Facebook Becomes 'A Haven For the Anti-Vaccination Movement' - Slashdot

Facebook Becomes 'A Haven For the Anti-Vaccination Movement' - Slashdot
Close
binspam
dupe
notthebest
offtopic
slownewsday
stale
stupid
fresh
funny
insightful
interesting
maybe
offtopic
flamebait
troll
redundant
overrated
insightful
interesting
informative
funny
underrated
descriptive
typo
dupe
error
106659726
story
"As
a disturbing number of measles outbreaks
crop up around the United States, Facebook is facing challenges combating widespread misinformation about vaccinations on its platform," reported the
Washington Post
Wednesday, saying Facebook "has become a haven for the anti-vaccination movement" and that "the rise of 'anti-vaxx' Facebook groups is overlapping with a resurgence of measles" in the U.S.
Facebook has publicly declared that fighting misinformation is one of its top priorities. But when it comes to policing misleading content about vaccinations, the site faces a thorny challenge. The bulk of anti-vaccination content
doesn't violate Facebook's community guidelines for inciting "real-world harm,"
according to a spokesperson, and the site's algorithms often promote unscientific pages or posts about the issue...
Wendy Sue Swanson, a pediatrician at Seattle Children's Hospital and spokeswoman for the American Academy of Pediatrics, recently met with Facebook strategists about dealing with public health issues, including misinformation about vaccines, on the platform... "Facebook isn't responsible for changing quacks but they do have an opportunity to change the way information is served up." But Facebook's algorithms often promote anti-vaccination content over widely accepted, scientifically backed posts or pages about vaccinations. A recent investigation from the Guardian found that Facebook search results regarding vaccines were "
dominated by anti-vaccination propaganda
...." Facebook also accepted advertising revenue from Vax Truther, Anti-Vaxxer, Vaccines Revealed and Michigan for Vaccine Choice, among others,
according to another investigation from the Guardian
[which found Facebook even offers the ability to target 900,000 users that Facebook has helpfully identified as interested in "vaccine controversies."]
Last month YouTube promised to stop recommending videos that "could misinform users in harmful ways," and later told the Guardian that
that would include anti-vaccine videos
. The Guardian also noted this week that one anti-vaccination group on Facebook
has over 150,000 members
. But Facebook told the Post Wednesday that by not deleting the pseudoscience, they're actually giving their users an opportunity to speak up on their own and share factual counter-arguments themselves.
By Thursday Facebook added that
it was "exploring" additional steps
, including "reducing or removing this type of content from recommendations, including 'Groups You Should Join,' and demoting it in search results, while also ensuring that higher quality and more authoritative information is available."
Related Links
NASA's Plans To Build A Human Settlement on The Moon
Russian Trolls Tried -- and Failed -- To Push Divisive Content On Vaccines
State of Emergency Declared in Washington State Over Measles Outbreak
Parents Who Don't Vaccinate Kids Tend To Be Affluent, Better Educated
Hundreds Rally For Their Right To Not Vaccinate Their Children
Amazon Removes Anti-Vaccine Movies After CNN Inquiry
Anti-Vaccination Conspiracy Theories Thrive on Amazon
'It Took 10 Seconds For Instagram To Push Me Into an Anti-Vaxx Rabbit Hole'
Russian Trolls Fueled Anti-Vaccination Debate On Twitter, Study Finds
The 41 Books Mark Zuckerberg Has Recommended on Facebook
Relative's DNA Solves A 1993 Murder Cold Case
This discussion has been archived.

No new comments can be posted.
Facebook Becomes 'A Haven For the Anti-Vaccination Movement'
More
Facebook Becomes 'A Haven For the Anti-Vaccination Movement'
Comments Filter:
All
Insightful
Informative
Interesting
Funny
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Not ready for the internet
Score:
, Interesting)
by
Anonymous Coward
writes:
on Saturday February 16, 2019 @10:50PM (
#58133060
Letting these tards on the internet was a horrible, horrible mistake. Non-tech people weren't ready for the internet.
They may never be ready.
Share
Re:Not ready for the internet
Score:
, Funny)
by
thegarbz
( 1787294 )
writes:
on Sunday February 17, 2019 @06:46AM (
#58134066
Non-tech people weren't ready for the internet.
Indeed. What we need is our own little group of like minded tech people with our own site with our own news and our own comments sections. Being mostly tech people and nerds we will finally be free from idiocy and we will never see a stupid comments by stupid people again.
*Scrolls up the comments on vaccinations*.
*Scrolls down the comments on vaccinations*.
Well that didn't work.
Parent
Share
Re:
Score:
by
ArchieBunker
( 132337 )
writes:
Sadly everyone has one in their pocket now.
Re:
Score:
by
JustAnotherOldGuy
( 4145623 )
writes:
Most people aren't accessing these services though a computer these days.
Really? How are they accessing the internet, then?
I shouldn't have to say this, but
your phone is a computer
. Who knew, right?
I thought bookface was supposed to
Score:
, Insightful)
by
bobstreo
( 1320787 )
writes:
on Saturday February 16, 2019 @10:52PM (
#58133074
be doing something to identify and remove "fake news"?
Or are they becoming so desperate for new members they'll accept a group who advocates something stupider than flat earthers?
Share
Their business model is built to foster bullshit
Score:
, Insightful)
by
evanh
( 627108 )
writes:
on Saturday February 16, 2019 @11:28PM (
#58133170
That is all advertising is after all. Even with regulation forcing them to do better, they'll still be fighting an uphill battle.
Parent
Share
Re:I thought bookface was supposed to
Score:
, Insightful)
by
ShanghaiBill
( 739463 )
writes:
on Saturday February 16, 2019 @11:38PM (
#58133196
If you open the door for censorship because something is "obviously" fake news, evil, misleading, or whatever, then don't be surprised if your own views are censored in the future.
How about if we just let everyone speak, and let the listeners decide for themselves who to believe? Freedom of speech isn't perfect, but it is better than the alternative.
Facebook should not be the arbiter of what is "true".
Parent
Share
Re:
Score:
by
RazorSharp
( 1418697 )
writes:
I censor myself from Facebook. That's the last place I'd want my views "published" if I wanted to be taken seriously. Facebook censoring content has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
Re:
Score:
by
JustAnotherOldGuy
( 4145623 )
writes:
I censor myself from Facebook.
