Facebook's fact checking is uniquely bad in that they hire 3rd party fact verifying companies which are also publishers. So if you post something, they can flag it with a "clarification" which links to their own content and drives traffic/revenue to themselves.

Plus it lowers the quality of the fact checking. How useful is it to have a political post fact checked by an ideological fellow traveler?

The way to cure that is to pull Zuckerberg into these conspiracies and mis-information strategies. He's going to turn like a leaf on a tree when it starts to impact him personally.

How hard can it be? They got bill gates, didn't they?

What about things that Facebook does take down, like fraud and scams or misinformation about voting requirements? Is that problematic because it positions Facebook as an authority about those things? Should Facebook remove posts which claim an election date has been moved, or that if you reply with your bank account details you will get some free money?

Yes Facebook should handle all such takedowns itself instead of outsourcing it.

It's tempting to say they can take down things like fake election dates without causing any concern, and that's probably true. But there also isn't much that falls in that category, and people can still send such messages via other messaging platforms like WhatsApp, email, the web etc. So it may simply not be worth the slippery slope in the end.

Sending messages between individuals on WhatsApp isn’t a remotely comparable problem to Facebook’s algorithm actively spreading posts to a huge audience.

You make a good point that knowing the content is not worthy of removal does have implications. However, I think the non-removal implies that the content is not a threat with regards to making the user a victim of a crime. This is an important distinction from "fact checking", which is evaluating the accuracy of the content.

Unfortunately the default level of credibility people give to things that appear on their feed is not zero; and Facebook's entire income depends on this, since advertising would be useless if people gave it no credence.

Yeah, I think this is the best point to be made about the matter.

I would also add that part of the worldview has to do with fear of coercion. I don't profess to know how to fight conspiracy theories in general, but if I was tasked with doing it I'd be very wary about using coercion as a method. Streisand effect.

But the point is that one does this when traditional authorities have already broken down. When large numbers of people refuse to believe legitimate science, it's too late to be worrying about "moral hazards", the damage is already done. This is just an attempt to stem the bleeding by having entities like social media platforms step in and try to assume the role of the authorities that have been rejected.

And yes, I get that your response is going to be something of the form "But how do you KNOW Facebook is actually right?". And again I point out that this is a practical problem and that the subject we are talking about is vaccines (about which you agree, right?), not an abstract idea of Facebook-blessed truth.

This is not about tradition breaking down, this is about many and many more people gaining a hearable voice.

I don’t think it’s that either. I think it’s about Facebook’s algorithm massively amplifying certain voices.

Facebook will happily amplify any voice, even incoherent rambling, and find customers for it. I welcome you to try - the only thing you have to do is write hundreds of comments in public groups. You will be successful immediately. The problem is the 'rational' side considers that 'below their level', often any Facebook usage at all is considered waste.

So that they can be heard denying vaccine effectiveness, though. Again, it's a practical issue. Some messages, including this one, shouldn't get Facebook-level assistance with reaching listeners.

They generally don't deny vaccine effectiveness. They take aim at vaccine safety. If you don't even know what these people are upset about how can you be so sure about denying them a voice?

You are being overly defensive of vaccines. They are a great and effective treatment for many diseases and I get the sense you are trying to make zuckerburg's comments seem more demonstrable then they really are. Considering Facebook's diligence in cutting off speech on their platform that is racisst, climate change denying, etc. I find it hard to believe that they will refuse to crack down on antivax advertisers and dedicated facebook pages.

Tbh I have not done the research but I have no doubt there have been faulty or problematic vaccines at one time or another. Just like any other medical treatment there is a chance rhat they have defects, cause side effects, followed bad quality control protocol. Elevating vaccines to this status of being not allowed to be critisized for fear of our society being damaged seems like an almost equally dangerous alternative to what we have now. If people are legitimately hurt by a vaccine, they have a right to have a voice, and we have a responsibility as a society to hold those at fault accountable. That can't happen if we treat every person on facebook with even the slightest grievance about a vaccine like they are insane.

And to address your point on practicality; the fact of the matter is, anti-vax movements have never been normalized. There is enough pressure from employers, schools, government, and scientists that most people will get vaccinated if it is found to be of personal or public benefit. Hardcore antivaxers are generally looked down upon by the public.