Facebook let fossil-fuel industry push climate misinformation, report finds

Re:Facebook let fossil-fuel industry push climate misinforma... by Lutger on Thursday August 05, 2021 @03:45AM (#28070970)

I disagree. The guardian article reports that according to some US senators, facebook permits ads that contain 'demonstrably false claims'. However, most of the article is about misinformation that is actually more subtle than having false claims.

It seems you mistake misinformation for false claims. They are not the same. Misinformation is a truth claim that has the intention to deceive in order to further an agenda. It's doesn't even have to be false!

For example, Shell used to push really hard that it 'planted 5 million trees' and invests in renewables in the Netherlands. The intention was clearly prop up a reputation as a green company. But actually, that investment is not even a blip on the radar compared to their continued investments in fossil fuels, including exploring new sources in the arctic, which is completely incompatible with the Paris agreement. This is pure greenwashing and rightly called misinformation, even which there isn't a single false truth claim.

Your post, on the other hand, has a couple of false claims, but it clearly isn't misinformation. Unless it's really good and you have me fooled.

By the way, the 404 isn't really the guardians fault, InfluenceMap seems to have (re)moved the report.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Facebook let fossil-fuel industry push climate misinforma... by zpeti on Thursday August 05, 2021 @04:13AM (#28071135)

So saying facts, that they planted 5 million trees, is “misinformation” because they also pump a lot of oil?

Not that there ever was a definition of misinformation but wtf is your definition? And how the hell do you objectively decide what is misinformation if facts can be that?

And how is Facebook supposed to measure what facts are actually misinformation by your standards? Should they build an AI that is able to recognise that because shell pumps a lot of oil they shouldnt be able to run ads about planting 5m trees?

Do you realise what you are advocating for?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Facebook let fossil-fuel industry push climate misinforma... by Lutger on Thursday August 05, 2021 @06:39AM (#28071926)

I've clearly defined the term misinformation, it's in my post please read it again.

I don't realize what I'm advocating for because I'm not advocating for anything. I'm just pointing out that misinformation is different from stating false facts, which isn't very controversial.

Also, greenwashing exists. It's a thing, I'm not making it up.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Facebook let fossil-fuel industry push climate misinforma... by samcheng on Thursday August 05, 2021 @04:36AM (#28071249)

I'd argue that greenwashing is, indeed, misinformation. That is, it is misleading to categorize a company like Shell as an eco-friendly one.

https://www.ethicalconsumer.org/transport-travel/what-greenw...

I'm not sure what we can do about it, exactly. Facebook's product is clearly one that facilitates the manipulation of targeted individuals with misinformation, as is also seen with anti-vaxxers and the "Trump won" crowd.

In my opinion, the missing ingredient is a trusted and wise editorial function. I agree with you: I doubt we want an AI to do that.

[ Parent | on HN ]