Facebook Bans Anti-Vaccine Ads, But Not Organic Misinformation (axios.com) 62
Facebook will ban anti-vaccine ads in an effort to combat misinformation and support public health experts, the social media platform announced in a statement on Tuesday. Axios reports: The company now says it doesn't want these ads on its platform, but the policy does not apply to influencers who experts say drive a significant amount of organic misinformation about vaccines.
"Our goal is to help messages about the safety and efficacy of vaccines reach a broad group of people, while prohibiting ads with misinformation that could harm public health efforts," the social media platform said. "We already don't allow ads with vaccine hoaxes that have been publicly identified by leading global health organizations." "Now, if an ad explicitly discourages someone from getting a vaccine, we'll reject it. Enforcement will begin over the next few days." "Ads that advocate for or against legislation or government policies around vaccines -- including a COVID-19 vaccine -- are still allowed."
"Our goal is to help messages about the safety and efficacy of vaccines reach a broad group of people, while prohibiting ads with misinformation that could harm public health efforts," the social media platform said. "We already don't allow ads with vaccine hoaxes that have been publicly identified by leading global health organizations." "Now, if an ad explicitly discourages someone from getting a vaccine, we'll reject it. Enforcement will begin over the next few days." "Ads that advocate for or against legislation or government policies around vaccines -- including a COVID-19 vaccine -- are still allowed."
SV (Score:4)
Silicon Valley loves to talk about changing the world. How is that world changing going so far?
Re: (Score:2)
Before social media most of these crazy people were isolated to their own little islands of crazy. Now they are starting to find each other and it's having real world repercussions. You know like bringing back preventable diseases that have been eradicated from the civilized world.
Slashdot doesn't enjoying hearing this fact, but facebook is a 100% private company and they can choose to publish whatever they like on their platform. If you disagree with facebook you can always find a new social media network
Re: (Score:2)
The only people affraid of getting a so called virus are people, that are vaccinated against that virus.
There is no vaccine against COVID yet...
Re: (Score:2)
"If you disagree with facebook you can always find a new social media network or start your own."
That's an absurd statement. I can't join any other social network that's as big as Facebook with my family as members because that doesn't exist. And I certainly can't just create a social network to compete with Facebook.
Facebook being a private company doesn't what-so-ever mean that I have to like them or condone their dirty practices.
And, this isn't about freedom of speech, this is about a scumbag company pus
Re: (Score:2)
this is about a scumbag company pushing extremist misinformation
What misinformation is Facebook pushing?
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever the algorithms see as the most likely to keep people on the site. Facebook pushed vaxxer crap until it bowed to pressure and stopped, facebook pushes climate science disinformation, no doubt facebook is pushing racially decisive crap.
Re: (Score:2)
Who said anything about making laws? I don't even use Facebook.
You seemed to have missed my point entirely, most of the talk in SV about changing the world is jut hot air. In the case of Facebook, FB might have actually changed the world some - I argue that this change is not for the better. But I didn't say anything about shutting it down or making it illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
It's true we have a bunch of nonsense out there, but the communication world is far better than when newspapers and TV shows acted as gate-keepers to what we can talk about. The Green New Deal might not be the best thing, but it is far more left than what newspapers would have let politicians talk about in the 90s (and before).
Re: (Score:3)
Silicon Valley loves to talk about changing the world. How is that world changing going so far?
Errr, is that a serious question? 2020 being a dumpster fire aside now is the best time to be alive, and Silicon Valley is largely to thank for incredible advances that make modern life an absolute breeze.
Yeah sure your post may score low-IQ mod points, but if you put even a tiny bit of thought into it you'd answer your own question. For ever bit of Facebook idiocy on antivax bullshit, you have advancements such as the ability to realtime video call to the other side of the world. Shit man I remember a time
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the real innovation was not produced by startup unicorns. If you think FB is a good thing then we'll have to agree to disagree.
I make a good living in tech but I never set out to change the world or make billion dollars for my investors. Yet, I've contributed to the innovation of which you speak.
