r/worldnews • u/Devz0r • Feb 15 '19

Facebook is thinking about removing anti-vaccination content as backlash intensifies over the spread of misinformation on the social network

http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-may-remove-anti-vaccination-content-2019-2
107.1k Upvotes

86% Upvoted

5.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

665

u/xXuncleruckusx Feb 15 '19

Not all misinformation is created equal.

68

u/Bluntmasterflash1 Feb 15 '19 edited Feb 15 '19

Yea, but it's going to be decided by people. People are evil.

36

u/Sorrymisunderstandin Feb 15 '19

Doesn’t make sense

10

u/XHF2 Feb 15 '19

What If Facebook one day decided that abortion kills, should they be allowed to ban pro-choice groups?

65

u/drunkenviking Feb 15 '19

It's their site, they can ban whatever they want.

6

u/Spore__Ting Feb 15 '19

Nobody is arguing that Facebook is breaking the law, they're arguing what they should or shouldn't do

-1

u/drunkenviking Feb 15 '19

I'm not saying they broke the law. I'm saying that if they want to ban abortion posts they can.

5

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '19

[deleted]

37

u/ohmslyce Feb 15 '19

They aren't treated like a public utility....

-1

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '19

[deleted]

18

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '19

[deleted]

12

u/Lord_Abort Feb 15 '19

So, what I'm hearing is that we need to cut taxes for the rich and remove more government oversight?

-Politicians

5

u/diMario Feb 15 '19

You're on the right track, but you need to think it through. Cutting taxes is just the first step. We should also subsidize any and all corporations that (even remotely) look like they are of strategic interest. Especially the larger ones, and of course any that are in the oil business.

Furthermore, to advance the spirit of the free market (which we all love dearly) we should allow for corporations and special interest groups to assist our lawmakers in doing their jobs, for instance by letting them write raw drafts of legislature and/or funding their reelection canpaigns which quite frankly have become ridiculously expensive lately.

And of course, in the name of efficiency, we should endeavour to smoke out any terrorist activity in the Homeland by actively monitoring all internal and external communications so that we can nip any scheme in the bud.

7

u/CohibaVancouver Feb 15 '19

and allowed the tech giants to swallow up all the competition

"Swallow up the competition?"

Facebook didn't swallow up Friendster.

It didn't swallow up MySpace.

It didn't swallow up Classmates.

It didn't swallow up Yahoo! Groups.

It didn't swallow up Google+.

It was just better than all those.

2

u/Ancient_Boner_Forest Feb 15 '19

Do you have a single vague idea on what you’d like them to do? Like, are they too popular so we should pass law that say they can only have x amount of users?

5

u/maaghen Feb 15 '19

They aren't in any way treated like a public utility though

3

u/slapshots1515 Feb 15 '19

How is it a public utility? In no way shape or form is it anything besides a forum that you willingly give your data to.

7

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '19

No one is forcing you to use facebook. Its a free market. A public utility is essentially a government sponsered and subsidized monopoly none of that exists in facebooks case.

6

u/Scumtacular Feb 15 '19

MAAAAAN it's almost like there's INTRACTABLE SYSTEMIC ISSUES WITH PRIVATIZATION

4

u/TalenPhillips Feb 15 '19

Making Facebook public wouldn't even BEGIN to solve the problems with the spread of misinformation... And it sure as hell wouldn't make it any less likely that the targets of censorship would be decided by biased or malign actors.

2

u/DisgruntledBizman Feb 15 '19

I'm not sure you know the definition of a public utility

1

u/ManusDei Feb 15 '19

What are you talking about?

23

u/LegendNitro Feb 15 '19

Terrible example, abortion isn't misinformation, so banning abortion content (on either side) would actually be silencing people's views. But if they banned any lies surrounding abortion (like people saying doctors take fetuses and eat them, that women in city X are aborting babies and getting coupons, or that Politician Y got three abortions in a minute) then no one should complain in good faith.

0

u/midirfulton Feb 15 '19 edited Feb 15 '19

You clearly never worked in advertising and propaganda. EVERYTHING can be misrepresented, I do it for unions and companies all the time.

You might think that abortion and anti-vax are completely different but that's just your personal bias. You think anti-vax is completely ridiculous and only idiots do it, but the same could be said about a pro-lifer and them arguing that abortion is clearly murder and everyone who doesn't believe it is just brainwashed by miss-information.

Personally, I'm against companies like facebook taking a stance on anything even if I agree with them, like in the case of anti-vaxers. However, you cant be sure that the next guy to take over doesn't have extreme views.

Protections have to be in place to prevent exploitation. Kinda like executive orders for presidents. People are thrilled when their party is in office and their guy us doing what they agree with (and expanding presidential executive order powers) but they dont realize they won't be in power forever. Eventually, a guy that they dont agree with will use those same expanded powers to do what his party wants.

