
Facebook doesn't plan to take strong action against anti-vaccination posts - bmcn2020
https://www.axios.com/coronavirus-vaccine-facebook-mark-zuckerberg-9eae01a2-e6b2-4f4c-a48c-986bac665a2b.html
======
bmh100
This is the problem with "fact checking". It positions the platform as an
authority. Now, any claim that isn't "debunked" by this "fact checking" gains
a certain amount of credibility by comparison. The moral hazards are enormous,
multiplied by the opaque behavior of Facebook's algorithm and again multiplied
by its unprecedented reach in society.

~~~
baddox
What about things that Facebook does take down, like fraud and scams or
misinformation about voting requirements? Is that problematic because it
positions Facebook as an authority about those things? Should Facebook remove
posts which claim an election date has been moved, or that if you reply with
your bank account details you will get some free money?

~~~
thu2111
Yes Facebook should handle all such takedowns itself instead of outsourcing
it.

It's tempting to say they can take down things like fake election dates
without causing any concern, and that's probably true. But there also isn't
much that falls in that category, and people can still send such messages via
other messaging platforms like WhatsApp, email, the web etc. So it may simply
not be worth the slippery slope in the end.

~~~
baddox
Sending messages between individuals on WhatsApp isn’t a remotely comparable
problem to Facebook’s algorithm actively spreading posts to a huge audience.

------
deminature
You would hope that the custodian of the world's most popular communication
platform would have a greater sense of obligation to the social responsibility
that comes with it. Unfortunately we don't live in that world, and Zuckerberg
continues choose dollars over lasting damage to the standards of discourse. He
is the Murdoch of the 21st century, tearing at the social fabric in pursuit of
profits and facilitating the spread of foreign disinformation if it increases
engagement metrics.

~~~
hackinthebochs
>would have a greater sense of obligation to the social responsibility that
comes with it

Maybe that's why he is largely hands-off when it comes to policing or shaping
content? Not everyone agrees that the best way to manage an important
communications platform is to shape the speech allowed on it.

~~~
deminature
Allowing anti-vaccination sentiment to proliferate on the platform is fairly
unambiguously harmful to society, especially during a pandemic that may rely
on a vaccine to escape. It appears to be choosing engagement, which drives
clicks, page views and ad impressions over being a force for good and then
dressing it up as free speech, when moderators selectively remove millions of
other posts per day.

Social networks have proven themselves so powerful, it seems unlikely their
ability to wreak havoc on society will remain unlegislated forever. One day
social networks will be legally responsible for the content published, and
we'll see an end to the laissez-faire attitude of allowing disinfo to spread
unhindered.

~~~
bhupy
I mean, by that logic, the US government allowing anti-vaccination sentiment
to proliferate without legal/policy action (read: the First Amendment), is
also "unambiguously harmful to society".

Except, the issue is way more nuanced than that. The reason this expression is
enshrined as a protection in US jurisdiction is because we decide that free
expression trumps every other social need — with the narrow exceptions as laid
out in Brandenburg v Ohio (imminent lawless action).

To the extent that this is undesirable, if the political will to amend the
Constitution is absent, then you'd also have a hard time convincing people
that Facebook should not exercise the same principle.

~~~
deminature
My point is that true freedom of speech of already only partially possible on
the platform owing to moderators selectively taking down millions of posts
daily that violate the 'community guidelines'. Extending this to anti-
vaccination rhetoric seems like a small expansion of existing policy, and
addresses a problem causing real harm in society.

Cities are paying millions to stop outbreaks of previously defeated diseases
like measles and counteract disinformation primarily being spread on social
networks [1]. Should social networks not be somewhat culpable for their
quantifiable externalities on society?

[1] [https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2019/09/us-
measl...](https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2019/09/us-measles-
cases-hit-1234-brooklyn-outbreak-called-over)

~~~
bhupy
Right, and that's just as easily an argument in favor of _loosening_ the
existing restrictions, not tightening them even further.

Epistemologically, where you come out on this all depends on which axiom you
start from.

Also, there's a subtle difference between the existing guidelines and what
you're proposing: the existing guidelines exist to maintain a positive
experience directly for those consuming the platform (eg I don't want to see
ISIS beheadings on FB). The new guidelines you're proposing exist solely to
indirectly prevent others from seeing things you think they should not be
seeing (eg I don't want my aunt to see this post). It's a very important
distinction.

------
jacquesm
Controversy breeds clicks and pageviews which drive advertising income. As
long as that cycle does not get broken you can expect a lot more misery from
that particular corner.

~~~
blueatlas
"Controversy breeds clicks and pageviews which drive advertising income."

I really wish Americans would wake up to this, and realize that Facebook, and
news media in general, are breeding grounds for our division.