Same here. It seems like a cesspool of drivel and bullshit, interspersed with ads for shit I don't want.
Re:
Score:
by
angel'o'sphere
( 80593 )
writes:
Facebook should not be the arbiter of what is "true".
Actually they should. And that has nothing to do with "free speech"
... you still have free speech even if FB marks it as "anti science".
Re:I thought bookface was supposed to
Score:
, Insightful)
by
Solandri
( 704621 )
writes:
on Sunday February 17, 2019 @06:03AM (
#58134000
You assume such a system will always work like it was originally intended. They rarely do. Bad people figure out ways to exploit existing systems to subvert their original intent. A system for expunging incorrect info gets re-tasked into a system for expunging contrary opinions.
That's why it's crucial to avoid building systems which can easily be subverted in this manner. The Internet is great for individual freedom because anyone can say anything they want on it. The moment you start putting up roadblocks on it, requiring people to pass some sort of test or get someone else's approval, before they're allowed to share what they're saying, you create a choke point for the flow of information to the people. He who controls that choke point controls what information the people see and hear..
The correct solution to the anti-vaccination movement isn't to censor and delete their speech as fake or non-truth. It's to educate people so that they're able to determine for themselves that it's flawed and incorrect. The former method creates a system which an potential dictator could subvert to manipulate and control the people (need I point out that Hitler started off being elected via a democratic election). The latter creates a society which is inherently resistant to the machinations of a wannabe-dictator.
People just want to go with censorship because it's a quick and easy fix (and some of the people advocating that approach are wannabe-dictators themselves). OTOH teaching kids to think logically and rationally is hard and takes decades. But the harder solution here is the one that's more robust and better for society long-term.
Parent
Share
Re:
Score:
by
pauljlucas
( 529435 )
writes:
The correct solution to the anti-vaccination movement isn't to censor and delete their speech as fake or non-truth. It's to educate people so that they're able to determine for themselves that it's flawed and incorrect
The problem is there's no convincing these people with education or evidence. Anything that contradicts their world view is considered a conspiracy by "big pharma."
It's just like trying to convince some religious people who believe the earth is only several thousand years old. Fossils? Sata
Re:
Score:
by
geggam
( 777689 )
writes:
The problem is there's no convincing these people with education or evidence. Anything that contradicts their world view is considered a conspiracy by "big pharma."
It would be much easier if there wasnt any collusion in big pharma to make money.
A single trip to Mexico to buy medication will prove there is.
Re:
Score:
by
pauljlucas
( 529435 )
writes:
There's a difference between collusion to make (more) money and efficacy. We're not discussing the former.
Re:
Score:
by
kqs
( 1038910 )
writes:
You assume such a system will always work like it was originally intended. They rarely do. Bad people figure out ways to exploit existing systems to subvert their original intent. A system for expunging incorrect info gets re-tasked into a system for expunging contrary opinions.
Well sure. And people have exploited fire to be rather more damaging than the original idea of "keeping warm and making tasty meat". People have exploited the stock market to create massive scams. Is this a reason to not have fire and the stock market?
Mind you, teaching critical thinking is the best long term solution even if it is
opposed by many people
[theamerica...vative.com]. So until we convince those folks that critical thinking is worth teaching, we'll need to do some other things too.
Re:
Score:
by
Xarius
( 691264 )
writes:
Facebook should not be the arbiter of what is "true.
To an extent you're right. But facebook
is
the arbiter of what is popular. Incendiary, outrageous and controversial things make for more clicks. If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth.
Re:
Score:
by
AmiMoJo
( 196126 )
writes:
How about if we just let everyone speak, and let the listeners decide for themselves who to believe?
Because some of them end up abusing their children by denying vaccinations, and we have a duty of care towards those children (even a legal one in some places).
Another example would be children who were groomed by IS online and travelled to Syria.
Censorship isn't the only tool of course, making accurate information available and revealing the source/funding of these messages helps.
Timely video essay on the subject, worth watching as it covers many of the arguments and issues, even if you don't agree with the conclusions:
[youtu.be]
Re:
Score:
by
AmiMoJo
( 196126 )
writes:
How about if we just let everyone speak, and let the listeners decide for themselves who to believe?
Because some of them end up abusing their children by denying vaccinations, and we have a duty of care towards those children (even a legal one in some places).
Another example would be children who were groomed by IS online and travelled to Syria.
Censorship isn't the only tool of course, making accurate information available and revealing the source/funding of these messages helps.
Timely video essay on the subject, worth watching as it covers many of the arguments and issues, even if you don't agree with th
Re:I thought bookface was supposed to
Score:
, Insightful)
by
barc0001
( 173002 )
writes:
on Sunday February 17, 2019 @06:43AM (
#58134062
> How about if we just let everyone speak, and let the listeners decide for themselves who to believe?
We've tried that. Turns out, there are a lot of gullible or stupid people out there who are absolutely not equipped to winnow truth from bullshit. And when there's a firehose of bullshit being sprayed at them they can't even see the small waterpistol of truth. This is how you get everything from people embezzling 200K from their company to send to some nice Nigerian fellow who will make them rich in exchange for that help, all the way to people believing that the Earth is flat, Hillary would have started WWIII, and vaccines are poison. Plus, lizard people, secret bases under Denver airport, FEMA camps, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.
If we let the status quo stay as it is, things will only get worse. While the old saw about censorship is true to a degree, it's hard to deny that deliberate lies are being weaponized by multiple actors and a good portion of society is starting to feel the effects.
Parent
Share
Re:
Score:
by
thegarbz
( 1787294 )
writes:
How about if we just let everyone speak, and let the listeners decide for themselves who to believe?
This is something that worked well before we provided a global platform for like minded stupid people to build stupid echo-chambers and amplify their stupidity.
Facebook should not be the arbiter of what is "true".
Whether or not something is true is a different question about whether we should continue to permit something objectively false.
Re:
Score:
by
kqs
( 1038910 )
writes:
This is something that worked well before we provided a global platform for like minded stupid people to build stupid echo-chambers and amplify their stupidity.
Oddly, it really didn't. In the second half of the 20th century, media in the US tried (with partial though not complete success) give accurate information. But there is a reason "yellow journalism" is a term, and there exist many countries where the media was straight up propaganda. The odd historical blip is that we had a "golden age" of mostly accurate information, not what came before or exists now.
