
Facebook removed a fact-check on anti-abortion video after Ted Cruz complained - dubmax123
https://www.businessinsider.nl/facebook-removes-anti-abortion-factcheck-after-senators-complain-2019-9/
======
danShumway
I'm seeing a couple of comments on here to the effect of, "what did you expect
when you started asking companies to screen/moderate content?"

This is not a good example of screening being impossible to do, or being too
subjective to nail down. Facebook moderated the video on largely neutral
terms; not asserting that abortion was right or wrong, just that the claims
the video made were scientifically false. It should be the type of fact-check
that Republicans can get behind: objective and verifiable.

This specific story isn't that Facebook can't fact-check, it's that ultimately
Facebook is willing to define neutrality based on what Lawmakers are
complaining about at the moment. It is specifically Facebook's commitment to
"neutrality" in this case that makes it easy for biased groups to manipulate
the platform.

I'm pretty sympathetic to the idea that increased calls for global moderation
may have unintended side effects, and on average I tend to disagree with
people who conflate neutral tools with complicity. But this particular story
is definitely evidence in the opposite direction -- that Facebook is not
opinionated _enough_ , and that a commitment to avoiding even the appearance
of bias can lead companies to make ineffective, gutless moderation decisions.

~~~
pessimizer
> This specific story isn't that Facebook can't fact-check, it's that
> ultimately Facebook is willing to define neutrality based on what Lawmakers
> are complaining about at the moment.

No, for me it's that what constitutes "neutrality" shifts with the powers that
be, and in this case it shifted quickly; because abortion is an issue that
facebook doesn't care about, it was willing to go with a scientific consensus,
but when a politically powerful person insisted that the scientific consensus
wasn't "neutral" it abandoned it.

We're watching the process of moderation in real time, not watching the
corruption of a process that has never existed: of neutrality creation that is
entirely independent of power. The solution isn't that Facebook isn't cleaving
the the standards you hold to be objective _enough._ That's just kicking the
can down the road. Get enough power to dominate Ted Cruz, and you can get him
to delete the video yourself.

edit: I'm not against Facebook moderating their platform, but they should have
all of the editorial responsibilities and liabilities that come with that.
Which, instead of this process happening informally, puts it into the justice
system where standards can be publicly agreed upon.

~~~
danShumway
> I'm not against Facebook moderating their platform, but they should have all
> of the editorial responsibilities and liabilities that come with that.

I read the first part of your post as an argument that the actual definition
of neutrality is prone to bias and corruption, and that politicians can't be
trusted to define what is and isn't neutral.

Given that reading, I don't understand how adding legal liability would help
keep Ted Cruz from subverting moderation efforts or redefining what neutrality
means. Wouldn't that just give him more ammo to throw at Facebook when he
claims that they need to to adhere to a constantly changing standard?

------
hn_throwaway_99
This video is absurd. The headline on the video "Abortion is never medically
necessary", but then goes on to state that "removal of an ectopic pregnancy"
doesn't count because it's not an abortion. Umm, OK. She's really just defined
all of the "medically necessary abortions" as not abortions.

~~~
claar
This comment has it correct; she defines abortion in a specific way (a common
practice in documents / research papers / etc), and then makes a claim using
this specific definition. The definition is left out of the headline,
understandably and predictably, leaving a flamewar about a straw man.

~~~
kadoban
This does not sound like a good-faith definition of terms. It's a no-true-
scottsman instead, which is _not_ a common practice, or at least not a
reputable one.

~~~
hnbroseph
i don't think the act of defining a term for later usage in an argument can be
described as "no true scotsman", which is typically a mid-argument dismissal
of a counterexample that contests a generalization.

to be such they would have had to (for example) been in the midst of debating
the topic, and said something like "but a _real_ abortion..." where their
operating definition of "abortion" was effectively changed.

~~~
astine
The term for this is a "stipulative definition." [1] It's only a fallacy if
one does not clarify that one is using a stipulative definition instead of a
more common one.

1\. [https://www.thoughtco.com/stipulative-
definition-1692143](https://www.thoughtco.com/stipulative-definition-1692143)

~~~
dragonwriter
Even if one is clear about the definition in use, it's the fallacy of
equivocation if it is used to counter an argument using a different
definition.

------
yellow_postit
Letting people share medical information and pay to promote it seems like a
never ending recipe for problems. I’m sure someone at FB has done the math on
just blocking all this content.

------
jimbob45
Is it just me or does putting FACT CHECK above an article immediately make
anyone else _not_ want to click on that article?

~~~
scoobyyabbadoo
Same here, just makes me think who has connections to get themselves declared
fact checker. Can you imagine how awesome it must be to have major media
outlets coo about how whatever you the fact checker says should not be
questioned?

~~~
sterileopinions
This comment is a dog whistle.

Why are HN moderators allowing this account to post comments on this forum?

Here is a previous comment on this account:

>tBut the progressive revolution has entirely skipped over the struggles of
non-Jewish whites merely because of their skin color.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20972062](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20972062)

and another one:

>Let's just be honest here, the only people experiencing fall-out from the
Epstein case are not Je-yank

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20918028](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20918028)

It is very very concerning that HN moderators police tone but not substance
and allows accounts like this one to proliferate conspiracy theories.

