UJRefugees.net

Posted: **Fri Mar 08, 2019 7:56 pm**

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... e-hoax-ads

Facebook to ban anti-vaxx ads in new push against 'vaccine hoaxes'[/150]

Move comes as social media faces growing scrutiny over its role in promoting anti-vaccine propaganda

Facebook will no longer allow advertisements that include misinformation about vaccines as part of an effort to reduce the spread of “vaccine hoaxes” on the platform, the company announced on Thursday.

Facebook will also diminish the reach of groups and pages that spread anti-vaccine misinformation by reducing their ranking in search results and on the News Feed, removing them from autofill suggestions in the search bar, and removing them from recommendation features such as “Groups You Should Join”.

The company’s announcement follows increased scrutiny of the role that social media platforms play in amplifying and financing the anti-vaccine movement.

Anti-vaccine propaganda has been going viral on the internet, just as measles is surging in the real world. The US is combatting measles outbreaks in under-vaccinated communities in the Pacific north-west, New York and Texas, while measles cases in Europe doubled from 2017 to 2018 and major outbreaks have hit the Phillippines and Japan. The World Health Organization named vaccine hesitancy – “the reluctance or refusal to vaccinate despite the availability of vaccines” – as one of the top threats to global health in 2019.

On 1 February, the Guardian reported that all of the top 12 Facebook groups and eight of the top 12 Facebook pages surfaced by a search for “vaccination” advocated against vaccines. That report prompted the Democratic congressman Adam Schiff, the chair of the US House intelligence committee, to write a letter to Mark Zuckerberg urging the company to take action against vaccine misinformation.

Posted: **Fri Mar 08, 2019 8:02 pm**

This feels weird to me....I have a girl friend from High School that is full on anti-vaxx cause her kid had adverse effects...but it clearly has taken over her brain becuase its all she posts about and also it has brought her to believe in other "conspiracies" that come along...it just opened the floodgate for her as far as blaming the government for every nefarious thing she can think of.

At the same time I have another girl friend from HIgh School that has a daughter with immune deficiencies who has to homeschool because of it and she constantly preaches that people who don't vaccinate put her daughter in danger any time she goes into public.

Just seems weird that Facebook can decide they are on the right side of an issue and declare what information should and shouldn't be shared. I agree with them on this particular issue...but since humans are involved I have to believe this precedent will be abused at some point or won't turn out as intended.

Posted: **Fri Mar 08, 2019 8:11 pm**

The anti vaxxers aren't being banned from spreading their dangerous lies, they're just being denied access to a private platform that they want to use to do it. Facebook can ban any content or user for any reason, their users are free to leave but have no right to stay. The only recourse anyone has is to facebook court, which is run by facebook.

Posted: **Fri Mar 08, 2019 8:21 pm**

Conspiracy theorists don't debate, they just assert the same bullshit over and over.

Posted: **Fri Mar 08, 2019 8:25 pm**

analhamster wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 8:11 pm The anti vaxxers aren't being banned from spreading their dangerous lies, they're just being denied access to a private platform that they want to use to do it. Facebook can ban any content or user for any reason, their users are free to leave but have no right to stay. The only recourse anyone has is to facebook court, which is run by facebook.

I guess my reservation is the thought of a room of people at facebook who are likely not scientists or anything close deliberating over what constitutes "dangerous lies". Again...I am not supportive of the anti-vaxxers spreading nonsense I just don't have faith that a room full of Facebook execs are qualified per se to determine what is valid science and what isn't. Maybe they are calling in doctors or scientists to assist them in their decisions. That would be more advisable I'm sure. But this seems like it could easily spill over into a grey area where they are banning things that maybe shouldn't be. Who knows because its doubtful we'll ever see what they decide to ban or not.

My point in a nutshell is that I don't have faith that it is so black and white to decide what to ban especially amongst simply Facebook content editors as opposed to people who know what they're talking about.

I agree about the fact that conspiracy theorists are not there to argue though...the girl I know pretty much only allows like minded people to comment on her threads and she just bans or bullies anyone with an opposing point of view. Its the very definition of an echo chamber where they just continually reinforce their own beliefs over and over again.

Posted: **Fri Mar 08, 2019 8:40 pm**

Biker wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 8:16 pm So theyre banning debate. Got it

Yes. They are banning all debate. There will no longer be any debate of kind allowed on Facebook.