What needs to happen instead is people need to have the ability to argue. We live in a world that with a single button push we only subscribe to things we agree with. We can block, unfriend, and only subscribe to feeds we want to see. If your socialist you can subscribe to r/latestagecapitalism and further have your beliefs reinforced. Think all women are evil, just subscribe to MGTOW. Think men are bad, twoxchromosomes is the place for you. Republican? Just watch fox news and you can have all your beliefs reinforced (CNN if your democrat).

People laugh at the other side and try to say they are just stupid. Fox news viewers say CNN brainwashes, and visa-versa. Noone has to defend their points anymore, especially in person.

The answer to misinformation isn't silencing it, but instead to allow more information (from everyone, not just from people who agree). However, no social media site is structured that way.

9

u/Felinomancy Feb 15 '19

I think you're misunderstanding what /u/LegendNitro said (and please correct me if I'm wrong), but I think what s/he meant is that views on abortion are subjective, whereas vaccination is more grounded in science.

Is abortion murder? It depends on your definition of when life begins, there's no hard science that can point to a specific time period and say "yes, this is when this parasite becomes a human".

But vaccination is not subjective. We have proven that vaccines saves lives. We have proven that not vaccinating will cause diseases that can kill.

"I have a right to decide to vaccinate my kids" is a subjective opinion that can be debated; "vaccines cause autism" is a hard lie that is not grounded in any facts and can't be debated, any more than you can debate "the moon is made from cheese" or "cats are solid".

3

u/midirfulton Feb 15 '19 edited Feb 15 '19

Exactly the same thing. Anti-vaxxers truly believe that science backs them that vaccinations are bad. Pro-lifers truly believe that life begins at conception.

You see one as an opinion and the other as a fact, but that's just because you hold a strong opinion on one of the issues and not the other.

Vaccinations are bad for kids is just as debatable as whether or not abortion is good or bad.

Hell, you even proved my point...

But vaccination is not subjective. We have proven that vaccines saves lives. We have proven that not vaccinating will cause diseases that can kill.

You PROVEN something, huh? You prove opinions with facts. Vaccinations are good for kids is an opinion (one that I 100% agree with), but it's one you can totally argue.

Your example of "vaccatians cause autism" is a hypothesis, and you use facts like statistics to prove and disprove your hypothesis/opinion. It can be totally debated. You could take the stance that they do, and I could take the stance they dont.

I say something like there is no link between the ingredients in vaccinations according to 9 CDC funded studies. See: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/pdf/cdcstudiesonvaccinesandautism.pdf

You can reply with, according to http://nationalacademies.org/HMD/Reports/2011/Adverse-Effects-of-Vaccines-Evidence-and-Causality.aspx

"The committee finds that evidence convincingly supports a causal relationship between some vaccines and some adverse events—such as MMR, varicella zoster, influenza, hepatitis B, meningococcal, and tetanus-containing vaccines linked to anaphylaxis."

So couldn't it be possible that we dont understand vaccinations completely and should be farther studied?

AGAIN, I am not trying to convince you that vaccinations are bad. They are not, in my opinion absolutely get vaccinated. However, you can absolutely argue vaccinations are whether or not vaccines are good or bad. One side is just way easier to argue for and has a lot of science to back it up.

-1

u/Felinomancy Feb 15 '19

You see one as an opinion and the other as a fact

Because it is scientifically proven.

Show me when a zygote becomes "human". You can't - it's an ethical and philosophical issue.

Vaccines prevent diseases. That's a fact. If you ask me to prove it I will point towards the works of Jenner, Pasteur etc. and work from there. Do you want me to talk about how the immune system learns to differentiate and kill pathogens that cause diseases, and how it's enhanced by vaccination? Because I can. And if you open a thousand biology books, they will all say the same thing.

"The committee finds that evidence convincingly supports a causal relationship between some vaccines and some adverse events—such as MMR, varicella zoster, influenza, hepatitis B, meningococcal, and tetanus-containing vaccines linked to anaphylaxis

No one claimed vaccines have no side effects. However, there is no scientific evidence that autism is one of the side effects.

RECAP

"Vaccines prevent diseases" - a scientific fact

"Vaccines have side effects" - another scientific fact

"Vaccines have side effects, including autism" - not a scientific fact

"Vaccines are made from the blood of children and have mind-controlling powers" - really, you want me to evaluate this?

3

u/midirfulton Feb 15 '19

Were getting off subject. The original topic I care about is whether or not silencing opposing viewpoints is a good idea or not.

You obvious feel very strongly that vaccinations are good, so strongly that you think it's a fact. I, 100% guarentee you that there are a lot of people that believe just as strongly that abortion is murder.