FB's business model has turned it into toxic garbage. We can't just throw ethics out the window in exchange for convenience.
Re: (Score:2)
If you think FB is a good thing then we'll have to agree to disagree.
Depends on what you mean by Facebook. Do you mean Facebook the company? Fuck no, they are evil incarnate. Do you mean the concept of a social network allowing people to stay in touch with friends the world over, plan local events easily, see what's going on, communicate with ease never experienced before? Absolutely.
Jesus I'd probably just move back to Australia if my life devolved back to writing postcards and actually talking to my mother on a telephone. Facebook has spared me that pain.
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook is not a concept, its a company. Like I said, monetizing FB turned it into toxic garbage. You are part of the problem, perpetuating this toxic garbage, you are ignoring ethics for convenience.
it increased the reach of crass idiocy (Score:2)
Re: SV (Score:2)
Because SV is filled with bright eyed bushy tailed naive idealists in their early 20s who just only started to get a small taste of reality.
Remember when SV was about computers and SILICON microchips? I miss those days.
Son of a witch (Score:2)
Sigh. Protecting the speech I most revile. Sadly it's infinitely easier to defend the position of more logical arguments, censorship wise.
Re: (Score:2)
Paid advertisement, not an opinion, there is a world of difference in there. In point of fact to reduce harm global, advertisers should be legally liable for the ads they show. They promote the product and the profit by promoting the product, WHY THE FUCKING HELL DO THEY GET A FREE RIDE ON LIABILITY. They should be legally forced to audit the products they promote and thus be legally liable for that promotion.
So ads become more expensive to pay for that, probably an up front fee to evaluate the product, if
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If you can't tell the different between corporate censorship and Orwellian censorship, then you need to re-read 1984. Free Press does not mean that the presses are enslaved and must print anything. It means the government can not censor, not corporations.
It's OK for corporations to censor. They are entitled to do that. The government is different, they should not censor.
Because corporate censor is no different than me saying that when I open up a news stand on the corner, I will NOT sell anti-gun (or a
Re:Celebrating censorship (Score:4, Insightful)
Facebook is more powerful than most governments.
It has no serious competitors in its space, and it has the power to manipulate not only speech but world opinion (better than most governments), either directly or implicitly through the connections it makes.
This is especially true now, when much of the world is stuck at home and can only communicate to other people through the Internet.
Not to complain or anything (Score:2)
This isn't to say that FB isn't big and powerful, but trust me, they're up to the standards of a government. Facebook does not have a military.
Honestly you'd be much better off not worrying as much about FB and worrying more about voter suppression.
Re: (Score:2)
A good argument to break them up. It seems to me the problem is simply that Facebook has been allowed to buy out its competition, or lately get the government to ban its competition.
The free market fails in a big way without competition.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that Facebook has monopoly power in serving as a forum for public discussion.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that Facebook has monopoly power in serving as a forum for public discussion.
Discussing this on a public forum that isn't facebook makes your argument rather blunt.
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot is very popular with nerds like me, but it has nothing like the number or users that facebook has
Re: (Score:2)
Having a large number of users does not make facebook have monopoly power as a forum for public discussion.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't it? It seems that a discussion forum has a lot of similarities to a phone company in the old days where the company owned the lines: if the great majority of customers are using one service, that makes that service more valuable to new customers. It seems like a classic "natural monopoly"
Re: (Score:2)
They don't own the lines, that's your internet provider, I could name several large competitors to facebook not to mention how easy it is to set up your own forum. If you're trying to compare facebooks position to the at&t case, that's going to be quite the struggle. If you believe that facebook is in violation of any laws I do encourage you to report them to the proper authorities and I wish you good luck with that (I'm not a fan, I don't have an account there).
Re: (Score:2)
Not violating any laws as far as I know.
What alternate social / political platforms do you know of with similar viewership? If I want to discuss politics with friends and acquaintances, there is a high probability that they are on FB. For which other platform is that true?
