Current Events > Facebook has responded to Biden saying they are killing people.

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://twitter.com/DylanByers/status/1416139925746032643

https://twitter.com/DylanByers/status/1416179986654973952

https://twitter.com/DylanByers/status/1416180642732199937




---

I mean facebook has also been used to facilitate multiple genocides so

---

Thier words mean less than nothing while they permit Anti-vax groups on their platform.


---

Too little too late on Facebooks part.

---

Lol Facebook

---

"we allow misinformation but it's okay because we also have real information"

---

Facebook doesn't kill people, people kill people

---

Facebook needs to be ground into dust and scattered into the wind. FORTY EIGHT (48) attorney generals sued Facebook (think how difficult bipartisanship like this is in America) and a corrupt judge threw out the case.

---

This is the equivalent of saying you cant be racist, because you have black friends.

It's interesting I don't like either side on this.

Facebook fucks things up because of their dumbass business model, not because they haven't been authoritarian enough in their sloppy "anti-misinformation" campaigns.

I generally like Biden, but here I think he has framed the problem wrong. People aren't getting vaccinated as much as they likely should because many people lack faith in institutions, and facebook has played a big part in that.

The issue is that the fix for that isn't facebook thought policing with unrigorous pop-science.

It's to make it so attention isn't the driving market force in these massive evil companies.

---

And here he comes right on cue

---

Shezarr posted...

And here he comes right on cue

Posting things consistent with my values, how ridiculous.

---

joe40001 posted...

It's interesting I don't like either side on this.

Facebook fucks things up because of their dumbass business model, not because they haven't been authoritarian enough in their sloppy "anti-misinformation" campaigns.

I generally like Biden, but here I think he has framed the problem wrong. People aren't getting vaccinated as much as they likely should because many people lack faith in institutions, and facebook has played a big part in that.

The issue is that the fix for that isn't facebook thought policing with unrigorous pop-science.

It's to make it so attention isn't the driving market force in these massive evil companies.

Shut the fuck up with your bullshit

---

hockeybub89 posted...

Shut the fuck up with your bullshit

What do you think I am wrong about?

---

joe40001 posted...

What do you think I am wrong about?

I appreciate your consistency, but Facebooks inability to punish information in a reliable manner is probably the main cause of people not wanting to get vaccinated.

---

Taking responsibility for dumbasses is for dumbasses

---

"And how many have spread misinformation?"

"10 million, but who's counting???"

---

Samurontai posted...

I appreciate your consistency, but Facebooks inability to punish information in a reliable manner is probably the main cause of people not wanting to get vaccinated.

Most conspiracist nutjobs were set in their ways long before they were old enough to know what "Facebook" was. At best, it's guilty of helping them share new nutjob ideas with each other.

---

Samurontai posted...

I appreciate your consistency, but Facebooks inability to punish information in a reliable manner is probably the main cause of people not wanting to get vaccinated.

I disagree, I think some blame can be put at facebook's feet, but it comes much more from their business model. Their business model is about "attention" and not "value" as such it funnels towards shallowness. Even if the shallowness is in service of something true it doesn't serve to boost trust in institutions.

They stand a much better chance of helping fight misinformation by correcting their algorithm than by us trusting them to be the artibiters of scientific truth.

This whole "we need them to shut down misinformation" is not the way to go for many reasons, but a huge one is that such a program works if the consumer trusts facebook, and frankly why would anybody trust facebook at this point?

Social media is part of the problem, but it is an econmics/bad incentives problem rather than "not enough authoritarian censorship of 'misinformation'" IMO

---

Biden admins wanting facebook to censor stuff is a real bad precident and a terrible slippery slope to get on.

But it's totally not like 1984 guys

Trumble posted...

Most conspiracist nutjobs were set in their ways long before they were old enough to know what "Facebook" was. At best, it's guilty of helping them share new nutjob ideas with each other.

Yes, but that doesn't discount the fact that disinformation does demonstrable harm to younger people. It's not just old people that are anti-vax.

joe40001 posted...

I disagree, I think some blame can be put at facebook's feet, but it comes much more from their business model. Their business model is about "attention" and not "value" as such it funnels towards shallowness. Even if the shallowness is in service of something true it doesn't serve to boost trust in institutions.

They stand a much better chance of helping fight misinformation by correcting their algorithm than by us trusting them to be the artibiters of scientific truth.

This whole "we need them to shut down misinformation" is not the way to go for many reasons, but a huge one is that such a program works if the consumer trusts facebook, and frankly why would anybody trust facebook at this point?

Social media is part of the problem, but it is an econmics/bad incentives problem rather than "not enough authoritarian censorship of 'misinformation'" IMO

I can agree with most of that, but I find it jarring to call censorship authoritarian, when it's just the free market working as intended. It'd be different if it was state censorship, but it's not.

---

Rhylos posted...

Biden admins wanting facebook to censor stuff is a real bad precident and a terrible slippery slope to get on.

But it's totally not like 1984 guys

Anti-censorship people like you are fucking stupid. Enough said

---

Rhylos posted...

