
Facebook creates fact-checking exemption for climate deniers - aspenmayer
https://popular.info/p/facebook-creates-fact-checking-exemption
======
chillacy
> After the quiet decision by Facebook, the coalition says it and other groups
> that attack consensus climate science can share content that climate
> scientists have labeled as misleading because Facebook will consider it
> "opinion" and therefore immune to fact-checking.

Is this like some news organization recently argued in court that it's
actually "entertainment" so it doesn't have to be factual?

------
missedthecue
You have to wonder where the line should be drawn. Why shouldn't someone be
allowed to share an opinion? Despite common misconceptions, most of climate
discussion is _not_ settled objective fact, but projections and models about
whats probably going to happen in 100-200 years given constant assumed inputs.
Most of these models are changing quickly as well. They are not what they were
10 years ago for instance. Should facebook really be expected to hire people
to be deleting every opinion that doesn't perfectly match whatever the (always
evolving) IPCC's opinion? At that point why not just ban any comment with
certain keywords?

This forum has an extreme bias against facebook, so I doubt this decision by
them will be popular here, but I can completely understand that facebook would
like to prevent echo-chambers.

~~~
Schiendelman
This feels like a strawman to me. There are lots of things shared on Facebook
which are unambiguously misinformation, no matter what model or IPCC opinion
is the current state of our understanding. Sharing those things which are
unambiguously misinformation creates the appearance of debate where none
really exists (such as, "humans are causing a problem for ourselves").

~~~
missedthecue
Yes, but this is not what of those instances.

Besides, you must think about it from the mile-high view for a moment.
"Vaccines give you autism" and "Vaccines could cause harm" are both statements
put forth by the anti-vaccine crowd. One is false. One does have some level of
truth behind it. Most of this site would prefer they ban the second comment as
well as the first even though in strict technical terms, it is a factual
statement.

The simple truth is that Facebook has to practice a lot of policing, and
they're going to be stepping on a lot of toes. Just because all the content on
facebook is not 100% aligned with your personal views does not mean it should
come down. I think that is perfectly acceptable of facebook.

------
aspenmayer
Click “Let me read it first” to see the article without subscribing. It’s a
pretty nice flow for a newsletter site.

> According to the Wall Street Journal, Facebook found that the misinformation
> about climate models was an "opinion" and, therefore, not eligible for fact-
> checking.

> Now, the CO2 Coalition has announced its intention to exploit this loophole
> to spread climate misinformation on Facebook.

------
thoughtstheseus
This is why we shouldn’t push a climate change narrative. There’s too much of
a gray area. Just say what we’ve observed- there is a great extinction event
occurring today, excess carbon is a big part of the problem.

