social media Giants being pressured to curb medical misinformation

[mr moose]

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/02/facebook-working-on-additional-changes-to-beat-down-anti-vaxxers/?fbclid=IwAR2qZVSueKxxbBtrvnuzbEBFhQnU5JLABBcoy-I7gqTEjnOPz64fUTHHw0I

 

Good, is all I can say, I get that many people don't like the idea of social media companies censoring what people say on open platforms, but somethings are just to serious and are really beyond question.

 

I don't mind if people want to talk about the benefits of vitamins or natural supplements, but when they outright claim vaccines are dangerous or to avoid seeing a doctor they should be deleted. 

[Arika]

Agreed. There's a big difference between censorship and stopping the spread of misinformation that can legitimately hurt people

[Guest]

Two types of treatments: One useful, the other Homeopathy. 

[Drak3]

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is how you create echo chambers.

[XR6]

Good. It's about time this happened. Facebook has finally done something positive (never thought I'd say that) by stopping these anti-vaxxers.

I just hope every other social platform does it now, it would save dozens if not hundreds of lives.

 

[WkdPaul]

The sad part is, now anti-vaxxers are going to point at this to reinforce their beliefs that it's all a conspiracy and that the government is trying to hide the truth ... God I hate Facebook, it's worse than the YT comment section.

Edited February 19, 2019 by wkdpaul

[Drak3]

2 minutes ago, 1kv said:

by stopping these anti-vaxxers.

Paul puts it best:

 

1 minute ago, wkdpaul said:

now anti-vaxxers are going to point at this to reinforce that it's all a conspiracy and that the government is trying to hide the truth

 

 

Because outright banning ideas just bolsters the groups that hold them and creates echo chambers outside the originating platform.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, wkdpaul said:

The sad part is, now anti-vaxxers are going to point at this to reinforce their beliefs that it's all a conspiracy and that the government is trying to hide the truth ... God I hate Facebook, it's worse than the YT comment section.

Really appreciate in Schools, I believe in Australia, they are going behind the parents and introducing vaccinations at schools - but without parental consent. Great stuff. 

 

Recently there was a large outbreak of measles in America, mostly due to non-immunised individuals. I don't mind people and their views, but when it puts people's lives at risk, not just because measles is/was a deadly virus, it can cause an autoimmune condition of encephalitis and even multiple sclerosis later down the track. 

 

The most powerful tool the human race has is Education, and these people are pushing the human race further into the past. Disgraceful behaviour. 

[Razor Blade]

This goes to show that once an idea becomes a viral phenomenon it is amazing how much damage it can cause...

 

As a side note, deleting Facebook was the best thing I've done in a long time. Sure I was told I was crazy... but apparently I'm not missing that much. People are so freaking eager to show you photos of their kids or text you with every get together, Facebook has pretty much become irrelevant to me. So the only difference is my Facebook account isn't being mined for new data anymore.

[Giganthrax]

Social media companies aren't owned by the state, so they naturally have their own speech rules, and that's fine. 

 

I for one would love for Zuckerberg and his ilk to stop deleting offensive meme pages and to instead focus on curbing the spread of anti-vax, alternative medicine, conspiracy theory, etc. trash on their platforms. Use the power they have to do some good. 

[Drak3]

5 minutes ago, Giganthrax said:

curbing the spread of anti-vax, alternative medicine, conspiracy theory, etc. trash on their platforms.

The only way to curb the spread is thorough factual demonstration.

 

This is just going to create echo chambers and solidify these people in their beliefs.

[mr moose]

44 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Paul puts it best:

 

 

 

Because outright banning ideas just bolsters the groups that hold them and creates echo chambers outside the originating platform.

Those echo chambers are smaller and don't have anywhere near the reach that facebook does.  Echo chambers mainly just keep dumb people in dumb groups.

 

 

3 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

The only way to curb the spread is thorough factual demonstration.