This just in...
Score:
, Insightful)
by
Tehrasha
( 624164 )
writes:
on Saturday February 16, 2019 @11:12PM (
#58133114
Homepage
... social media site found to contain subdivided groups of people with similar interests, sharing opinions within their own echo chambers.
Share
'a haven'
Score:
, Insightful)
by
Anonymous Coward
writes:
FB is a haven for nearly every unsavory social movement. After all, one of its primary functions is to put like-minded people in touch with each other.
Don't expect them to crack down on anti-vax, or for that matter.any other movement they can make money from, unless it gets to the point where facilitating them alienates enough customers that they become a liability. So fae, only terrorists and hard core bigots have earned such treatment.
Re:
Score:
by
tsa
( 15680 )
writes:
It’s hard, isn’t it, typing on a phone with thick fingers. I recognize all the errors in your sentences because I make the same ones all the time.
More censorship on the way?
Score:
by
AHuxley
( 892839 )
writes:
In the past a person could link and publish their own comments.
That would connect to people with the same views and interests.
The site would be a utility to pass on the content.
Now a site wants to be the publisher of users content and links?
To curate comments and users own speech?
To decide what speech is sinful?
What topics are next for some powerful social media curation?
History? Art? Politics? Comedy? Faith? DRM? Crypto? Unauthorized repair shop using imported parts? Catalonia?
Taiwan as
Re:
Score:
by
MrL0G1C
( 867445 )
writes:
If Facebook are going to make news and groups recommendations then they shouldn't be recommending bad information that can get your children killed, that's not censorship, it's common sense.
duh
Score:
by
supernova87a
( 532540 )
writes:
kepler1&hotmail,com
on Saturday February 16, 2019 @11:37PM (
#58133192
Well of course Facebook promotes this pseudo-science and discredited stuff. Facebook thrives when people argue and engage, and it suits FB to have quackery that people have to rally against or for, vocally. Put false or misleading things online, and watch the clicks roll in.
Not much business or money to be made in supporting the quiet truth of science or accepted facts where no one thinks they're finding out something new, is there? Maybe we need to change the incentives for these companies.
Share
Comment removed
Score:
, Insightful)
by
account_deleted
( 4530225 )
writes:
on Saturday February 16, 2019 @11:42PM (
#58133218
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Share
Re:
Score:
by
tsa
( 15680 )
writes:
Breathing a mixture of 20% oxygen and 80% nitrogen is a sure way to go.
Re:
Score:
by
phantomfive
( 622387 )
writes:
I haven't died yet!
Re:
Score:
by
thegarbz
( 1787294 )
writes:
That's a new one.
The correct system name is hydrogen oxide. Technically it would be hydrogen monoxide in chemical speak. The clever hoax is dihydrogen monoxide, but I've never heard dihydrogen oxide before, not sure that is technically correct.
Personally I've taken to calling it hydroxylic acid since that's technically also correct and has the word acid in it so it freaks people out even more.
Re:
Score:
by
drinkypoo
( 153816 )
writes:
peer reviewed science shows an expected 100% mortality rate for those that get the measles vaccine, it's just as dangerous as dihydrogen oxide or facebook use
I know the guy who made the NO DHMO meme popular to begin with, the point of that was to encourage skepticism and independent thought. But that's not what anti-vaxxers are engaging in. They're actually even more mindless sheep than the people they call mindless sheep.
There are entire towns available for anti-vaxers
Score:
by
mnemotronic
( 586021 )
writes:
If anti-vaxers want a truly independent community, without interference from officials, there are several around Chernobyl. Apparently they are not the toxic radioactive hotspots that people think:
"Most of the area of the exclusion zone gives rise to lower radiation dose rates than many areas of natural radioactivity worldwide."
[slashdot.org]. And who knows they may be right. Case in point: fluoride in water and toothpaste.
Re:
Score:
by
SvnLyrBrto
( 62138 )
writes:
Hell. You don't even need to send them anywhere miserable or radioactive. One of the islands in Hawaii is a former leper colony. Since leprosy can actually be treated and cured nowadays, there's hardly a need for its former purpose. We could just exile the unvaccinated to that island. And they couldn't even make any claim that they were being mistreated. "Wait... so I don't have to be vaccinated; AND I get to live in Hawaii???" The only problem I can see is that some people might actually become anti
Re:
Score:
by
jwhyche
( 6192 )
writes:
Well the anti-vax people scream that it's their right not to vaccinate their spawn. Our mistake is we continue to pretend their rights matter. We remove children from unfit parents every day. I see no reason that this shouldn't be another reason to do so.
Re:
Score:
by
mamba-mamba
( 445365 )
writes:
Separating children from their parents as a punishment for the parent is barbaric. I know you mean well, but please take a little time to envision the actual separation event. Also, what is the logical rationale for separating them as opposed to just vaccinating the kid involuntarily (which is also barbaric, but at least accomplishes the objective of vaccinating the kid without separating them from parents). What if your job was to go around to anti-vaxxer homes and force vaccinate kids while police restrai
Re:
Score:
by
kqs
( 1038910 )
writes:
Separating children from their parents as a punishment for the parent is barbaric.
Agreed, and we should never do this (including at the US southern border). Separating children from their parents as protection for the children, however, is an important tool. It should never be a common or an easy tool, but it must sometimes be done, usually when the parent is actively endangering the kids.
I agree that mandatory vaccination is a better path. While anti-vaxxers are endangering their children, it's not a huge or immediate danger. It's more a danger to everyone.
Re:
Score:
by
jwhyche
( 6192 )
writes:
Who cares about punishing the parents? I'm talking about removing a child from unfit parents. Some of the diseases we can vaccinate against can cripple a child for life, polio, or kill it. This can be prevented with a simple vaccination. We are doing nothing more than removing children from unfit parents.
article summarized
Score:
, Offtopic)
by
astrofurter
( 5464356 )
writes:
Article summarized:
Corporate Progressive forced vaccination extremists note that the plebs are using Faceboot to challenge the official Narrative, and demand the iron boot of censorship stomp on the face of those uppity deplorables.
This is an act of censorship
Score:
, Informative)
by
Kartu
( 1490911 )
writes:
on Sunday February 17, 2019 @01:27AM (
#58133520
What is worse than government deciding on your behalf what is wrong and what is right?