Biden admins wanting facebook to censor stuff is a real bad precident and a terrible slippery slope to get on.

But it's totally not like 1984 guys

I think we shouldn't have any laws at all. You know who else has laws? Totalitarian regimes. Once you make laws, what's to stop them from making more laws? Slippery slope we can only avoid with anarchy.

---

hockeybub89 posted...

I think we shouldn't have any laws at all. You know who else has laws? Totalitarian regimes. Once you make laws, what's to stop them from making more laws? Slippery slope we can only avoid with anarchy.

Based

---

Trumble posted...

Most conspiracist nutjobs were set in their ways long before they were old enough to know what "Facebook" was. At best, it's guilty of helping them share new nutjob ideas with each other.

I also disagree with this.

A lot of anti-vaxx stuff came from health conscious "organic moms" who care about 'natural things', and dumbass optimizing for engagement facebook said "huh, lots of gluten free hippie organic moms are clicking this anti-vaxx shit, let's share it more!"

I know it makes things easier to think everybody who believes conspiracies are low IQ people who were a lost cause from the get go, but I don't think that's the case.

Social media is powerful, ("the social dilemma" is a good documentary on this) and it's mostly a case of lizard brain attention stuff being hijacked before the critical thinking part of the brain is allowed to get involved.

Having facebook police misinformation that their algortihms help spread is the wrong solution though IMO. It's like getting an arsonist to also be a firefighter, rather than teaching them to be less of an arsonist.

---

Samurontai posted...

Anti-censorship people like you are fucking stupid. Enough said

It's stupid to be anti-censorship?

Wtf

Samurontai posted...

Anti-censorship people like you are fucking stupid. Enough said

Pro-censorship is fucking stupid.

Shezarr posted...

I mean facebook has also been used to facilitate multiple genocides so

???

Lmfao

---

"We shouldn't do anything about lies and misinformation because anyone can just declare truth and science to be lies and misinformation"

Maybe we should just end the planet if that's the situation we're in. That sounds like a terminal diagnosis.

---

I guess Authoritarianism is fine as long as our side does it.

unnamedsoldier posted...

I guess Authoritarianism is fine as long as our side does it.

The left/dems have a real bad "well Biden isn't Trump so it's okay" problem lately.

Samurontai posted...

I can agree with most of that, but I find it jarring to call censorship authoritarian, when it's just the free market working as intended. It'd be different if it was state censorship, but it's not.

I can understand that, but my 3 points of pushback are:

1. The free market has problems, so it working as intended doesn't mean it's serving the public interest
2. This seems largely political not free market, I do think if we did have free market competition for facebook without the authoritarian elements it would outcompete facebook, but there is at the very least some fingers on the scales as far as what extent competition in silicon valley is allowed
3. The more of a monopoly it is, the more we must consider it as an extension of the government IMO. If everybody has a right to drinking water, but the only drinking water was distributed by 1 company, that company's policies would in effect become law, and so long as we have legal protections those things should apply to that company.

---

DarthAragorn posted...

"we allow misinformation but it's okay because we also have real information"

Yeah this

I gotta side with old man Bidey on this

pointing out how big they are and how useful they could be if they cared is an own goal

---

hockeybub89 posted...

"We shouldn't do anything about lies and misinformation because anyone can just declare truth and science to be lies and misinformation"

Maybe we should just end the planet if that's the situation we're in. That sounds like a terminal diagnosis.

I mean, let the posts remain, but tag them with a huge ass disclaimer stating the information in the post is false. Just like Twitter did with Trump's tweets.

That way, they can just look stupid all on their own.

---

Rhylos posted...

Pro-censorship is fucking stupid.

Conspiracy theories and deliberate misinformation are dangerous. All those do is hurt people. Look at the state of the world. It's because we don't challenge anything. We believe everything is an opinion worth respecting. Facts and logic are the only things that matter.

---

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

I mean, let the posts remain, but tag them with a huge ass disclaimer stating the information in the post is false. Just like Twitter did with Trump's tweets.

That way, they can just look stupid all on their own.

But I've heard that's still censorship because they're only false if you choose to live in a reality where they are false.

Reality has become ambiguous and that's why we are setting up for such disaster in the future. A lot of people don't care about everyone because everyone doesn't even exist in their world. They don't see a world that expands beyond their immediate surroundings.

---

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

I mean, let the posts remain, but tag them with a huge ass disclaimer stating the information in the post is false. Just like Twitter did with Trump's tweets.

That way, they can just look stupid all on their own.

If they do this though, they need to be 100% sure the thing they are calling false is in fact false.

---

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

I mean, let the posts remain, but tag them with a huge ass disclaimer stating the information in the post is false. Just like Twitter did with Trump's tweets.

They literally do this and people just say the fact checkers are biased and liberal lmao. These people are lost

---

joe40001 posted...

If they do this though, they need to be 100% sure the thing they are calling false is in fact false.

Yeah like earthquakes and pandemics happening because we legalized abortion and trans people.

