Facebook to ban anti-vaxx ads in new push against 'vaccine hoaxes'

[Degas]

I think that they can I guess I don't see though how FB would want to then become a defacto arm of either of those organizations. What if they change their stance on some aspect of vaccination?

Is thalidomide safe? Some countries said it was.

My mom took it by the bucket.

Must be handy having all those extra fingers and toes....

[stymiegreen]

You don't think the CDC and WHO are the experts best qualified to ascertain the truth on vaccination? I'm not seeing how you think anyone can ever be on the right side of an issue if you reject the experts as well as your own views. Is it hubris to form a firm evidence based conclusion rejecting a conspiracy theory?

I think that they can I guess I don't see though how FB would want to then become a defacto arm of either of those organizations. What if they change their stance on some aspect of vaccination? Does FB then have to issue an apology for the content they previously prevented from distribution? Just seems like they are wading into a weird area. I get that they are attempting to be proactive as far as being an instrument of public consumption of information. But I can only imagine once they take a stance on the vaccination issue they will open the door to be petitioned in other areas of "public concern" that people feel they should step into as well. Its not something I'll lose sleep over...its just something that gave me pause when I first saw what FB was proposing. It sounds good on paper.

Well again FB doesn't have to do anything on this and could do the opposite thing, they can choose to tell people or choose not to. Sounds like they're doing the entirely responsible voluntary thing though, asking the experts to help them determine what is misinformation, then working to stop themselves promoting that misinformation.

And the thing is they can't really stay out of it, their platform doesn't allow it. It's one of the main ways anti-vaxxers promote their shit, and their platform is actually involved in doing it - not just the ads they accepted but also the algorithms they use which simply aim to promote content that spreads well and allow ads to target content areas. All the top search results on anything vaccine related got anti vax propaganda groups, memes, and flagged you for paid anti-vax ads. It was attention to that problem that raised it as a PR problem for them. One way or another, they're caught up in the anti-vax thing. As the single biggest platform for spreading the lies, or by opposing spreading the lies.

Still playing devil's advocate there are any number of other issues that the platform is used for to spread misinformation on. We have the list currently at anti-vaxxers and I think russian bots that are spreading bullshit. Do they just keep adding to the list of people to ban? Like I said it certainly sounds good on paper.

[Wut]

I think that they can I guess I don't see though how FB would want to then become a defacto arm of either of those organizations. What if they change their stance on some aspect of vaccination?

Is thalidomide safe? Some countries said it was.

My mom took it by the bucket.

Must be handy having all those extra fingers and toes....

I can give the finger with two fingers on all three hands.

[Degas]

High Eight bud!

[AnalHamster]

You don't think the CDC and WHO are the experts best qualified to ascertain the truth on vaccination? I'm not seeing how you think anyone can ever be on the right side of an issue if you reject the experts as well as your own views. Is it hubris to form a firm evidence based conclusion rejecting a conspiracy theory?

I think that they can I guess I don't see though how FB would want to then become a defacto arm of either of those organizations. What if they change their stance on some aspect of vaccination? Does FB then have to issue an apology for the content they previously prevented from distribution? Just seems like they are wading into a weird area. I get that they are attempting to be proactive as far as being an instrument of public consumption of information. But I can only imagine once they take a stance on the vaccination issue they will open the door to be petitioned in other areas of "public concern" that people feel they should step into as well. Its not something I'll lose sleep over...its just something that gave me pause when I first saw what FB was proposing. It sounds good on paper.

Well again FB doesn't have to do anything on this and could do the opposite thing, they can choose to tell people or choose not to. Sounds like they're doing the entirely responsible voluntary thing though, asking the experts to help them determine what is misinformation, then working to stop themselves promoting that misinformation.

And the thing is they can't really stay out of it, their platform doesn't allow it. It's one of the main ways anti-vaxxers promote their shit, and their platform is actually involved in doing it - not just the ads they accepted but also the algorithms they use which simply aim to promote content that spreads well and allow ads to target content areas. All the top search results on anything vaccine related got anti vax propaganda groups, memes, and flagged you for paid anti-vax ads. It was attention to that problem that raised it as a PR problem for them. One way or another, they're caught up in the anti-vax thing. As the single biggest platform for spreading the lies, or by opposing spreading the lies.

Still playing devil's advocate there are any number of other issues that the platform is used for to spread misinformation on. We have the list currently at anti-vaxxers and I think russian bots that are spreading bullshit. Do they just keep adding to the list of people to ban? Like I said it certainly sounds good on paper.

You're basically making a slippery slope argument and the slippery slope ends where it always does, the point where you can argue your case against what is being done rather than what might one day be done. If something is banned as misinformation which is true, or arguably true or undetermined, then I'd say that crosses a line that banning misinformation that is provably false does not. Not that there is any possible enforcement of the line, other than public opinion unless you want the courts to regulate facebook posts, presumably on the reasonable doubt standard of evidence.

And yet again, the anti-vax people aren't actually being banned, except from false advertising on the platform. Their little bubbles will not be popped by the new policy.

[stymiegreen]

For shits and giggles the anti-vaxx chick on my FB feed's response to the Anti-Vaxx announcement:

[AnalHamster]

I like how point 1 is basically 'keep using facebook'

I think FB will weather this storm.

[AnalHamster]

For shits and giggles the anti-vaxx chick on my FB feed's response to the Anti-Vaxx announcement:

If you can get her to sign up I'll let you set anyone's avatar and title you like forever.

[stymiegreen]

For shits and giggles the anti-vaxx chick on my FB feed's response to the Anti-Vaxx announcement:

If you can get her to sign up I'll let you set anyone's avatar and title you like forever.

It would be entertaining but nah. She actually flew down to Georgia last week to give a statement at some hearing about vaccinations and parent's rights I guess? and posted the video. She is originally from Georgia and moved up like 25 years ago during High School. She lives on a big ranch with a bunch of horses and her Husband works and she doesn't. Lots of time to just think about this issue. I think her son developed some speech and developmental issues after he got vaccinated she claims.

[AnalHamster]

The autism vaccine link has been thoroughly, comprehensively, repeatedly disproved. It's fictional.

[stymiegreen]

She says she's not "anti-vaxx" just pro-choice for parents not to have their kids vaccinated. She will cite any number of "scientific" studies, trials and court cases so they have at least adapted their arguments to act like its completely science based. I just keep her in my feed to see what craziness they have going on on any given day. They basically claim that the adjuvants that are included in the vaccine are harmful like aluminum. She thinks a vaccine should not be mandatory until they can guarantee 100% of people will experience no harmful side effects.