~~~
HumblyTossed
We are a culture who loves "reality" tv shows and all the made up drama that
goes with it. Facebook just feeds right into that.

~~~
afarrell
By "we" you mean Homo Sapiens, right?

------
igorstellar
I always had a sentiment that “thought policing” by blocking people’s posts
just reinforces all the bad stuff that happens there. It will reinforce the
idea that something is controlling the speech or information (conspiracy
theorists rejoice) and the reaction would be to build even bigger
misinformation echo chambers, at least this is anecdata I observe in my feeds.

------
sunseb
“Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a
perspective, not the truth.” Marcus Aurelius

We need to stop trying to enforce "the truth" to other people. Just let people
talk and have different opinions. That includes letting people having
conservative values, because lately this thought police is getting out of
control.

~~~
ceejayoz
As The Daily Show once put it, "you are entitled to your opinion; you are not
entitled to your own set of facts".

~~~
afarrell
Epistemology is harder than that.

If a government body declares that there is no risk of human->human
transmission of COVID-19, am I not entitled to evaluate other evidence and
conclude that this statement of fact is incorrect?

> Based on the preliminary information from the Chinese investigation team, no
> evidence of significant human-to-human transmission and no health care
> worker infections have been reported.

[https://www.who.int/csr/don/05-january-2020-pneumonia-of-
unk...](https://www.who.int/csr/don/05-january-2020-pneumonia-of-unkown-cause-
china/en/)

~~~
ceejayoz
No, see, that's a great example of incorrectly mixing the two up on your part.
Nothing in that statement can fairly be read as "there is no risk of
human->human transmission of COVID-19".

Fact: On Jan 5, 2020, the _WHO_ had "no evidence of significant human-to-human
transmission".

You can hold the _opinion_ that they should've been more aggressive about the
potential of that changing. You can hold the _opinion_ that the WHO should
figure out a way to rely less on member nations accurately reporting
information to them. As the statement notes, much was unknown to the WHO at
that point:

> There is limited information to determine the overall risk of this reported
> cluster...

~~~
afarrell
> Nothing in that statement can fairly be read as "there is no risk of
> human->human transmission of COVID-19".

So you'd like to be 'entitled to your own set of facts' about how to summarise
that WHO post because I am a fallible human, correct?

Would you say that Facebook are composed of infallible humans who never
misinterpret the results of dense scientific papers? Or can the human
judgement they exercise on complex topics be mistaken?

~~~
ceejayoz
> So you'd like to be 'entitled to your own set of facts' about how to
> summarise that WHO post because I am a fallible human, correct?

It is simply not _factual_ that that statement states "there is no risk of
human->human transmission of COVID-19". It _explicitly_ states otherwise, in
fact.

> There is limited information to determine the overall risk of this reported
> cluster...

~~~
afarrell
And your choice to believe the webpage over me is an (entirely reasonable and
wise) exercise in human judgement based on other evidence you have access to.

------
brianbreslin
Every day that passes, I worry more and more that we've naively entrusted too
much to Zuckerberg to do what's "right."

I look forward to whatever platform can figure out how to provide a viable
alternative and thrive.

~~~
tlack
"We" didn't entrust him. The users -- those blind, piteous, sorrowful,
clearly-very-bored people -- trust him.

What's the use of worrying about him, or them? Just quit the site!

p.s. also hi Brian! chance encounter..

------
darepublic
Don't use Facebook but I don't want any of the social media platforms
performing any censorship beyond the legally mandated type (ie pirated
material illegal porn etc)

~~~
jdhbbbhb
Even the darkest corner of the internet, 8chan, has more strict rules than
that

~~~
darepublic
Interested to hear what rules these are

------
zpeti
As with almost everything these days, this topic is NOT black and white
despite what initial comments say. Take a look at the vaccine for the 1976
swine flu outbreak.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_swine_flu_outbreak](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_swine_flu_outbreak)

A comment here already says that expressing concern over a vaccine is
basically misinformation. I'm sorry but expressing concern about a vaccine
that is developed in about 1 year, which is a record 1/10th of the time it
normally takes is completely fair, as there can be serious consequences that
you don't know about for a while.

And I say this as someone who is vaccinated for everything, even optional
vaccines, and has vaccinated for everything when going to Asia etc.

~~~
Cthulhu_
See that is a fact check; if someone were to state "The 1976 swine flu vaccine
was unsafe", that's a fact. If someone has the belief "The Covid-19 vaccine
has not been tested adequately", that too is a fact - and the manufacturers
have issued a joint statement saying they would not risk releasing an unsafe
vaccine either.

But the fearmongering? The "Vaccines cause autism" claim (which is massively
insulting, for one because it implies that people would rather have their kids
be dead than autistic)? The misinformation about the contents and risks of
vaccines? That needs to be tackled. Those are non-factual or disproportionate
claims that are putting millions at risk.

My girlfriend initially made the conscious decision not to have her son
vaccinated (for various reasons not related to the current anti-vax trend) but
had to have it done later on because so many others refused to vaccinate their
kids. She wanted to rely on herd immunity but the anti-vaxxers made that
unlikely.