Private transnational company doing that.
The harm that acceptance of this kind of "filtering" could do far outweighs anything uneducated conspiracy theorists could.
Share
Re:
Score:
by
MrL0G1C
( 867445 )
writes:
No, it it is not an act of censorship and so you're advocating the continuing promotion of fake news and fallacious articles and groups because?
That has real harm - people are dying because of the lack of vaccinations.
You think fake news should be promoted because?
Make money (insurance) the persuader.
Score:
, Insightful)
by
az-saguaro
( 1231754 )
writes:
on Sunday February 17, 2019 @01:39AM (
#58133544
It is hard to imagine, impossible actually, this conversation happening 50 years ago. Circa 1950-1970, parents knew all too well the terror of polio from their childhood years, and the non-trivial, often major risks of measles and rubella, tetanus and diphtheria. If a few unfortunate people had severe side effects of a vaccine, it was of course very sad for that person or family, but a handful of adverse reactions was accepted and respected to protect tens or hundreds of thousands or even millions of other lives.
It is easy to dismiss the non-vaxers as just kooks and idiots, as they probably are, but today, without large epidemics of those diseases to keep everyone just a little terrified, the issue becomes out-of-sight-out-of-mind. It is easy then for the herd to forget why we vaccinate, and what the price is for failing to do so. Of course, we have to decide if we castigate and chastise versus dismiss and forgive, those anti-vaxers who place their fear of a one-in-a-million complication above a sense of communal responsibility, participation, and shared risk.
A situation like this is ultimately self-correcting over a cycle of maybe 50 to a 100 years. If too many people fail to vaccinate for whatever reason, and epidemics of deadly disease flareup, then eventually enough people will get scared enough to make enough noise for government to step in or act responsibly as the voice of the overly vocal anti-vaxers die down or start singing the opposite tune. It will just take one loud mouthed or well connected anti-vaxer to have their precious Johnny or Janey die from measles or tetanus or be crippled by polio to start singing a different tune. Unfortunately, public perception and stupidity or governmental cowardice and ineptitude create propagation delays and phase lags in the response to such large social issues, first too slow to act, then too far of an overshoot, such that an even keel steady-as-she goes balance cannot be maintained. Sadly, un-moderated un-referreed adult-free Lord-of-the Flies platforms like Facebook make it all too easy for the kooks to have too much influence.
There is though a simple and elegant solution. If you choose to eschew the common good and fail to participate in the general welfare, so be it. But, if you make your own rules, you must live by those rules. Don't want to vaccinate - fine. But, if your poor Johnny and Janey gets sick with the measles or any such preventable disease, tough, no insurance for you. It's like the Little Red Hen. If you don't want to participate in making the bread, you don't get to eat the bread. Want to save poor little Johnny's life, or spend years rehabilitating him for paralysis or hearing loss or months on a ventilator? Well, sad for the poor kid, but the parents got what they bargained for, and they have to pay for it all themselves, no dipping into the societal funds available to help those who acted responsibly in the interests of the greater good. No vaccination, no problem, but if you get sick from that, No insurance for you - so sayeth Yev Kassem.
Share
Re:
Score:
by
phantomfive
( 622387 )
writes:
It is hard to imagine, impossible actually, this conversation happening 50 years ago.
Anti-vaxxers have been around almost as long as vaccines
[wikipedia.org]
Facebook is just a shitshow
Score:
, Insightful)
by
mamba-mamba
( 445365 )
writes:
on Sunday February 17, 2019 @02:35AM (
#58133660
Facebook is a total shitshow. Half the people think it needs to do more to prevent spread of certain (possibly false) information. The other half hate it because they think it is censoring the truth and has a bias.
I feel like Facebook (the platform, not necessarily the company) is basically the AOL of the 2010's, and destined for the same fate. A lot of sane people are walking away from facebook. Soon it will just be old people who are uncomfortable with technology (like AOL).
Share
Re:
Score:
by
phantomfive
( 622387 )
writes:
A lot of sane people are walking away from facebook
Yeah, right to Instagram. Mark Zuckerburg is so sad about that.
Re:
Score:
by
mamba-mamba
( 445365 )
writes:
Yeah. That is why the company may not be doomed. But the facebook product has certainly peaked. Now the only question is how fast or slow will the decline be.
Re:
Score:
by
MrL0G1C
( 867445 )
writes:
"the other half" really don't understand what censorship is, they seem to think that any recommendation algorithm that doesn't feed them constant unadulterated shit is censorship. no, it's not, fact checking and the automation of fact checking is not censorship, it's a good idea. Whether or not that is possible to do well is debatable.
If you want to stick it to the man then why on earth would you have a Facebook account? No doubt all these idiots are posting from windows 10 too.
This is Freedom of Speech at Work
Score:
, Insightful)
by
jaa101
( 627731 )
writes:
on Sunday February 17, 2019 @02:46AM (
#58133682
This is the result of freedom of speech. It's a Good Thing. Sure, go ahead and make laws that outlaw incitement to illegal activities, but you'd better not make a law against telling people what to believe.
If you think that having people be unvaccinated is such a danger to public health, then go ahead and make vaccination a legal requirement. Banning people from even advocating against vaccination is a more extreme step than that.
Yes, I get it: we're not talking about all free speech here, only speech via Facebook. They can restrict speech much more than can the government via corporate policies. But I'm sure they don't want to moderate postings more than they have to, just for cost reasons, and do you really want some opaque and unaccountable Facebook system deciding what we're allowed to read?
The solution is for people to learn how to distinguish good reporting from propaganda. Not everyone's going to be able to do this, or even want to, but having some percentage of people fall for lies is better than trying to filter what everyone reads.
Share
Re:
Score:
by
thegarbz
( 1787294 )
writes:
This is the result of freedom of speech. It's a Good Thing.
Freedom of speech is a good thing.
Freedom of requiring a global platform with an audience of billions to grant you your own echo chamber where you can radicalise your stupidity is not a good thing.
Re:
Score:
by
jaa101
( 627731 )
writes:
Freedom of requiring a global platform with an audience of billions to grant you your own echo chamber where you can radicalise your stupidity is not a good thing.
The discussion not about requiring Facebook to allow anti-vax posts; they already do that. The discussion is about at least coercing them to seek out and delete anti-vax posts.