---

Rhylos posted...

Pro-censorship is fucking stupid.

I don't like censorship either. I do think Samurontai was more commenting on what they might have seen as a broad brush and lack of nuance to the claim, but I could be wrong.

I think Samurontai is reasonable, so hopefully the conversation can drift back to more civil.

---

hockeybub89 posted...

Yeah like earthquakes and pandemics happening because we legalized abortion and trans people.

I'm not sure what the point you are trying to make here is.

---

hockeybub89 posted...

Conspiracy theories and deliberate misinformation are dangerous. All those do is hurt people. Look at the state of the world. It's because we don't challenge anything. We believe everything is an opinion worth respecting. Facts and logic are the only things that matter.

Stupid people are going to stupid. You'd need 1984 levels of control to keep them out of their echo chamber. Censorship is bad and it's a really dangerous slippery slope to get on. Just let people do their own thing jfc, and only censor things that're actually illegal (calls to action, cp, etc.)

I'm sure none of ya'll would like it if censorship policies were enacted and then republicans win the next cycle. Suddenly ya'll will be anti-censorship if it's the big bad republicans in charge of it, and I'll be right there with you. Fuck censorship.

Rhylos posted...

Pro-censorship is fucking stupid.

unnamedsoldier posted...

It's stupid to be anti-censorship?

Wtf

You guys would apparently be perfectly fine with CP being flooded on Facebook or Twitter. Strange.

joe40001 posted...

I can understand that, but my 3 points of pushback are:
1. The free market has problems, so it working as intended doesn't mean it's serving the public interest
2. This seems largely political not free market, I do think if we did have free market competition for facebook without the authoritarian elements it would outcompete facebook, but there is at the very least some fingers on the scales as far as what extent competition in silicon valley is allowed
3. The more of a monopoly it is, the more we must consider it as an extension of the government IMO. If everybody has a right to drinking water, but the only drinking water was distributed by 1 company, that company's policies would in effect become law, and so long as we have legal protections those things should apply to that company.

We will have to agree to disagree on this, tbh.

---

Rhylos posted...

Biden admins wanting facebook to censor stuff is a real bad precident and a terrible slippery slope to get on.

But it's totally not like 1984 guys

Have you submitted a single post that wasn't absolutely braindead?

Just one?
---

YellowSUV posted...

Facebook needs to be ground into dust and scattered into the wind. FORTY EIGHT (48) attorney generals sued Facebook (think how difficult bipartisanship like this is in America) and a corrupt judge threw out the case.

So true.

DezDroppedFreak posted...

They literally do this and people just say the fact checkers are biased and liberal lmao. These people are lost

Well the issue is they have been wrong already.

I think it's a thing of some people thinking "we have good intentions' and so they overplay their hand.

Like they say things are "false" when they are undetermined. They say things are "debunked" when they are in dispute.

It's like the thing where for a bit they were like "don't wear masks" and then later its like "we might have been lying about that to not get a rush on masks". At that point it's not a truth thing but a political thing, and you can play that game, but you are (as we see) going to lose a lot of people's trusts.

A lot of the people in charge needed to say "we don't know" a lot more often early on rather than saying something false with certainty and then quietly pivot and expect everybody not to notice.

That kind of thing is what eroded trust in institutions.

In short, if you are diligent as fuck you can be authorities on truth, or you can be a political organization trying to optimize public policy in the way you think will be most effective, but you can't be both.

---

hockeybub89 posted...

"We shouldn't do anything about lies and misinformation because anyone can just declare truth and science to be lies and misinformation"

Maybe we should just end the planet if that's the situation we're in. That sounds like a terminal diagnosis.

There are two options.

Option one, you allow all information including "misinformation". (This doesn't mean you don't flag it or call it out etc.)

Option two, you designate someone the arbiter of what is or isn't fact. And then hope like hell that the people who peddle what you (in this particular case, rightly so) see as "misinformation" don't in the future take the place of those arbiters.

There is no physically possible way to ensure that only the actual truth can ever be spread - because any possible system of censoring misinformation relies on having someone to decide what is or isn't misinformation. And just because someone you trust is in that position when the system is first set up, doesn't mean the next person who takes over will be as trustworthy. Heck, just think about what would happen if, say, the Trump administration had been in charge of deciding what is or isn't "truth" and allowed to be posted on social media.

Fight misinformation by teaching people how to see the fuck through it.

---

Samurontai posted...

We will have to agree to disagree on this, tbh.

Fair enough.

If you want to respond and give your thoughts I am curious on them, and I can just listen and not respond.

You don't have to, but I would be curious.

---

Trumble posted...

Fight misinformation by teaching people how to see the fuck through it.

Something that is quite literally impossible to do. Look at this country.

---

joe40001 posted...

Fair enough.

If you want to respond and give your thoughts I am curious on them, and I can just listen and not respond.

You don't have to, but I would be curious.

It'll end up being a circular argument lol. It's not worth it, but I appreciate the discussion.

---