Posted: **Fri Mar 08, 2019 8:42 pm**

stymiegreen wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 8:25 pm
analhamster wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 8:11 pm The anti vaxxers aren't being banned from spreading their dangerous lies, they're just being denied access to a private platform that they want to use to do it. Facebook can ban any content or user for any reason, their users are free to leave but have no right to stay. The only recourse anyone has is to facebook court, which is run by facebook.
I guess my reservation is the thought of a room of people at facebook who are likely not scientists or anything close deliberating over what constitutes "dangerous lies". Again...I am not supportive of the anti-vaxxers spreading nonsense I just don't have faith that a room full of Facebook execs are qualified per se to determine what is valid science and what isn't. Maybe they are calling in doctors or scientists to assist them in their decisions. That would be more advisable I'm sure. But this seems like it could easily spill over into a grey area where they are banning things that maybe shouldn't be. Who knows because its doubtful we'll ever see what they decide to ban or not.

My point in a nutshell is that I don't have faith that it is so black and white to decide what to ban especially amongst simply Facebook content editors as opposed to people who know what they're talking about.

I agree about the fact that conspiracy theorists are not there to argue though...the girl I know pretty much only allows like minded people to comment on her threads and she just bans or bullies anyone with an opposing point of view. Its the very definition of an echo chamber where they just continually reinforce their own beliefs over and over again.

They've said they will use the CDC and WHO to verify vaccine hoax information. So the Jews. Plus all they have said they'll do is stop promoting misinformation and advertising it - your friends anti-vax bubble will still have the same people posting the same nonsense at each other, the difference is it'll be harder to reach people who aren't already in there. Doesn't really matter though, it's a private company. Free speech is unaffected, no one has to use it, no one has a right to use it. They could choose to promote anti-vaxxer bullshit instead and there's not a thing anyone can do about it. They could do it openly or secretly. If you're uncircumcized with a private company regulating speech on its own platform how would you propose enforcing neutrality on them? Judicial oversight of their moderation policies and decisions?

Posted: **Fri Mar 08, 2019 8:46 pm**

I believe the argument for Facebook, Twitter, Instagram is that they are the present day town square where anyone is free to voice their opinion. Restricting that speech is a violation of their constitutional rights. There is debate within the ACLU and they've argued both ways but mostly in favor of the town square argument.

Can for example ATT prohibit free speech over their internet network by blocking access to legal but undesirable websites? Most people would declare that illegal but it's a private network where people are free to leave right? Some people argue Net Neutrality is a bad thing.

Posted: **Fri Mar 08, 2019 9:02 pm**

Other than vax messages, what can Facebook essentially ban that we might not agree with today?

Abortion messages?
Israeli activities?
How about proposed gun control laws?
Can we ban all political discussion or stories that aren't 100% factual and verifiable?
Can Facebook ban posts about future protests or political rallies for neo-nazi's?

Posted: **Fri Mar 08, 2019 9:09 pm**

beagleboy wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 9:02 pm Other than vax messages, what can Facebook essentially ban that we might not agree with today?

Abortion messages?
Israeli activities?
How about proposed gun control laws?
Can we ban all political discussion or stories that aren't 100% factual and verifiable?
Can Facebook ban posts about future protests or political rallies for neo-nazi's?

See, this is my problem, when an organization starts restricting based on content, they set the precedent for restricting other content, and content based censorship bothers me, private platform or not.

Posted: **Fri Mar 08, 2019 9:16 pm**

Wut wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 9:09 pm
beagleboy wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 9:02 pm Other than vax messages, what can Facebook essentially ban that we might not agree with today?

Abortion messages?
Israeli activities?
How about proposed gun control laws?
Can we ban all political discussion or stories that aren't 100% factual and verifiable?
Can Facebook ban posts about future protests or political rallies for neo-nazi's?
See, this is my problem, when an organization starts restricting based on content, they set the precedent for restricting other content, and content based censorship bothers me, private platform or not.

And that's why many had a problem with Universities banning neo-nazi speakers. The ACLU is actually rather split on that particular debate which is really odd. It's actually generating a competing organization for people who think the ACLU has gone soft on freedom of speech.

Posted: **Fri Mar 08, 2019 9:18 pm**

The internet itself should be regulated as a public utility, but since it's not that leaves AT&T as free to censor content as facebook is since the title II thing was repealed. I don't think they should be treated the same, your ISP can censor all content, facebook can only censor its own. There's plenty of places you can go to share fake news. Including facebook, even after the changes.

It's a bit different over here where I can pick from a dozen or so ISPs and would dump one that decided to censor my access based on their own whims. I'd still favour banning them from private censorship decisions even then, but y'all have something like 40% of people with only one choice of broadband ISP. No one has to use facebook, but we all have to use the internet these days.

Posted: **Fri Mar 08, 2019 9:22 pm**

beagleboy wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 9:16 pm
Wut wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 9:09 pm
beagleboy wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 9:02 pm Other than vax messages, what can Facebook essentially ban that we might not agree with today?