But more than that, who defines this "stupidity" you're talking about. First of all, good luck banning stupidity. Secondly, who's going to define what's stupid? Trust people to decide for themselves rather than allowing a faceless Facebook worker to do the job. My view is that the anti-vax movement is stupid, possibly driven by m
Re:
Score:
by
thegarbz
( 1787294 )
writes:
The discussion is about at least coercing them to seek out and delete anti-vax posts.
Err no. That's not the discussion either. The discussion is about not promoting these in people's feed, not suggesting them to interest groups, and not allowing the algorithms to target specific people interested in vaccine controversies.
I used the word "echo chamber" for a reason.
First of all, good luck banning stupidity.
Causal error. I didn't say you should ban stupidity. In fact I didn't say you should ban anything. I just pointed out that creating an echo chamber of stupidity and promoting it on a global platform is not a good thing.
Secondly, who's going to define what's stupid?
We don't ne
LoL
Score:
by
meerling
( 1487879 )
writes:
"But Facebook told the Post Wednesday that by not deleting the pseudoscience, they're actually giving their users an opportunity to speak up on their own and share factual counter-arguments themselves. "
Yeah, that's like saying you won't ban poisonous vipers from the airline because they might proved the antivenom themselves...
Re:
Score:
by
meerling
( 1487879 )
writes:
Darn typos... "provide", not "proved".
Freedom is all or nothing
Score:
by
aglider
( 2435074 )
writes:
on Sunday February 17, 2019 @05:42AM (
#58133950
Homepage
Either freedom of speech is total, or it isn't freedom of speech at all.
That said, antivax is idiot just like homeopathy and any non-scientific statement about scientific topics.
Nonetheless, I wand those morons to be free to tell (or write) whatever they want.
For the sake of freedom.
Facebook, the internet, computers and smartphones all work because of technological applications from SCIENCE and the SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY.
If you really-really want to ditch them, then please turn off all of your technological devices and services before starting.
Otherwise your credibility and reliability will suffer.
Share
Not if I have anything to say about it
Score:
by
drinkypoo
( 153816 )
writes:
drink@hyperlogos.org
on Sunday February 17, 2019 @10:21AM (
#58134572
Homepage
Journal
A couple of days ago, I was participating happily in a group on Facebook related to one of my interests - not going to say which for reasons which should be obvious - when someone made a post which I'm still not sure was or wasn't a troll (admittedly, that's the best kind of troll) in which the poster claimed his wife had told him it was "time" to move to a state which was "pro-life" and anti-vax. I found it in its nascent stages, and was able to get a couple of good jabs in before it asploded, like "state of being single", before the anti-vaxxers showed up in larger numbers with their abject lack of logic. I soldiered on good-naturedly with muh facts for some time (skipping the pro-choice debate, letting the women have that one) and remaining on my best (expletive-light) behavior before the conversation was nuked, probably by admin for political content.
Thankfully, the antis were severely in the minority. They'd whine about live virus vaccine vax shedding, then refuse to comprehend herd immunity and that the very reason that we need widespread immunization is to protect their immunocompromised snowflakes. They'd then cry about thimerosal and adjuvants, ignoring that even if these substances remain in the body, the quantities are miniscule (and thimerosal is scarce to begin with.) Hell, they even tried to go with "measles isn't serious", easily countered with the recent report about how getting measles makes one susceptible to several other diseases. They'd finally fall back on the "personal choice" argument, as if any harm to others could be justified on that basis. And I'm proud to say that the community skewered their arguments each and every time. We came together to reject them as a group.
What's amusingly ironic is that they don't understand that their willful anti-vaxxer ignorance behaves just like a disease. It hides in communities that reject the vaccine (information) and then attempts to infect others. And if those others don't have a strong immune system, then they can easily be infected as well. We got done with them in a couple of hours total, including the repeat outbreak in which one of them posted a poll with only a bunch of insulting options which tried to make the antis out to be victims.
Did we convince any of those people that they were wrong? I assure you, we did not. But we denied them unchallenged floor space, and shared our immunities with others, making them more resistant to unscientific propaganda spread by the McCarthys of the world. And that's more important than anything that Facebook can or will do about the problem. Facebook shouldn't do one single thing to these communities directly. If it has any role in combating anti-vaxxers, it is to continue to exist. Those people will go anywhere they can have a voice. If they're on Facebook, then they're easily contained. It's a platform they don't control. If they infect one group you care about, you can start two more where you're in control. And since they are sharply in the minority, both there and everywhere else, they are easily countered. If we were still using Usenet, they'd be able to crap up a much higher percentage of sub-communities, but on Facebook, moderated groups are overwhelmingly the norm and not the exception. The immune system is much stronger. And this level of moderation is feasible because the groups tend to be smaller, and the moderation system more nuanced. Groups can be moderated in the same fashion (posts require pre-approval) and/or after the fact, users can be banned entirely, etc. For once, Facebook's method of operation is a boon, not a bane.
Share
Facebook needs a disclaimer up front ...
Score:
by
CaptainDork
( 3678879 )
writes:
... in large red font ON THE LANDING PAGE:
Facebook's content is not science or journalism. We excel at cat videos, selfies, and pictures of food. Anything else is pure bullshit.
Freedom the speak, Not freedom to censor
Score:
by
biggaijin
( 126513 )
writes:
on Sunday February 17, 2019 @01:02PM (
#58135322
If some group of people have decided to advocate something stupid (or not stupid, for that matter) we all should have the same rights to use whatever medium is available to everyone for that discussion. More and more often, a group of do-gooders like the ones cited here pops up demanding that people be protected from things that they believe to be untrue. People have the right to be wrong, and if we attempt to curtail others' thought in public forums, then we are becoming exactly the society described in Orwell's 1984. Do you really want the government to hobble the communication of people with views that oppose the currently-held government position on something?
Share
Re:Perception is Reality
Score:
, Insightful)
by
gweihir
( 88907 )
writes:
on Saturday February 16, 2019 @11:03PM (
#58133102
Utter bullshit. No degree of "border controls" (except "shoot them all, including citizens returning from vacation abroad, from a large distance and incinerate the bodies immediately") will have any effect here. Learn at least the basics of how things work before spouting utter nonsense.