 

 

 

That has been done to death,  Vaccines are the most transparent, most studied, most detailed post administration pharmaceutical over the longest period.   There is absolutely no way to hide or misconstrue  the sheer enormity of the evidence behind vaccines.  Yet we still have people (some with doctorates) pontificating lies about their safety all over facebook.   Cut of their cash cow (facebook and google ad revenue) and they will stop spouting the lies.

[mr moose]

Just now, VegetableStu said:

if only they would listen to the recent news ._.

Exactly. you can't use facts and logic to counter a conclusion drawn without them.

 

 

[LAwLz]

Great! But why stop at anti-vaxxers?

How about silencing those who claim the wage-gap is a real thing?

How about silencing those who say ecological food is beneficial to nature or humans?

How about silencing those who say piracy harms the industry?

How about we silence those who claim that any religion of the countless religious inaccuracies are true?

How about we silence those claiming that global warming is caused by holes in the ozone layer?

How about we silence those who claim that giving children sugar causes them to be hyperactive?

 

 

I could go on but I think some people get the point. Once we start censoring some information, where do we draw the line?

It might be information you want censored today, but it might lead to them censoring things you want to say in the future.

[mr moose]

6 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Great! But why stop at anti-vaxxers?

Because that is not up for debate, you may as well argue the earth if flat and the pentagon is run by lizard overlords:

 

6 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

How about silencing those who claim the wage-gap is a real thing?

How about silencing those who say ecological food is beneficial to nature or humans?

How about silencing those who say piracy harms the industry?

How about we silence those who claim that any religion of the countless religious inaccuracies are true?

How about we silence those claiming that global warming is caused by holes in the ozone layer?

How about we silence those who claim that giving children sugar causes them to be hyperactive?

Because arguing these things does not directly kill people.

 

6 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

 

I could go on but I think some people get the point. Once we start censoring some information, where do we draw the line?

It might be information you want censored today, but it might lead to them censoring things you want to say in the future.

That's a slippery slope argument.  I only want information that is proven false and leads to innocent children dying being censored.

 

 

[Stefan Payne]

6 hours ago, mr moose said:

Good, is all I can say, I get that many people don't like the idea of social media companies censoring what people say on open platforms, but somethings are just to serious and are really beyond question.

ORLY?!
Do they ban people that claim that Men can be woman too?
Do they ban people that claim that men can menstruate too?

 

Or do they ban people that claim "Men aren't woman" or "women aren't man"??

[mr moose]

Just now, Stefan Payne said:

ORLY?!
Do they ban people that claim that Men can be woman too?
Do they ban people that claim that men can menstruate too?

 

Or do they ban people that claim "Men aren't woman" or "women aren't man"??

 

If it leads to a health issue that kills people, then yes.

 

[Stefan Payne]

Just now, mr moose said:

If it leads to a health issue that kills people, then yes.

Yes, it does! And its a downward circle.

But do they ban those claims??

 

Or do they allow that and ban the people who say "men aren't women" or ex-Tennis Stars like Navratilova, who claimed that men and women are different?

[Teddy07]

I am glad I do not use social media because the censoring seems harsher than in North Korea at this point.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

Yes, it does! And its a downward circle.

But do they ban those claims??

 

Or do they allow that and ban the people who say "men aren't women" or ex-Tennis Stars like Navratilova, who claimed that men and women are different?

You draw the line where their views are impacting the health of others. It's not exactly a fine line. 

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

Yes, it does! And its a downward circle.

But do they ban those claims??

 

Or do they allow that and ban the people who say "men aren't women" or ex-Tennis Stars like Navratilova, who claimed that men and women are different?

Show me the evidence debating gender issues directly cause death the way promoting people not vaccinate their kids and we'll have that discussion, until then it is a slippery slope argument.  We'll say no when they propose to censor something that isn't as black and white.

 

 

[Suika]

27 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Great! But why stop at anti-vaxxers?

How about silencing those who claim the wage-gap is a real thing?

How about silencing those who say ecological food is beneficial to nature or humans?

How about silencing those who say piracy harms the industry?

How about we silence those who claim that any religion of the countless religious inaccuracies are true?