~~~
dang
You say that, yet it didn't concern you enough to let us know about it? That
doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

The idea that if you see something unmoderated, it must mean that the
moderators secretly agree with it, is a non sequitur. What's actually
happening is that we only see a portion of what gets posted to HN, and we
can't moderate what we don't see. That's why the site guidelines ask you to
flag bad comments and, in egregious cases, to email hn@ycombinator.com.
Fortunately, another user chose to follow the site guidelines and did so.

Please see
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21003570](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21003570)
for more.

~~~
sterileopinions
>The idea that if you see something unmoderated, it must mean that the
moderators secretly agree with it, is a monster of a non sequitur.

Yes. That's what happens when you provide a self-publishing system. You agree
to that contract whether you want to or not.

And it's not just this comment. It happens all the time.

>That's why the site guidelines ask you to flag bad comments

I literally cannot do that. Surely you know that.

>Fortunately, another user chose to follow the site guidelines and did so.

You don't think it's a problem that only one other user decided to _email_ you
a problem. Doesn't that indicate a problem with the site culture?

I'm one person, a consumer of this site. Not a moderator. I called attention
to it using the one capability given to me on this site. Saying "that's not
good enough" is extremely asinine when I literally am not able to do anything
else on the site.

~~~
dang
It's trivial to get enough karma to flag posts on HN. We keep the threshold
low on purpose so that anyone who wants to use HN as intended can easily cross
it. The reason you haven't is not because we're somehow excluding you. It's
because your many accounts consistently break the site guidelines, causing
your posts to get downvoted.

But you can always email us, as anyone can. The fact that you didn't shows
that you're not truly concerned about keeping HN free of the abuse you're
complaining about. Rather, you're using other people's abusive comments as an
excuse to post abusive comments of your own, smearing the community—who don't
support the dreck that shows up here, just like it shows up everywhere on the
public internet—and trying to undermine it. When you imply that moderators
somehow support the dreck, I don't believe you're doing so in good faith.
Anyone who's been around HN as long as you have knows that's false. Rather,
the name for what you're doing is poisoning the well. That is another form of
trolling.

Would you please stop creating accounts to break HN's guidelines with? This
site is for people who sincerely want to use it as intended, and the intended
use is laid out clearly at
[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html):
intellectual curiosity and kind, thoughtful discussion.

------
simion314
I am not from US so can someone explain why the antiabortion thing seem rise
in this last year? Is there some elections and some party is trying to gain
votes or some social media trend?

My question is about the timing(why now?) and not on "who is the good/bad guy"
here.

~~~
mrguyorama
It's not just now? Anti-abortion has been a huge part of the Republican
platform for a very long time, maybe at least the 60's? At least since Roe v
Wade (1973). The reason is that there's a large swath of voters who only seem
to care about abortion abolition, and will vote for anyone who pushes it, no
matter what.

~~~
simion314
I mean it is a popular subject here on HN and I seen some articles on BBC this
year, as I said I am not from US and this "anti-abortion laws" remind me of
the communist regime here in Romania, so I was a bit shocked to see this topic
debates in US (it was not visible for US outside) .

~~~
SolaceQuantum
Evangeticals and other anti-abortion religious groups are also one of the
groups that are consistently politically involved via voting, being kept
informed, campaigning, etc. In a nation with very low voter turnout, the few
demographics that vote significantly more get a disproportionate influence on
the direction of government.

------
RcouF1uZ4gsC
Part of the issue with fact checkers is how charitably they are interpreting
the words. For example:

Weather Reporter: The sun will rise at 6 AM Tomorrow

Fact Checker: False. The language talking about sun rise is implying that the
sun rotates around the earth, and that has been known to astronomers to be
false for centuries.

In her video, Lila Rose is saying that abortion as defined as intentionally
killing the fetus is not medically necessary.

From the captions on the video: "Now, you could perhaps do an early delivery
if she's experiencing or she has a very severe condition that you need to
deliver that baby early, but in that situation you don't go in with a needle
or forceps to destroy that baby before birth. You give that baby a fighting
chance, and that is not an abortion."

She is saying that the baby may die as a consequence of early delivery, but
the goal is early delivery, not the destruction of the baby.

Fact check says "Certain medical conditions such as placenta previa and HELLP
syndrome can make abortion a necessary medical procedure in order to prevent
the mother's death."

My guess that Lila's response would be that that it is the early delivery that
is saving the mother's life, not the abortion. The mother's life would still
be saved if the baby survives through appropriate medical care.

I don't know if Lila is Catholic, but a lot of her reasoning seems to fall
under the "Principle of Double Effect."

[http://sites.saintmarys.edu/~incandel/doubleeffect.html](http://sites.saintmarys.edu/~incandel/doubleeffect.html)

"Classical formulations of the principle of double effect require that four
conditions be met if the action in question is to be morally permissible:
first, that the action contemplated be in itself either morally good or
morally indifferent; second, that the bad result not be directly intended;
third, that the good result not be a direct causal result of the bad result;
and fourth, that the good result be "proportionate to" the bad result.
Supporters of the principle argue that, in situations of "double effect" where
all these conditions are met, the action under consideration is morally
permissible despite the bad result."

The argument is that doing a delivery with intention to save the mother's life
is good, even if it has the consequence that the fetus dies, since the death
of the fetus was not the intention, and thus would not be called an abortion,
since the fetal death was a secondary effect and not the primary intended
effect.

The issue with the fact check is that the fact-checkers were so eager to label
something they disagreed with as false, that they did not appreciate the
nuance.