Parent
Share
Re:
Score:
by
e3m4n
( 947977 )
writes:
People did not get evicted and they did not ‘lose their job’. Some may have saught emplyment elsewhere but no federal employee was fired because of a government shutdown. No landlord is going to evict because they were 30 days past due. The eviction process takes longer. Its one thing to disagree, it is entirely another to make up a fake crisis while attacking anothers fake crisis. It makes you the same. Guess you and trump have a lot more in common than you realized.
The SCRA, an updated versio
Breitbart moron mumbles unintelligibly
Score:
, Funny)
by
Anonymous Coward
writes:
You're a moron. On the Venn diagram of anti-vaxers, generally retarded nitwits like yourself, and crybabies who whine about "the MSM" all day like it's their job, you're not missing anti-vax by a large margin at all.
Go blow a child in a pizza parlor you Breitbart conspiracy dipshit.
Re:
Score:
by
e3m4n
( 947977 )
writes:
I take it you arent tracking this new disease the CDC is baffled by. It acts like polio but a polio vaccine does nothing to stop it. It isnt the ones we have vaccines for that worry me. I have more vaccines than most anyone. During the first gulf war I was vaccinated and medicated with shit I still dont know what it is. I do know that we were all instructed to never donate blood. First it was 5years, but then a nee shot was administered in 1993 and that got upgraded to ‘never donate blood as long as y
Re:
Score:
by
drinkypoo
( 153816 )
writes:
During the first gulf war I was vaccinated and medicated with shit I still dont know what it is
It's a crying shame that enlisted give up their right to know what's put into their body when they enlist, but that's how it is...
Re:
Score:
by
novakyu
( 636495 )
writes:
Once upon a time, to be on "thefacebook", you had to be a student at one of the nation's top universities.
Once upon a time.
Re:Wait, wut?
Score:
, Interesting)
by
ShanghaiBill
( 739463 )
writes:
on Saturday February 16, 2019 @11:32PM (
#58133180
Haha actually anti vaxxers are left wingers who don't watch Faux News
The anti-vax movement
is not politically polarized
[medicalxpress.com]. Instead, it attracts kooks from both the right and left. It is associated with political extremism regardless of direction. Left-wingnuts see vaccines as a corporate conspiracy. Right-wingnuts see vaccines as a government conspiracy. Moderates on both the left and right vaccinate their kids.
Parent
Share
I agree there are left wing kooks
Score:
, Interesting)
by
rsilvergun
( 571051 )
writes:
but the bulk of the left wing will call them out. And the closest thing the left has to an establishment (the late night talk shows and maybe
these guys
[justicedemocrats.com]) call the anti-vax crowd out all the time.
The right wing, by comparison, elected an anti-vaxxer to the highest office of the land. I'd say GP is correct here.
The difference is left tries to reason with our kooks. The right is using them to achieve other political ends.
Hell, if I want to take it further that kind of "ends justifies the means" is
Re:
Score:
, Insightful)
by
RazorSharp
( 1418697 )
writes:
I think it's problematic to try and make such sweeping generalizations. There's no reason to deny that there are anti-vaxxers on both sides of the political spectrum. Hell, most people don't even vote and a lot of the ones that do aren't committed to a political party. The vaccine issue just isn't a political one. Even if more Republicans are anti-vax than Democrats, there's not enough of them to make it an issue among Republican politicians.
The one thing that all anti-vaccine people have in common is that
I'm not denying it
Score:
by
rsilvergun
( 571051 )
writes:
I'm saying that the left actively suppress and argues with their anti-vaxxers. The right actively encourages them. Again, could you imagine the Democrats running an anti-vaxxer candidate for president? Could you imagine that candidate _winning_?
Anti-vaxxers aren't woefully ignorant, they're _willfully_ ignorant. I think that's a huge part of the problem. It's the same as flat earthers and cultists in general. There's a community there that feels like they're under siege. Folks like that accept all comers
Re:
Score:
by
Applehu Akbar
( 2968043 )
writes:
The difference is left tries to reason with our kooks.
Tell that to the politicians who cooked up "Green New Deal." The left kook position on energy is baked right into it.
That kind of attitude
Score:
by
rsilvergun
( 571051 )
writes:
would have kept us from getting to the moon or even launching satellites.
The Green New Deal as it stands is a non binding resolution. It's there to get the ball rolling. Step out of the Fox News bubble and you'll learn that
That said, we're going to have to go to renewables at some point. And unless you're a climate change denier then it's either going to be soon or we're gonna have famine and war from the disruption to our food supply.
More immediately Automation is coming for about 20% of the job
Re:
Score:
by
Applehu Akbar
( 2968043 )
writes:
I was talking specifically about the energy part of GND. Running an industrial economy with large cities on all renewables is a pipe dream. The GND even omits the most important renewable, hydro. It also leaves out nuclear, which would mean that like Germany, we would have to live with coal and gas forever.
Comment removed
Score:
, Insightful)
by
account_deleted
( 4530225 )
writes:
on Sunday February 17, 2019 @12:06AM (
#58133308
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Parent
Share
Re:
Score:
by
HotNeedleOfInquiry
( 598897 )
writes:
"You can't just claim an incendiary partisan point like that without citing sources."

Your point is valid, but it still won't stop me from shitposting.
Re:
Score:
by
Z00L00K
( 682162 )
writes:
Vaccination is about protecting the many, if there are random individuals that aren't responding well to vaccination then they would probably suffer even worse from the real disease.
If you don't understand that - then you don't understand how vaccination works.
Re:
Score:
by
kqs
( 1038910 )
writes:
Part of the issue is that for many people, protecting others is not important. They even have a whole philosophy (objectivism) which has selfishness as its central tenet. (It's amazing how many of these people also claim to revere Jesus Christ who is the complete opposite, but that's a side issue.)
So helping the few (myself) at the cost of the many is a feature, not a bug. It's all about me me me me me!
Re:
Score:
by
kqs
( 1038910 )
writes:
The difference, as noted above, is that no popular liberal candidates support vagina eggs or anti-vax. But many popular conservative candidates support:
* Anti-vax
* Ain't no global warming 'cause it's snowing now
* Creationism
* Homosexuality is a choice and can be prayed away
and many, many more. Look, if you vote for those guys, don't blame me. And don't try to tell me that the folks I vote for are just as bad. It may make you feel better about y
Re:
Score:
, Interesting)
by
mamba-mamba
( 445365 )
writes:
Conspiracy theories live and thrive because the official narrative has flaws or is implausible or if no official narrative has been presented.
