
Zuckerberg Dismisses Fact-Checking - besus
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/05/zuckerberg-dismisses-fact-checking-after-bragging-about-fact-checking/
======
jmull
> "I just believe strongly that Facebook shouldn't be the arbiter of truth of
> everything that people say online,"

No platform really _wants_ to be the arbiter of truth. The problem is, if you
punt on that entirely you’re 4chan or some other cesspool.

Anyway, Zuck is being pretty disingenuous here, though, because Facebook
_does_ have community standards... they just don’t apply to politicians and
other influential people. Facebook wants to give them free reign but control
regular people.

Pretty dystopian, IMO, though hopefully more people will recognize this and
drop Facebook.

~~~
growlist
The sad truth is: anything that goes against the MSM's agenda is generally
better covered on 4chan/alternate cesspool.

~~~
joubert
Example link?

------
SideburnsOfDoom
Sorry to hear about the death of Mr Zuckerberg yesterday.

Sources:

[https://www.theshovel.com.au/2020/05/28/mark-zuckerberg-
dead...](https://www.theshovel.com.au/2020/05/28/mark-zuckerberg-dead-
at-36-says-social-media-fact-check/)

[https://technology.inquirer.net/55533/facebook-
accidentally-...](https://technology.inquirer.net/55533/facebook-accidentally-
declares-its-founder-mark-zuckerberg-dead)

[https://www.businessinsider.com/fake-headlines-mark-
zuckerbe...](https://www.businessinsider.com/fake-headlines-mark-zuckerberg-
satire-test-facebook-policies-2020-5?r=US&IR=T)

------
mastermojo
I like the idea of fact-checking in theory, but in practice the epistemology
gets pretty messy.

Donald Trump says "The concept of global warming was created by and for the
Chinese in order to make U.S manufacturing non-competitive." I think global
warming is a fact but it's become so politicized that certain people don't
consider it a fact.

I think everything lies on a relative scale of fact to "alternative fact", and
it's probably less controversial for private companies to be conservative in
their censorship. How do you properly refute someones conspiracy theory
anyways?

~~~
toss1
>> "How do you properly refute someones conspiracy theory anyways"

As usual, with actual facts, based on hard reality and hundreds of years of
scientific method.

Or recognize and point out, that it is so detached from such reality that, as
physicists often note about the nutters writing in: "it isn't even wrong".

Of course, that doesn't often work for those deeply embedded in conspiracy
theory, or actively spreading dezinformatsiya. You can't convince them, but
you can point out for others who are not all the way into nutter-land, that
maybe they shouldn't keep going down that path.

Currently the recommendation engines actively push people to extreme views.
Zuckerberg had research brought to him showing that Facebook exposed users to
more and more extreme views, and that 30% of people joining extreme groups did
it by FB's reccmendation. He said he never wanted to hear about it again [1]

It is not only fact checking. If you say fact checking is problematic, they
could at least not actively encourage falsehoods and extremes.

These platforms' tolerance and indeed active spreading of alternative facts,
desinformatsiya, outright lies, and extreme conspiracy theories is actively
undermining democracy worldwide. They may be profitable for a time, but the
externalized damage is insane.

Let the downvote brigades get to work.

[1][https://news.yahoo.com/mark-zuckerberg-reportedly-brushed-
as...](https://news.yahoo.com/mark-zuckerberg-reportedly-brushed-
aside-202137623.html)

~~~
bcrl
You should really go watch the flat earth documentary "Behind The Curve". The
reaction of flat earthers to their experiment failing to support the flat
earth theory resulted in them deciding they needed to do a different
experiment.

The reality is that conspiracy theories are far more about socialization and
communities than they are about facts.

~~~
qnsi
exactly. convincing someone that conspiracy theories are probably not true is
way harder than teaching them about scientific method

~~~
lern_too_spel
Convincing someone to not start believing a conspiracy theory is easier, which
is the point of these efforts. I point out conspiracy theories when I see
them, not for the benefit of the conspiracy theorist who spouted them but for
the benefit of the person who reads those conspiracy theories and the
debunking later.

------
jasoneckert
This statement could very well be the result of a business decision rather
than one based on principles or ethics.

~~~
summitsummit
As if anything else was possible from such a source.