Abortion messages?
Israeli activities?
How about proposed gun control laws?
Can we ban all political discussion or stories that aren't 100% factual and verifiable?
Can Facebook ban posts about future protests or political rallies for neo-nazi's?
See, this is my problem, when an organization starts restricting based on content, they set the precedent for restricting other content, and content based censorship bothers me, private platform or not.
And that's why many had a problem with Universities banning neo-nazi speakers. The ACLU is actually rather split on that particular debate which is really odd. It's actually generating a competing organization for people who think the ACLU has gone soft on freedom of speech.

I hadn't realized they were wavering, they represented the Nazis in Skokie and elsewhere, I think in Pittsburgh once, and I always liked their willingness to represent the extremes.

Posted: **Fri Mar 08, 2019 9:24 pm**

analhamster wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 8:42 pm
stymiegreen wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 8:25 pm
analhamster wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 8:11 pm The anti vaxxers aren't being banned from spreading their dangerous lies, they're just being denied access to a private platform that they want to use to do it. Facebook can ban any content or user for any reason, their users are free to leave but have no right to stay. The only recourse anyone has is to facebook court, which is run by facebook.
I guess my reservation is the thought of a room of people at facebook who are likely not scientists or anything close deliberating over what constitutes "dangerous lies". Again...I am not supportive of the anti-vaxxers spreading nonsense I just don't have faith that a room full of Facebook execs are qualified per se to determine what is valid science and what isn't. Maybe they are calling in doctors or scientists to assist them in their decisions. That would be more advisable I'm sure. But this seems like it could easily spill over into a grey area where they are banning things that maybe shouldn't be. Who knows because its doubtful we'll ever see what they decide to ban or not.

My point in a nutshell is that I don't have faith that it is so black and white to decide what to ban especially amongst simply Facebook content editors as opposed to people who know what they're talking about.

I agree about the fact that conspiracy theorists are not there to argue though...the girl I know pretty much only allows like minded people to comment on her threads and she just bans or bullies anyone with an opposing point of view. Its the very definition of an echo chamber where they just continually reinforce their own beliefs over and over again.
They've said they will use the CDC and WHO to verify vaccine hoax information. So the Jews. Plus all they have said they'll do is stop promoting misinformation and advertising it - your friends anti-vax bubble will still have the same people posting the same nonsense at each other, the difference is it'll be harder to reach people who aren't already in there. Doesn't really matter though, it's a private company. Free speech is unaffected, no one has to use it, no one has a right to use it. They could choose to promote anti-vaxxer bullshit instead and there's not a thing anyone can do about it. They could do it openly or secretly. If you're uncircumcized with a private company regulating speech on its own platform how would you propose enforcing neutrality on them? Judicial oversight of their moderation policies and decisions?

I wasn't proposing enforcing anything on FB I was just highlighting this as an instance of something where the intentions may seem to be above board but that implementing it might not be as simplistic as they seem to be proposing. I think they are opening a pandoras box where they will find the declaration of the policy simple enough but the implementation of it maybe not so much. In my opinion there is really no issue that there is full agreement from a bunch of content editors on what is 100% true and "verifiable" and what isn't. If they attempted this sort of thing behind the scenes then maybe that would be more effective in the sense that what is out of sight is out of mind for the end users. I guess I just felt it takes a bit of hubris that the FB people have decided they are on the "right" side of the issue and that they can be the objective arbiters of the "wrong" content that they seek to prohibit. And again...that is with me agreeing with their stance on this issue in general.

Posted: **Fri Mar 08, 2019 9:25 pm**

Wut wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 9:09 pm
beagleboy wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 9:02 pm Other than vax messages, what can Facebook essentially ban that we might not agree with today?

Abortion messages?
Israeli activities?
How about proposed gun control laws?
Can we ban all political discussion or stories that aren't 100% factual and verifiable?
Can Facebook ban posts about future protests or political rallies for neo-nazi's?
See, this is my problem, when an organization starts restricting based on content, they set the precedent for restricting other content, and content based censorship bothers me, private platform or not.

Again, they aren't actually restricting the content, other than of paid advertising. They aren't going to delete posts or ban users over it, what they're going to restrict is their own internal promotion of the content to other users.

Nothing to stop them if they did want to though, on any topic. Their only restriction is what their users and investors think about it. Very few platforms that don't restrict content though, maybe somewhere like 4Chan.

Posted: **Fri Mar 08, 2019 9:29 pm**

Wut wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 9:22 pm I hadn't realized they were wavering, they represented the Nazis in Skokie and elsewhere, I think in Pittsburgh once, and I always liked their willingness to represent the extremes.