Historically, many official narratives have ended up being outright lies. Weapons of mass-destruction in Iraq. We are still over there looking for them. Bound to find them any day. Many wars throughout history started on an official story that was a lie. Many of the people in the civil rights movement thought the government was spying on them. It was not until decades
Re:Wait, wut?
Score:
, Informative)
by
hjf
( 703092 )
writes:
on Sunday February 17, 2019 @08:10AM (
#58134190
Homepage
No. Conspiracy theories thrive because people are emotional and refuse to believe things that go against their interests, and want a justification of why things aren't the way they want. The more complex the explanation is, the more people believe it's a conspiracy.
Take for example Nikola Tesla. There is, especially in Latin America, a huge amount of people who believe in free energy (curiously they call it "energias libres" meaning free as in free speech, when they mean "energias gratis" meaning free as in free beer). For these people, Nikola Tesla was a messiah. He was the person who INVENTED electricity. Then he was stopped by the most evil person in history: Thomas Edison, who only wanted money and didn't know wany science. And because of this, we are now forced to pay for electricity. If only Tesla could have developed his "energy tower", we'd have free electricity for all mankind. But Tesla died, and thus, we can't have free power anymore. There is no other person who could develop this. We're doomed now. Damn Edison!
That's what they honestly believe. It's all a conspiracy of corporations protected by governments (especially the US government), who want to force us to pay for something Tesla demonstrated is free. This is the conspiracy theory and it comes from people who just want to blame high energy costs to other factors, and not the fact that they mostly live in poor countries with low salaries.
The same goes for people who believe in "the car that runs on water and the patent was bought by Big Oil and the inventor killed".
Youtube is full of "free energy" videos of people turning lightbulbs on in thin air and have millions of views and thousands of comments claiming it's not fake, it's real, and thus, this proves everything Tesla said was right. But they're not Tesla, so they can't make it large scale.
There is always the "messiah complex" thing with conspiracy theorists. That things are "invented" by lone wolfes at their houses, and not in university or corporate labs (duh, obviously if they did that, corporations would steal their ideas).
Moon landing conspiracy theorists come up with the wildest explanations of why the moon landing is fake. One of them, I remember, was from a poor country and said "wow, we barely could make TV work at a few kilometers and it was really difficult, expensive, and in black and white, and this was in 1978, but the americans not only sent a rocket to the moon but also transmitted from the moon IN COLOR? It's obviously fake". This person wasn't even aware that "americans" had color TV in 1953, 16 years before people went to the moon. Or that americans sent TV signals to satellites in space in 1962. And those satellites were used to broadcast the moon landing live across the world. No. He lived in a poor country, with poor infrastructure, and he had a poor experience. So it must have been the same way for everyone everywhere.
In short, it's not about "official narrative", it's about people refusing to believe in the evidence presented, because they deeply believe in something.
Oh and the USA being in the middle of it is enough to prove the conspiracy. Russia though, is cool. Russia is our friend. Putin is a nice person but he's demonized by the USA. Venezuela is broke because the USA's sanctions (the country has been broke for years even though the US had no sanctions against them until a less than month ago, and the US is the biggest money supplier, paying Venezuela with actual money, while Russia is getting free oil from interests from loans given by Russia being paid with raw oil, at a rate they "restructure" the debt every few years and keep a continuous supply of free oil)
Parent
Share
Re:
Score:
by
hjf
( 703092 )
writes:
I literally just read some news on Facebook about Russia stalking submarine cables. Some nutcase then took the opportunity to spread her bullshit. She claimed "if most communications go through cables, then satellites are FAKE. Why would we keep satellites in space if we have fiber? Submarine cables are the PROOF that men have never been to the moon, and not even space".
These nutcases claim the only thing "up there" are balloons. And that's how communications used to be.
Re: Wait, wut?
Score:
, Insightful)
by
Comrade Ogilvy
( 1719488 )
writes:
on Saturday February 16, 2019 @11:41PM (
#58133210
I fully support people not getting a vaccine when they have genuine medical evidence that they are especially vulnerable to side effects. In fact, that is why it is so important to have as many people as possible to be vaccinated -- so that we can protect those who cannot afford to take the risk.
I would take the risk of measles over becoming parapelegic any day of the week.
If you actually had a real risk, that may be correct. But if it is just something you made up to push blame of your mother's hidden but already existing MS on someone, so you can have a fairy tale that you can protect yourself, well, I cannot persuade the purposefully stupid.
Furthermore I would also point out that if you have some extreme autoimmune risk, contracting the real flu is inherently dangerous to you, even if the vaccine might be more dangerous. So, in this scenario, one should think real hard about whether lots of people avoiding vaccines on weakly thought out reasons is a good policy -- since those people not getting vaccinated
might literally kill you
Parent
Share
Re:
Score:
by
JustAnotherOldGuy
( 4145623 )
writes:
People aren't antivaxxers they are people who have lost valuable trust in a system that can help itself but to be arrogant, condesending, and foolishly self righteous blowhards.
No.
People are anti-vaxxers because they're stupid enough to believe they know more than all the scientists who've spent their lives researching and learning about highly complex subjects. And because they're stupid enough to believe any drivel that they see in their Facebook feeds, spewed out by dumbfucks with zero training, education, or experience in the subjects they pontificate on.
In other words, people like you.
Re:
Score:
by
Comrade Ogilvy
( 1719488 )
writes:
I am only asking people show an actual reason based on some kind of evidence. If they can do that, I will likely be very supportive of their position.
But, of course, being reasonable is too much to ask. So best to change the subject and finger point at unnamed arrogant people for being the root of their own problem.
Re:
Score:
by
Comrade Ogilvy
( 1719488 )
writes:
No, you are 100% wrong.
I am only asking they show evidence that their risk is actually significantly larger than the completely miniscule normal risk.
I am not asking anyone to prove anything. Only show that there is a real reason to believe the normal broad population statistics may not apply to them.
If they cannot step over such a low bar, then their opinions do not matter, and I feel no sympathy, no.
Re: Wait, wut?