~~~
bdamm
And among "other medical conditions" would sit ectopic pregnancy, which not
only you cannot deliver, you cannot even allow it to get to 12 weeks or the
mother could die, so no attempt at delivery would make sense. How much medical
case history would need to be in a fact-checking judgement to be accepted as
fact?

~~~
RcouF1uZ4gsC
[https://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2014/09/abortion-ectopic-
pregna...](https://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2014/09/abortion-ectopic-pregnancy-
politicians-confuse-medical-terms.html)

Many people including ob-gyns do not consider surgery for an ectopic pregnancy
an abortion.

~~~
cannonedhamster
You found an anti abortion doctor to agree with you. Moving the goalposts
because of your beliefs. Stop trying to make definitions up when facts
disagree with your political opinion.

------
29_29
ASK HN: We really need a politics tab at the top of hackernews. Can we make
that happen?

~~~
ulucs
I can get behind a tech-only tab which hides political/non-technological
posts. Watching American software developers/computer scientists making
unsubstantiated grand claims on foreign political matters or
mathematics/economics proves to be bad for my blood pressure.

------
dvt
It's unfortunate that big tech is essentially acting as a "morality arbiter"
in such cases -- perhaps we need not only a separation of church and state,
but also of tech and state.

~~~
Kaveren
if you want a social network where you can say whatever you want without
interference go use gab or 4chan. it's facebook's choice whether or not they
want to do this.

edit: "whatever you want" supposed to be figure of speech, seemingly this must
be pointed out.

~~~
bonerman69
You mean 8chan? I don't know about gab but you can not say whatever you want
on 4chan...

~~~
dmix
8chan was still down since Cloudfare cancelled it last I checked. “Big tech”s
reach extends beyond the mega platforms onto smaller independent sites too.

Few sites are totally unmoderated either, I doubt gab is totally unmoderated
either. They all take down spam, illegal stuff, and harassing/abusive people
afaik. If not I dont see how their communities would last very long.

~~~
cannonedhamster
Gab is a far right platform that moderates away anything left of Rush
Limbaugh. They were upset that Reddit banned some really terrible and often
times illegal acts from their platform. So they moved to their own platform.
Their community is very open to fringe talk, hate speech as a form of free
speech, and doxxing. A link for reference but far from the only instance.

[https://news.yahoo.com/federal-judge-sentence-far-
extremist-...](https://news.yahoo.com/federal-judge-sentence-far-
extremist-050623746.html)

------
test45
Too much centralized cnotrol.

~~~
bdamm
At some point there's going be some form of court system(s) evolve out of
this, or else case law is going to lay down some rough guidelines for
companies like Facebook that are going to have to operate their own internal
courts. I could imagine a court overturning a decision by an internal company
court on censorship, for example. Maybe it's already happening.

------
coryrc
I'm so glad big tech screens videos for the correct political viewpoint.
Nobody could have predicted events like this.

~~~
jjulius
They screened videos to ensure the facts pertaining to a medical procedure
were correct. The fact check itself had nothing to do with politics.

~~~
jMyles
> It had nothing to do with politics.

Surely you can see that this is impossible. There is no component of a video
like this which has "nothing to do with politics."

~~~
jjulius
No, it's not. Please re-read my post. I said that _" the fact check itself"_
is not political. I did not defend the political bias of the video itself.

You would also do well to actually read the article, especially the screenshot
of the fact-check. You'll notice that the fact-check, per my post, simply
addresses the facts of the issue and does not make a single political
statement.

Edit: You also modified my statement when quoting me, making it more ambiguous
than I had written it. Please be sure to quote people accurately in the
future.

------
claar
The embedded video in the article is logical in its assertions and therefore
doesn't leave room for argument (obligatory replies to this comment aside).

Unfortunately, logical arguments in an emotionally charged topic are usually
heard as inflammatory, as many logical married individuals can attest. So this
political tug-of-war response should come as no surprise.