Many felt that it was wrong that the ACLU was fighting with Universities over the speaker bans.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr- ... 5ccd0942f3

Posted: **Fri Mar 08, 2019 9:30 pm**

stymiegreen wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 9:24 pm
analhamster wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 8:42 pm
stymiegreen wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 8:25 pm
analhamster wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 8:11 pm The anti vaxxers aren't being banned from spreading their dangerous lies, they're just being denied access to a private platform that they want to use to do it. Facebook can ban any content or user for any reason, their users are free to leave but have no right to stay. The only recourse anyone has is to facebook court, which is run by facebook.
I guess my reservation is the thought of a room of people at facebook who are likely not scientists or anything close deliberating over what constitutes "dangerous lies". Again...I am not supportive of the anti-vaxxers spreading nonsense I just don't have faith that a room full of Facebook execs are qualified per se to determine what is valid science and what isn't. Maybe they are calling in doctors or scientists to assist them in their decisions. That would be more advisable I'm sure. But this seems like it could easily spill over into a grey area where they are banning things that maybe shouldn't be. Who knows because its doubtful we'll ever see what they decide to ban or not.

My point in a nutshell is that I don't have faith that it is so black and white to decide what to ban especially amongst simply Facebook content editors as opposed to people who know what they're talking about.

I agree about the fact that conspiracy theorists are not there to argue though...the girl I know pretty much only allows like minded people to comment on her threads and she just bans or bullies anyone with an opposing point of view. Its the very definition of an echo chamber where they just continually reinforce their own beliefs over and over again.
They've said they will use the CDC and WHO to verify vaccine hoax information. So the Jews. Plus all they have said they'll do is stop promoting misinformation and advertising it - your friends anti-vax bubble will still have the same people posting the same nonsense at each other, the difference is it'll be harder to reach people who aren't already in there. Doesn't really matter though, it's a private company. Free speech is unaffected, no one has to use it, no one has a right to use it. They could choose to promote anti-vaxxer bullshit instead and there's not a thing anyone can do about it. They could do it openly or secretly. If you're uncircumcized with a private company regulating speech on its own platform how would you propose enforcing neutrality on them? Judicial oversight of their moderation policies and decisions?
I wasn't proposing enforcing anything on FB I was just highlighting this as an instance of something where the intentions may seem to be above board but that implementing it might not be as simplistic as they seem to be proposing. I think they are opening a pandoras box where they will find the declaration of the policy simple enough but the implementation of it maybe not so much. In my opinion there is really no issue that there is full agreement from a bunch of content editors on what is 100% true and "verifiable" and what isn't. If they attempted this sort of thing behind the scenes then maybe that would be more effective in the sense that what is out of sight is out of mind for the end users. I guess I just felt it takes a bit of hubris that the FB people have decided they are on the "right" side of the issue and that they can be the objective arbiters of the "wrong" content that they seek to prohibit. And again...that is with me agreeing with their stance on this issue in general.

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?

Posted: **Fri Mar 08, 2019 9:32 pm**

beagleboy wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 9:29 pm
Wut wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 9:22 pm I hadn't realized they were wavering, they represented the Nazis in Skokie and elsewhere, I think in Pittsburgh once, and I always liked their willingness to represent the extremes.
Many felt that it was wrong that the ACLU was fighting with Universities over the speaker bans.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr- ... 5ccd0942f3

Those that disagree with them on the issue need to remember their purpose, and the importance of their purpose.

Posted: **Fri Mar 08, 2019 9:40 pm**

They presumably always get some complaints when they take a case for someone whose views they disagree with, Yiannopolous just being the latest one. They still took his case though.

Posted: **Fri Mar 08, 2019 9:43 pm**

analhamster wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 9:30 pm 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.

Posted: **Fri Mar 08, 2019 9:59 pm**

stymiegreen wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 9:43 pm
analhamster wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 9:30 pm 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.

Posted: **Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:01 pm**

stymiegreen wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 9:43 pm
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.

Posted: **Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:06 pm**

It's actually still used for a range of conditions.

Posted: **Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:08 pm**

beagleboy wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:01 pm
stymiegreen wrote: ↑Fri Mar 08, 2019 9:43 pm
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.

Posted: **Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:22 pm**

Pretty daft comparison with thalidomide anyway, it caused birth defects in children, something which was noticed when it caused birth defects in children. They weren't testing drugs for safety during pregnancy at the time, something which changed as a result. The point is the problem was real and therefore provable. Vaccines have been administered to billions of people over decades and the antivaxxers have nothing but derps.

UJRefugees.net

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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