Score:
, Insightful)
by
javaman235
( 461502 )
writes:
on Sunday February 17, 2019 @03:23AM (
#58133732
Hey, wanna blast from the past regarding paralysis? Google âoeiron lungâ, the machine used to keep people breathing after being paralyzed by polio, before vaccines pretty much wiped it out. Ive had bad effects after getting vaccines, and I wouldnt blame someone with the same for quietly opting out, but people doing public outreach telling others not to take them and raising their own chance of infection are IDIOTS.
Parent
Share
Re:
Score:
, Interesting)
by
dryeo
( 100693 )
writes:
Funny thing about Polio is sanitation made it really bad. Before the 20th century or slightly earlier, everyone was exposed and bad reactions to the virus were relatively rare. Bring in sanitation and large outbreaks became common and affected older people where the affects were usually worse.
Luckily Polio vaccines were discovered/invented that worked well enough though people did get Polio from the live vaccine to the point where as of 2017, there were more cases caused by vaccine then wild Polio.https://e
Re:
Score:
by
Z00L00K
( 682162 )
writes:
So you'd rather have Polio then instead of a vaccination against it.
Re: Wait, wut?
Score:
by
K. S. Kyosuke
( 729550 )
writes:
A filthy leftist rag told him!
[washingtontimes.com]
Please explain demographic facts!
Score:
by
Anonymous Coward
writes:
Re:
Score:
by
Mordaximus
( 566304 )
writes:
Leftists don't wear MAGA hats. That's proof right? That or superior fashion sense.
Does avoiding Fox News count? (In all seriousness for once, I think an affinity for Fox News certainly indicates something, but not education.)
Say the opposite Kendall
Score:
, Insightful)
by
Anonymous Coward
writes:
You've flirted with anti-vaxx as a division issue yourself SuperKendall are you a liberal?:
Superkendall:
"Since we're going into anecdotes I can say I used to get a bit more sick than that, about three times a winter with usually one incredibly bad illness lasting about a week. I stopped drinking soda, and drink water instead, and now I might get one mild cold a winter but sometimes not. I get about the same level of exercise and eat about the same (i.e. whatever the hell I want) with perhaps a touch more ve
Re:
Score:
by
DamnOregonian
( 963763 )
writes:
Not to make you look any stupider than you do on your own, but Seattle is in King County.
Clark County, the county with this outbreak was a 50/50 split in the 2016 election.
Re:
Score:
by
JustAnotherOldGuy
( 4145623 )
writes:
Anti-Vaxxers are notoriously mostly liberal.
Bullshit. The vast majority of ant-vaxxers are right-wing or 'libertarian', whatever that means.
Many Fox News viewers in Seattle are there?
Yes, there are. For example, Snohomish county, just north of Seattle, leans strongly to the right. Clark county is about half and half, so yeah, there are indeed lots of Fox News viewers in WA state- including in and around Seattle. I worked with plenty of them at places like Microsoft, AT&T, Boeing, etc etc.
Do you see anti-vaxxers in Texas? Being near the border you see realists who vaccinate kids as soon as they can.
Yes, there are plenty of anti-vaxxers in Texas. Are you seriously trying to convince us that Texas is
Re:
Score:
by
SuperKendall
( 25149 )
writes:
Bullshit - ALL of the most public anti-tax proponents are
liberal Hollywood elite
[nbcnews.com].
No coincidence that besides ultra-liberal Seattle, another place having measles outbreaks in
Hollywood itself
[drninashapiro.com].
You can yammer all you want but how do you explain only liberal areas having these issues? As I said, Texas (and other strongly conservative states) do not.
I have a lot of evidence showing what I say is true - you have nothing but hot air and a mind hell-bent on ignorance.
The first step of solving any problem is admit
Re: crazy liberals
Score:
, Insightful)
by
Anonymous Coward
writes:
The antivaxxers I know are batshit crazy uneducated libertarians. It's a lack of education and tendency towards extremism that creates antivaxxers.
Re: facebook
Score:
by
K. S. Kyosuke
( 729550 )
writes:
Two "movements" that go great together.
Bowel movements?
Re:
Score:
, Funny)
by
Anonymous Coward
writes:
bahaha, conspiracy theorists always make me laugh... wooo, agenda 21 sounds so ominous... BUT WAIT! you've been taken in because mandate 34 wants you to be distracted. Flat earth is warping due to us floating closer to the van allen belt. Soon we'll parallax and the US will shift towards the flat-earth pole and turn into an ice age, while alaska will become warm!
Re:
Score:
by
JustAnotherOldGuy
( 4145623 )
writes:
Enjoy your
rat poison
[fluoride-history.de]
Fluoridated water has been one of the most successful public health initiatives ever implemented. Ask any dentist and they'll tell you that cavities are almost unheard of in children now. Every kid I knew growing up had a mouthful of them, whereas most children these days just don't get them.
Go ahead, ask a dentist about it and they'll tell you. You won't believe them, but your willful ignorance won't make it any less true.
Re:
Score:
by
PPH
( 736903 )
writes:
Leper colony V2.0
Re:
Score:
, Insightful)
by
Anonymous Coward
writes:
Do you ignore a cancer metastasizing in your body because it's only a fraction of the total mass of your body?
dom
Re:
Score:
by
MrL0G1C
( 867445 )
writes:
Except that is only one group and it doesn't count all of the millions of people that Facebook recommends fake or extremely biased news stories to.
And, what censorship? Tweaking a news or group recommendation algorithm is in no way censorship, so why are you railing against censorship?
Straw man.
Re:
Score:
by
Applehu Akbar
( 2968043 )
writes:
The world will be a much better place after America falls...
/quote>
Actually, no:
[economist.com]
Related Links
Top of the:
day
week
month
384
comments
Does a Gas-Guzzler Revival Risk Dead-End Futures for US Automakers?
377
comments
Americans' Junk-Filled Garages Are Hurting EV Adoption, Study Says
363
comments
Americans are Buying Twice as Many Hybrids as Fully Electric Vehicles. Is The Next Step Synthetic Fuels?
323
comments
EV Sales Keep Growing In the US, Represent 20% of Global Car Sales and Half in China
314
comments
China Is Mass-Producing Hypersonic Missiles For $99,000
next
Relative's DNA Solves A 1993 Murder Cold Case
118
comments
previous
NASA's Plans To Build A Human Settlement on The Moon
232
comments
Slashdot Top Deals
Hackers are just a migratory lifeform with a tropism for computers.
Close
Working...