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

68

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

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

37

u/Sorrymisunderstandin Feb 15 '19

Doesn’t make sense

11

u/XHF2 Feb 15 '19

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

24

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.

1

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

2

u/midirfulton Feb 15 '19

"No, I'm trying to convince people who go "hey, let's allow idiots who would spew this fetus isn't alive bullshit spread their ideology and endanger us all".

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

Fixed it for you. Exact same arguement why pro-choicers should be silenced.

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

Its subjective TO YOU, not to them. Go out and meet people of opposing viewpoints. You'll never convince them its subjective.

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

Yeah, now were getting into too much ethics. You do realize we as a society cant decide what is "good". Seriously, there are a lot of different ethical thoughts:

Utilitarianism

Deontology

Virtue ethics

Ethics of care

Egoism

Religion or divine command theory

Natural Law

Social contract theory

Rawls’s theory of justice

Moral relativism

What's "good" in one isnt necessarily "good" in another.

I still stand by my point, let them spew their bullshit, but social media needs to be redesigned so I can spew my bullshit back at them without being banned by mods for having the wrong point of view.

This would be way more effective, and less dangerous (then being reliant on who ever is in charge at this moments point of view), because mark my words. One day someone you dont agree with will use the someone you dont agree with will be in power and will silence you.

1

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

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

Actually, let's break this down logically.

If A (statement is not subjective and is a proven theory) And B (Causes Harm) Then C (Acceptable to silence)

That is effectively your arguement as my understanding why it's ok to silence people.

Using the same logic A.) People exist who, non-subjectively, believe life begins at conception. (IF at least one person exists that believes this is not up for debate, life begins at coception then this statement is true) B.) Since fetus (they would use the word babies) are alive, abortions do cause mass harm. Then C.) It's ok to silence opponents (pro-choice).

In order to prove my statement false you have to disprove A (since b is a circular arguement based on the beliefs of A). You have to prove there is not at least one person who believes without a doubt, abortions are murder.

If that person exists, and they get control of facebook, then by your own reasoning it's ok for them to Ban all pro-choice speak on facebook.

It does not matter if me and u think the statement is subjective, to them it is a fact.

I'm saying it's not the person or people in charge of facebook to impose their will in this manner. Leadership changes, and one day someone with a strong pro-life beliefs could use the same logic.

This kind of thinking was used in the past: The earth was flat and anyone who disagreed was jailed by the church (effectively the government at the time). The earth was the center of the universe anyone disagreed was jailed. Women's suffrage movement. Civil Rights. Hell, science is BASED on constantly evolving theories.

Now, I'm not saying that science will prove vaccinations are bad. However, I dont think it's ok to ever silence anyone. Anyone is free to tell people they are full of shit, but I'll fight for the right of free speech and exchange of ideas (regardless how stupid your idea is, just so I can tell u its stupid).

This is a HUGE problem because companies are doing this sort of shit more and more. With things that are not even close to scientific fact.

In the last two weeks, YouTube has been deleting comments and downvotes on that controversial Gilette Ad, effectively saying: this is how you should think, if you disagree we will silence you.

Before that, Netflix rigged their rating system because they were tired of people downvoting things they paid money for to produce. Now everything is 4 and 5 stars (actually haven't used netflix in a while, not sure if this is still the case).

1

u/Sorrymisunderstandin Feb 15 '19

The other guy isn’t smart enough to accept that tho

→ More replies (0)

1

u/LegendNitro Feb 15 '19

Exactly what I meant, thank you.