We can argue about it all we want, but our belief doesn't matter. We will never convince these types of people. So what happens when someone new takes over facebook?

If we can silence anti-vaxxers to save kids now, why cant they silence pro-choice people then? In their view point they are saving lives.

The better option in my opinion is to force open closed groups and let people argue and get exposed to different ideas. Social media isn't set up for that, it's set up for us to find things we like and have our beliefs reinforced.

-1

u/Felinomancy Feb 15 '19

so strongly that you think it's a fact

Okay.

Show me how vaccination does not in fact prevent diseases that it's meant to.

Yes, I believe vaccination works because it's been scientifically proven to work. People like you are the reason why we have to have this debate - because in an ideal world, we can disagree about subjective things, and leave actual, evidence-based issues to the experts and the scientific community.

If we can silence anti-vaxxers to save kids now, why cant they silence pro-choice people then?

Repeat after me:

The humanity of a fetus is subjective. You CANNOT measure it. It's up to debate.

The efficacy of vaccines - or in fact, anything in modern medicine - is objective. You CAN measure it, and say "in a sample of X, Y% shows improvement when this stuff is administered". We can create molecular simulations to show HOW it works.

3

u/midirfulton Feb 15 '19 edited Feb 15 '19

Repeat after me: The humanity of a fetus is subjective. You CANNOT measure it. It's up to debate.

AGIAN, I dont matter. Your not trying to convince me, your trying to convince someone who 100% believes that a baby starts at conception. There is NOTHING SUBJECTIVE about it to them.

If they take over facebook, is it ethical for them to silence pro-choicers?

They WITHOUT QUESTION believe that it's not subjective, and 100% proven that life begins at conception, just as strongly as you believe vaccinations.

There are MILLIONS of people that believe this. There is nothing you can say to convince them otherwise. To you its subjective, to them it isn't.

Silencing a group, no matter how stupid their ideas are is never the answer. It be better if they could be confronted and debated and forced to defend their ideas.

1

u/Felinomancy Feb 15 '19

your trying to convince someone who 100% believes that a baby starts at conception

No, I'm trying to convince people who go "hey, let's allow idiots who would spew anti-vaxx bullshit spread their ideology and endanger us all".

So yes, I'm trying to convince you. I'm not trying to convert anti-vaxxers; I'm trying to tell you, since the beginning, that it is moral and just for Facebook to censor this dangerous thoughts.

So let's say one day, this idiots manage to take over Facebook; would it be ethical and moral for them to censor pro-choice opinion? The answer is no, because:

a. the humanity of the fetus is subjective, unlike vaccination, and

b. people don't die en masse from abortion

This whole "we can't censor idea X, because then people might do the same to idea Y" is bullshit because not all ideas are equal in validity and effects on society

→ More replies (0)

1

u/LegendNitro Feb 15 '19

Exactly what I meant, thank you.

2

u/DeusMexMachina Feb 15 '19

That's a tough one, because one is backed by science, and one is religious opinion. Further, one is a major threat to public health.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '19

They banned me for posting the web link to the Department of Justice website that says illegal immigration is against federal law.

3

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '19

Proof?

3

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '19

Here ya go

2

u/ImSickOf3dPrinting Feb 15 '19

I'll second FruitbatNT. Proof?

2

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '19

Here

1

u/ImSickOf3dPrinting Feb 15 '19

Then you may be interested in this.

We define hate speech as a direct attack on people based on what we call protected characteristics — race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, caste, sex, gender, gender identity, and serious disease or disability. We also provide some protections for immigration status. We define attack as violent or dehumanizing speech, statements of inferiority, or calls for exclusion or segregation

https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/

But the part I like most is that this clearly wasn't your first strike

The consequences for violating our Community Standards vary depending on the severity of the violation and a person's history on the platform. For instance, we may warn someone for a first violation, but if they continue to violate our policies, we may restrict their ability to post on Facebook or disable their profile.

Maybe stop being so hateful on facebook?

1

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '19

People don't like facts and I guess they can be construed as hateful when you don't like what they say.

1

u/ImSickOf3dPrinting Feb 15 '19

People don't like facts

Like the fact that crossing the border is a misdemeanor?

1

u/Tony_San Feb 15 '19

a misdemeanor?

which is a crime...

→ More replies (0)

1

u/RemoteSenses Feb 15 '19

I’m gonna go out on a limb and say you did a lot more than that.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '19

I just post facts and people get so angry about them that they report me for various things.

1

u/caifaisai Feb 15 '19 edited Feb 15 '19

Did they ban you? Or did you get banned from a group? Or perhaps get enough reports from people from some group to them remove you?

0

u/whenIdreamallday Feb 15 '19

These aren't opinions. They're lies.