~~~
ralusek
> "The Covid-19 vaccine has not been tested adequately," that too is a fact

That is very much NOT a fact. "Adequately" is entirely subjective. It is a
subjective threshold that might be informed by other facts, but that doesn't
make it a fact.

------
datameta
' "It's true that partisan content often has kind of a higher percent of
people ... engaging with it, commenting on it, liking it," Zuckerberg told
Axios. '

Hmm, no vested interests there for sure! /s

------
ardy42
Is this anti-vaxx in general, or specific concerns about a coronavirus
vaccine?

Because there's a world of difference between repeating a debunked claim about
vaccines causing autism or the idea that all vaccines are unsafe and saying
you had a bad reaction to a specific vaccine or have concerns about an
unproven vaccines development process.

------
credit_guy
The way I read this:

1\. Trump is pushing for a vaccine to be authorized before Election Day.

2\. Democrats are saying a vaccine before Election Day should not be trusted.

3\. A simple anti-vaxx detection algorithm would identify Democrats as anti-
vaxxers

4\. Zuckerberg either wants Facebook to stay out of this controversy, or he's
siding with the Democrats.

~~~
cblconfederate
The way i read it is america's politics are a dangerous clusterfuck

~~~
emerged
Currently, there is a clamping operation occurring on all topics in the US.
Media clamps to the left or right extreme, and both extremes are completely
nutty. Those extremes at least used to be vaguely rational, or at least they
somewhat managed to balance one another out.

------
dannyr
What if it's anti-covid-vaccine misinformation?

------
boldpandabear
Facebook has already taken strong action against people who believe you should
not vaccinate your child.

It is almost impossible to find anti-vax groups on Facebook in their search
feature. They won't surface them at all.

Even if you type in the direct phrase sometimes.

You have to have a direct link to the anti-vax group.

That is a form of censorship.

~~~
ShamelessC
I don't use Facebook but my understanding was that in general it's tougher to
do broad searches like that as they want you to be connected via social graph
first. could be wrong here though.

At any rate, what's wrong with censorship in online media? It's been my
experience that basically every platform lacking censorship turns into a
cesspool of bigotry and misinformation.

------
tibbydudeza
Not surprised as Facebook is a cesspool of anti-5G and anti-vaxxer.

------
salimmadjd
I get my flu vaccine every year. That said, I agree with Zuck.

I want to live in a world where we’re forced to teach our kids critical
thinking skills than in a world that relies on controlling the flow of
information. Let’s have articles about making critical thinking a required
school class as is with English, math, US history, etc. Than Zuck is not
blocking this or that.

~~~
dkobia
Attractive and somewhat lazy ideological opinion. The world is so complicated
and the group most susceptible to conspiracy theories in most cases also
happens to have the least access to the type of education that prioritizes
critical thinking.

~~~
daenz
Then we should prioritize teaching critical thinking, and not what to think.

------
teslademigod1
"If someone is pointing out a case where a vaccine caused harm or that they're
worried about it — you know, that's a difficult thing to say from my
perspective that you shouldn't be allowed to express at all."

Where I'm from, we call that misinformation.

~~~
tarr11
The front page of the NYT today is about AstraZeneca halting their trials
because of a patient’s adverse reaction to the vaccine.

[https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/09/world/covid-19-coronaviru...](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/09/world/covid-19-coronavirus.html)

~~~
ljm
This article is practically misinformation in itself, and the body of the text
confirms it:

“The event is being investigated by an independent committee, and it is too
early to conclude the specific diagnosis.”

Here is an article from another newspaper, about the same thing:
[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/09/oxford-
univers...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/09/oxford-university-
astrazeneca-covid-vaccine-trial-put-on-hold-due-to-adverse-reaction-in-
participant)

The headline is: "Oxford University Covid vaccine trial put on hold due to
possible adverse reaction in participant"

Compared to NYT's "Covid-19 Live Updates: Vaccine Trial Is Halted After
Patient’s Adverse Reaction"

Notice the difference between the two of them?

~~~
ghostpepper
Which word do you have an issue with in the NYT headline, 'reaction'? As in,
the 'adversity' faced by this patient may not in fact be a 'reaction' to the
vaccine?

~~~
pnw_hazor
The use of "on hold" in the guardian headline clearly conveys a temporary
pause or an interruption.

The use of "halted" in the NYT headline commonly means stop or end.

halted; halting; halts Definition of halt

(Entry 1 of 4)

intransitive verb

1 : to cease marching or journeying

2 : discontinue, terminate the project halted for lack of funds

transitive verb

1 : to bring to a stop the strike halted subways and buses

2 : to cause the discontinuance of : end halt hostilities

[https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/halt](https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/halt)

on hold in American English

1\. in a period or state of interruption or delay the countdown was on hold

2\. in a state of interruption in a telephone call, as during a transfer to
another line I was on hold for five minutes

[https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/on-h...](https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/on-
hold)

