Facebook overrides fact-checks when climate science is “opinion”

Re:Facebook overrides fact-checks when climate science is “o... by s1artibartfast on Wednesday July 22, 2020 @12:20AM (#23913882)

>I thought you were saying that “universal rules for nudity (subcontent: nipples)” are easier to write than “universal rules for fact-checking.“ If so, I disagree. They are either:

I think we still have a misunderstanding. I am saying that enforceable rules for nipples are easier to write, regardless of the cultural approval of those rules. A well written rule can be enforced by only looking at the content that is on the platform ( eg the image). That is not to say people might disagree (its Art!) or they might get it wrong (its a male nipple).

When it comes to statements of fact, this is not the case. The enforcers must draw conclusion based on off platform research, a presumed intent of the post, and/or a presumed interpretation.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Facebook overrides fact-checks when climate science is “o... by filoeleven on Wednesday July 22, 2020 @02:03PM (#23919791)

I think I’m with you now. The nature of a factual claim is that it refers to other things that must be examined in order to determine if it passes or fails a rule, whereas for many kinds of images there is no external reference that has to be consulted: the content is all right there in the image itself.

In which case I’d have to agree! Thanks for taking the time to clarify it for me.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Facebook overrides fact-checks when climate science is “o... by s1artibartfast on Wednesday July 22, 2020 @03:57PM (#23920909)

Exactly! I would say that many other common rules follow the feasibility of images. For example it is easy to test if a post is doxxing, contains swear words, ect.

[ Parent | on HN ]