Facebook – or Meta, as it now calls itself – has requested feedback from the public on its approach to handling COVID-19 ‘misinformation’. Or, rather, Meta has asked for policy advice in this area from its Oversight Board and the Oversight Board, in turn, is asking for comment from the public.
These are the different approaches Meta has asked the Oversight Board to consider:
- Continue removing certain COVID-19 misinformation. This option would mean continuing with Meta’s current approach of removing content that directly contributes to the risk of imminent physical harm. Meta states that under this option the company would eventually stop removing misinformation when it no longer poses an imminent risk of harm and requests the Board’s guidance on how the company should make this determination.
- Temporary emergency reduction measures. Under this option, Meta would stop removing COVID-19 misinformation and instead reduce the distribution of the claims. This would be a temporary measure and the company requests the Board’s guidance as to when it should stop using it if adopted.
- Third-party fact checking. Under this option, content currently subject to removal would be sent to independent third-party fact checkers for evaluation. Meta notes that “the number of fact-checkers available to rate content will always be limited. If Meta were to implement this option, fact-checkers would not be able to look at all COVID-19 content on our platforms, and some of it would not be checked for accuracy, demoted, and labeled.”
- Labels. Under this option, Meta would add labels to content which would not obstruct users from seeing the content but would provide direct links to authoritative information. Meta considers this a temporary measure and seeks the Board’s guidance on what factors the company should consider in deciding to stop using these labels.
The specific areas the Oversight Board is seeking “comment” from the public on are:
- The prevalence and impact of COVID-19 misinformation in different countries or regions, especially in places where Facebook and Instagram are a primary means of sharing information, and in places where access to health care, including vaccines, is limited.
- The effectiveness of social media interventions to address COVID-19 misinformation, including how it impacts the spread of misinformation, trust in public health measures and public health outcomes, as well as impacts on freedom of expression, in particular civic discourse and scientific debate.
- Criteria Meta should apply for lifting temporary misinformation interventions as emergency situations evolve.
- The use of algorithmic or recommender systems to detect and apply misinformation interventions, and ways of improving the accuracy and transparency of those systems.
- The fair treatment of users whose expression is impacted by social media interventions to address health misinformation, including the user’s ability to contest the application of labels, warning screens, or demotion of their content.
- Principles and best practice to guide Meta’s transparency reporting of its interventions in response to health misinformation.
Anyone can submit a response, although there are rules about the form the response should take. The deadline is 11am EDT tomorrow. See here for more detail.
I will publish my response shortly.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
With such a high (30%) self censoring, what is the problem trying to be solved?
The problem, that should be obvious, is that anyone is forced to self censor.
Self-censorship doesn’t require force, that’s the beauty of it. It shows that the mind of the individual is being influenced by external messaging to a point where their behaviour has changed.
It requires intimidation:
If you dare criticise the wonder that is Islam, be prepared to be decapitated randomly in public. So we self-censor.
If you dare criticise the wonder that is Judaism, be prepared to be released from your job, debanked, slandered in the media, and gaslighted as some sort of lunatic who’s out of control. So we self-sensor.
If you dare criticise the wonder that is the Communist Party of China, be prepared to receive cyber attacks, malicious emails, threats and intimidation. So we self-sensor.
But of course criticism of Christianity; of Britain and British culture; of all western culture; is fair game, because we allow criticism of our institutions, it is a fundamental feature of democracy. We don’t need to self-censor here, there is no threat. We can say and think we want, do what we want, without fear of being threatened, living freely.
You’re probably free to criticize Judaism but the government of Israel must not be criticized as it routinely smears all its opponents as antisemites and this claim is equally routinely being accepted by everyone.
Should be obvious, but not to me. Forced or choose to self censor?
Choosing to self-sensor is another way of being forced, Graham. Otherwise why would you self-sensor in the first place? Through coercion, nudging, fear of reprisal, manipulation, peer pressure etc etc etc.
I am aware of the peer pressure points, nudging etc etc but a choice is a choice. Equally, perhaps its a generational thing, I expect an “academic” to be of robust character, with self belief and integrity. In my expectations of an academic and the 30% of a large number of “academics” if they possessed such character, you should have lots of independent Tsars.
Basically self censorship is a conscious act.
Well, starting with the most obvious, it’s not that hard to lose your job for saying the wrong thing – generally speaking but probably more so in academia. So a good first step would be protection in law for speech by employees, with the appropriate caveats where that speech was obviously directly detrimental to the employer e.g. don’t buy our products, they are rubbish. Another fairly obvious step is to prohibit any university that takes public money from using flimsy excuses not to allow certain speakers/debates to take place on university premises. I know less about the student side of things so not able to say much of use on that subject.