How about we silence those claiming that global warming is caused by holes in the ozone layer?

How about we silence those who claim that giving children sugar causes them to be hyperactive?

 

 

I could go on but I think some people get the point. Once we start censoring some information, where do we draw the line?

It might be information you want censored today, but it might lead to them censoring things you want to say in the future.

At the very least the line could be drawn strictly to single out Russian disinformation campaigns. That alone would probably stop a lot of the misinformation.

[Stefan Payne]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

Show me the evidence debating gender issues directly cause death the way promoting people not vaccinate their kids and we'll have that discussion,

 

until then it is a slippery slope argument.  We'll say no when they propose to censor something that isn't as black and white.

NO, its not.

Banning people for their views is NOT A SOLUTION! Thats a pretty awful and authoritarian point of view!

 

It doesn't matter if that might or might not kill someone. It matters how you deal with it. ANd we live in a pretty free society - or one would have thought, where things like personal responsibilitys are valued.

 

To forbid people to talk about something doesn't solve anything, it is like putting a lid on a cooking pot. 

The Solution of that is not to supress information about that, the solution is to give them Information that they are wrong and discuss it with them.

 

And even if they don't want to vaccinate their kids, they should live with the consequences and, if the child dies because of that, stand trial for neglecting the child and causing death.

 

But on the other hand there are people actively propagating/talking about killing babys. And glorifying that as well...

Should we ban THOSE people?? That actually talk about killing upcoming people??

 

I'm not a fan of banning someone because of "wrongthink". That's a bad thing.

There is a thing that Picard Said in the Episode "the Drumhead":

"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." Those words were uttered by Judge Aaron Satie as wisdom and warning. The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged.

 

 

I stand by that and do NOT want to forge that chain!

 

[Stefan Payne]

9 minutes ago, Suika said:

At the very least the line could be drawn strictly to single out Russian disinformation campaigns. That alone would probably stop a lot of the misinformation.

...

It hurts me to see those lines written here. And to think that people actually believe that.

The Media was seen "misreporting" a couple of things and jumping the gun a couple of times already this year....

 

And the Russia narrative only works because of one thing:

Russia always was "our" enemy. So its easy to sell that claim!

Even if it might not be entirely true...

 

Truth is that everyone does it everywhere. What about the American Propaganda in Europe?? The "Atlantic Bridge"?

What about European Propaganda?

What about Japanese Propaganda?
What about Korean Propaganda?

 

Sorry, but that is just totally besides the point...

 

Here a Link of one of the Things I was thinking about:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantik-Brücke

That is a US-Propaganda thing that promotes US-Interests in Europe, mainly Germany.

[mr moose]

Just now, Stefan Payne said:

NO, its not.

Banning people for their views is NOT A SOLUTION! Thats a pretty awful and authoritarian point of view!

 

It doesn't matter if that might or might not kill someone. It matters how you deal with it. ANd we live in a pretty free society - or one would have thought, where things like personal responsibilitys are valued.

 

To forbid people to talk about something doesn't solve anything, it is like putting a lid on a cooking pot. 

The Solution of that is not to supress information about that, the solution is to give them Information that they are wrong and discuss it with them.

 

And even if they don't want to vaccinate their kids, they should live with the consequences and, if the child dies because of that, stand trial for neglecting the child and causing death.

 

But on the other hand there are people actively propagating/talking about killing babys. And glorifying that as well...

Should we ban THOSE people?? That actually talk about killing upcoming people??

 

I'm not a fan of banning someone because of "wrongthink". That's a bad thing.

There is a thing that Picard Said in the Episode "the Drumhead":

"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." Those words were uttered by Judge Aaron Satie as wisdom and warning. The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged.

 

 

I stand by that and do NOT want to forge that chain!

 

No ones banning a person for their views, they are simply requesting the deletion of dangerous and absolutely wrong vaccine advice.   

 

That's actually legally and morally closer to banning people from inciting a riot than it is to anything else.   Laws already exist to that effect.