Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Facebook Google Social Networks

Facebook Becomes 'A Haven For the Anti-Vaccination Movement' (siliconvalley.com) 278

"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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

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

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 16, 2019 @09:50PM (#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.

    • by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Sunday February 17, 2019 @05:46AM (#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.

  • by bobstreo ( 1320787 ) on Saturday February 16, 2019 @09:52PM (#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?

    • by evanh ( 627108 ) on Saturday February 16, 2019 @10:28PM (#58133170)

      That is all advertising is after all. Even with regulation forcing them to do better, they'll still be fighting an uphill battle.

    • by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Saturday February 16, 2019 @10:38PM (#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".

      • 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.

        • 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.

      • 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".

        • by Solandri ( 704621 ) on Sunday February 17, 2019 @05:03AM (#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.
          • 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

            • by geggam ( 777689 )

              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.

              • There's a difference between collusion to make (more) money and efficacy. We're not discussing the former.
          • by kqs ( 1038910 )

            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.

      • by Xarius ( 691264 )

        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.

      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        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: https://youtu.be/FX8Iw37srmY [youtu.be]

      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        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

      • by barc0001 ( 173002 ) on Sunday February 17, 2019 @05:43AM (#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.

      • 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.

        • by kqs ( 1038910 )

          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:5, Insightful)

    by Tehrasha ( 624164 ) on Saturday February 16, 2019 @10:12PM (#58133114) Homepage
    ... social media site found to contain subdivided groups of people with similar interests, sharing opinions within their own echo chambers.
  • 'a haven' (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    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.

    • by tsa ( 15680 )

      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.

  • 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
    • by MrL0G1C ( 867445 )

      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.

  • by supernova87a ( 532540 ) <kepler1&hotmail,com> on Saturday February 16, 2019 @10:37PM (#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.
  • deadly stuff (Score:4, Insightful)

    by iggymanz ( 596061 ) on Saturday February 16, 2019 @10:42PM (#58133218)

    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

    • by tsa ( 15680 )

      Breathing a mixture of 20% oxygen and 80% nitrogen is a sure way to go.

    • I haven't died yet!
    • 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.

    • 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.

  • 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.
    • 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

      • by jwhyche ( 6192 )

        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.

        • 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

          • by kqs ( 1038910 )

            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.

          • by jwhyche ( 6192 )

            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:

    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.

  • by Kartu ( 1490911 ) on Sunday February 17, 2019 @12:27AM (#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.

    • by MrL0G1C ( 867445 )

      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?

  • by az-saguaro ( 1231754 ) on Sunday February 17, 2019 @12:39AM (#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.

  • by mamba-mamba ( 445365 ) on Sunday February 17, 2019 @01:35AM (#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).

    • A lot of sane people are walking away from facebook

      Yeah, right to Instagram. Mark Zuckerburg is so sad about that.

      • 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.

    • by MrL0G1C ( 867445 )

      "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.

  • by jaa101 ( 627731 ) on Sunday February 17, 2019 @01:46AM (#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.

    • 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.

      • by jaa101 ( 627731 )

        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

        • 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

  • "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...
  • by aglider ( 2435074 ) on Sunday February 17, 2019 @04:42AM (#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.

  • 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.

  • ... 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.

  • by biggaijin ( 126513 ) on Sunday February 17, 2019 @12:02PM (#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?

Sigmund Freud is alleged to have said that in the last analysis the entire field of psychology may reduce to biological electrochemistry.

Working...