is wrong? - Does the claim have only private health consequences, or does it have public health consequences? And while each of those have a continuum of answers, I might holistically come to the conclusion that a particular claim is "bad medical advice", and I might do so fairly easily, given a certain threshold for bad medical advice. It seems to me less that you're saying it's hard to determine that something is bad medical advice, and more that there exists some medical advice which is neither clearly bad nor good. The two things aren't in opposition. So, I feel comfortable saying "Human beings should not drink water because it is poison" is bad medical advice -- and it was very easy for me to determine that -- while a debate about, say, whether there's a particular target amount of water or if people should just drink water when thirsty might be supported or unsupported without rising to the standard of bad medical advice. By the standards I have just elucidated, the Maduro claim strikes me as trivially bad-faith and unsupported medical advice made declaratively to a huge audience with fairly large likely public health risk, and so I would qualify it as bad medical advice.
tpmx 6y ago
I've seen plenty of covid-19 snake oil cures being advertized on prominent Reddit subreddits without consequences, so there's that.

by Lazare 6y ago

Sebb767 6y ago

> But recommend a snake oil cure for Covid-19, and you'll be in real trouble. Except if you're in a position to get them in trouble. Remember that Trump (mostly) got away with this while in office.

mountainb 6y ago

Don't expect consistency: they just do whatever they think other people want them to do. You're expecting a higher level of thought than is really present. Their 'moral' guidepost is just whatever the blob of upper middle class fashionable opinion is.

nradov 6y ago
Or rather they do whatever seems least likely to upset their major advertising customers. And that's not a bad thing: they have a business to run.

agumonkey 6y ago

First issues are fully political, the oil thing is mostly medical, it's less sensitive.

alkonaut 6y ago

I can kind of see the difference possibly being that Politics is slow moving. Journalists will call out bad behavior and other journalists will call out bad journalism. With some events - such as the pandemic, or the aftermath of the US election, information doesn’t have time to pass through the normal cycle. The damage is already done if a lie gets viral the wrong way. It’s better to suppress one truth and one lie (overreact) then. The key differentiator isn’t “how bad is this” but “how damaging is it if this information reaches X million people in 48 hours?”.

luckylion 6y ago
Following that line of thought, the best option for journalists is to only tell the truth if it coincides with "what's best to tell the public" and lie otherwise. I believe that centrally planning "public opinion" is similar to centrally planning the economy. It's alluring because it'd solve so many problems, it takes a gigantic ego to think one was able to, and it usually doesn't end well.
- alkonaut 6y ago
  > Following that line of thought, the best option for journalists is to only tell the truth if it coincides with "what's best to tell the public" and lie otherwise. Journalists wouldn’t remain credible (and thus relevant) that way. This isn’t about states centrally planning opinion. This is about everyone’s duty to not do harm by relaying bad information. That includes journalists who should properly vet information - but not resort so self-censorship, as well as social media that shouldn’t let “a lie travel half way around the globe before the truth can get its boots on”.

seanmcdirmid 6y ago

They have a specific policy against bad medical advice (which is easy to determine), but not against being a ruthless dictator (which can be very subjective). Seems consistent to me.

wpasc 6y ago
Bad medical device is easy to determine? Are masks effective or ineffective against covid? Are fats good or bad for you? Are carbs bad for you? How many times a day should you eat? How much cholesterol in your food matters? What's the perfect amount of water to drink? Is veganism healthy? is paleo healthy?
- nouveaux 6y ago
  No it's not easy but why would Facebook be bad at it? They can consult with the worlds best. Is there any reason to believe they have performed poorly in this regard?
- notafraudster 6y ago
  Your questions seem to exploit an asymmetry between the comment you're responding to and your examples. I can't tell you "how many times a day should you eat", but I can tell you there are theoretically claims about eating which are obviously beyond the pale -- for example claims about Mystical Gurus who live for years without eating off the sunlight. I would imagine that if I were asked to determine whether something is bad medical advice, I might consider some of the following questions: - What is the strength of the consensus on the issue? - Does the claim advance evidence that the consensus is wrong which actually engages with the consensus? - Does the claim advance a powerful cause to action? - If wrong, is the claim likely to lead to immediate or irreparable harm if followed? - Is the claim posed authoritatively or speculatively? - Is the person doing the posing attempting to convince others, or just expressing themselves? - Does the claim engage with its own shortcomings or leave room for the possibility that it is wrong? - Does the claim have only private health consequences, or does it have public health consequences? And while each of those have a continuum of answers, I might holistically come to the conclusion that a particular claim is "bad medical advice", and I might do so fairly easily, given a certain threshold for bad medical advice. It seems to me less that you're saying it's hard to determine that something is bad medical advice, and more that there exists some medical advice which is neither clearly bad nor good. The two things aren't in opposition. So, I feel comfortable saying "Human beings should not drink water because it is poison" is bad medical advice -- and it was very easy for me to determine that -- while a debate about, say, whether there's a particular target amount of water or if people should just drink water when thirsty might be supported or unsupported without rising to the standard of bad medical advice. By the standards I have just elucidated, the Maduro claim strikes me as trivially bad-faith and unsupported medical advice made declaratively to a huge audience with fairly large likely public health risk, and so I would qualify it as bad medical advice.

tpmx 6y ago

I've seen plenty of covid-19 snake oil cures being advertized on prominent Reddit subreddits without consequences, so there's that.