News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Facebook doesn't plan to take strong action against anti-vaccination posts. Parent comment

Re:Facebook doesn't plan to take strong action against anti-... by baddox on Wednesday September 09, 2020 @10:55AM (#24421682)
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?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Facebook doesn't plan to take strong action against anti-... by thu2111 on Wednesday September 09, 2020 @11:08AM (#24421855)
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.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Facebook doesn't plan to take strong action against anti-... by baddox on Wednesday September 09, 2020 @11:18AM (#24421971)
Sending messages between individuals on WhatsApp isn’t a remotely comparable problem to Facebook’s algorithm actively spreading posts to a huge audience.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Facebook doesn't plan to take strong action against anti-... by bmh100 on Wednesday September 09, 2020 @03:24PM (#24424810)
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.
[ Parent | on HN ]