The phone company used to own the lines - thats why they were broken up to get the situation we have today. Today I can choose my phone company, they all give me the same access to other people.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't speak for your friends but twitter, youtube, tiktok, wechat are large multi billion dollar competitors that come to mind. I don't see how the situation is comparable to at&t, as you state you couldn't make a call because without going thru them because they owned the line and if I remember correctly bell was broken into seven regional companies as a result. If you wanted to get in touch with someone the alternative was sending them a physical mail thru the post or going to their house, the optio
Re: (Score:2)
It's OK for corporations to censor. They are entitled to do that.
Note: It is legal for corporations to censor, which is different than being moral or ok. It is not OK for corporations to censor.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on what they censor. A cupcake forum censoring stuff way off topic like anti-vaccine stuff seems fine to me. Same with having a clear policy of no swearing and censoring those posts containing swear words.
I visit some forums where being an asshole is banned. Over the years I only remember one person being banned with his posts deleted. I do remember the odd other thread being moved to the off topic area.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Celebrating censorship (Score:2)
Facebook's interface is such a mess, it's very hard to get to whatever material they are trying to slop the masses with except by chance. Maybe the kids have it down to an art, but my 44 year old mind has trouble with it
I never thought I would be saying something like this, being a programner scince the mid 1980s and conquering countless seemingly insurmountable problems. :[
Organic Misinformation (Score:2)
I'm confused. Is Organic Misinformation grown with or without pesticides and contain or not contain additives?
Re: (Score:2)
It's misinformation that absolutely does not contain thimerosal.
Re: (Score:2)
It comes from free-range retards.
Re: (Score:2)
What actually is "Organic Misinformation"???
Remember when (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Aren't the /. article inclusions largely rated by selected readers? If so, who exactly are you blaming?
Re: (Score:2)
Ostensibly, it's the users who choose the stories. Practically, it's the corporate overlords and their advert buying masters.
Stupidity is endless, bouncers are not (Score:1)
They cannot realistically micromanage all message categories. They have to draw the line somewhere.
Loaded summary much? (Score:2)
I seriously do not think TFS title could be any more loaded.
Now do anti-nuke and anti-math (Score:1)
Only Once (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Been there, done that: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesaf... [cdc.gov]
* The Cutter incident - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov] ...
* Dengue fever vaccine- https://www.who.int/news-room/... [who.int] (see "Vaccination against dengue")
* Simian virus in polio vaccines
FB department of truth? (Score:3)
Does Facebook now have a department where they hire people to determine "truth" so that they can prevent the spread of misinformation. Do they have reviews, or councils that vote? I wonder what the process is.
Are the voting members secret to prevent external influence? I bet China would pay handsomely for decisions about what constitutes "lies" about Xinjiang, or The history of Taiwan.
I guess people can just have political discussions on one of the many other forums that are used by a substantial percentage of the world's population.
Re: (Score:2)
This works sometimes, or it used to. Nowadays people claim that facts don't exist, and so
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Does Facebook now have a department where they hire people to determine "truth" so that they can prevent the spread of misinformation. Do they have reviews, or councils that vote? I wonder what the process is.
Are the voting members secret to prevent external influence? I bet China would pay handsomely for decisions about what constitutes "lies" about Xinjiang, or The history of Taiwan.
I guess people can just have political discussions on one of the many other forums that are used by a substantial percentage of the world's population.
just like editors did when public discussions was largely in print. I fail to see your point and your outrage, It's several orders of magnitude easier to get something published today anyway you twist it.
Re: (Score:2)
If you need to put quotes around "truth" when talking about anti-vaxxers then you have spent waaaay too much time around anti-vaxxers.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes they have a department like that. They claim that they only push back against stuff that endangers people, like telling them that coronavirus is a hoax. It's not clear where the line is though, for example telling people not to wear a mask puts lives at risk and is usually based on misinformation.
Facebook is blocked in China so I doubt they care much. Their only interest will be in using Facebook as a weapon to damage our democracies.
Organic? (Score:2)
Who thought this up? That word is already pathetically overloaded. It's originally from Greek organikos meaning "relating to an organ or instrument". It makes no sense here.