That second guessing thought process is the problem and the answer is not a Tsar. As Dr Mike Yeadon said on another matter, no one is coming to save us/you. Everyone has to take action.
Well we should all do what we can and no-one is coming to save is, I agree.
I also agree that more state interference is not necessarily the answer, even if the chap is “on our side” (???). But some clear laws would help, and withdrawal of funding to universities.
With such clear laws, there is a danger of reversing principles as happened during the lockdowns. Previously everything was allowed apart from what was prohibited by legislation. During lockdowns everything was prohibited apart from what was allowed by legislation. If a Tsar determines what is allowed, you are on a fast track to that principle.
Wishful thinking on the withdrawal of funding unfortunately
Well it’s all wishful thinking I fear
I’m assuming you mean: With such a high (30%) self censoring how can this solve the problem? Please correct me if I’m wrong. Self-censoring is a product of pressure. Pressure built up over a period of time through a slow trickle, then a flood, of ‘right-speak/right-thought. The trickle took the form of a thousand little nudges, the flood is the brazenly public chastisement of anyone who is deemed to be infected with wrong-think. Any resistance to the flow will lessen self-censoring.
Not really. I have explained a couple of points but strong principled people, acting consistent with their privileged position of an “academic” shouldn’t really need such a role in my opinion.
At the same time as this is happening we have new “Hate Speech” laws, like what is about to come into law in Scotland on April 1st. —–This seems like a great example of “The irresistible force versus the immovable object”. ———-But I suspect that in the age of Cultural Marxism this Tsar appointment will be just another bit of tokenism so Progressive Politicians can say “but look we appointed a Tsar”, in the same fashion as “look we have reduced the small boats” or “the cost of living crisis is over”. It will all just be kidology.
Erm, I’d like to know why, exactly, they’ve appointed a free speech ‘Tsar’ (ridiculous epithet) called Arif Ahmed. If he is a muzlim, as the name suggests, he hardly belongs to a culture that represents the value of free speech as we infidels understand it. If he is an apostate from that religion, he should use his position of supporting free speech to declare it loudly and often. Same applies if he is of another faith or an atheist.
Wasn’t there any White British man or woman, brought up in an era before the evil ‘hate speech’ laws were forced on us by Dictator Bliar and his fluffy sidekick Harriet Harperson, available to fill this role? Well of course there was, but the ruling traitors chose who they chose for cowardly wokey ideological reasons, not because of Ahmed’s suitability for it.
On the same theme but in a different arena, the same craven, bandwagon decisions are made by companies that want to sell beauty products to the majority of women in this country – White women – yet insult them by ignoring their existence altogether. Body Shop, Boots and many other such firms insist on showing Black, Asian (and any other non-white race they can find) models wearing their products. No Caucasians allowed, apparently.
I am so sick of this deliberate white-washing, I boycott these racist companies.
“Self censoring”——–Now where did I see that before again? ——Oh yeah North Korea. ——Over there it is called “Keep your mouth shut or else”
The likelihood of this apparently well meaning intervention working is scant. After twenty-seven consecutive years of authoritarian leftist governance all England’s instituitions are now corrupted beyond redemption. Reform is no longer feasible and radical destruction is required before civilization can develop again.
“radical destruction is required before civilization can develop again.”
Build Back Better then?
It would look better if the “Tsar” was called Fred Smith or Julie Jones but no let’s keep up with the times & have this trustworthy chap doing something that shouldn’t need doing in the first place !
I believe he has been at the front of the fight for quite some time. He led the charge at Cambridge.
Yet another Pakistani Muslim handed a top position, this time a Leftist now in charge of guarding the UK’s Freedom of Speech. Oh, but don’t worry, he claims to be an atheist, as so many do, though his middle name Mohuiddin means “Reviver of Islam”.
“One of the reasons that Professor Ahmed’s appointment was an unusually canny one for the current government is that his political views are largely inscrutable even to those colleagues and friends who know him best.
The son of an immigrant family that came to Britain from Pakistan, Ahmed read mathematics at Oxford and philosophy at Sussex and Cambridge universities. He acted for many years as a case-worker for a trade union. Yet on economic matters he is probably closer to a broadly more libertarian position. His views on immigration would put him at odds with policies that the current government is trying to implement.”
Profile: Professor Arif Ahmed | The Critic | The Critic Magazine
So this Leftist trade union activist of course supports the Mass Third World Invasion of the West, otherwise known as the Invasion of the Muslim Army, though he has carefully obscured his true political views, like a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
It’s just like another Pakistani Muslim with the same surname, Aaquil Ahmed (same caste), being the only person chosen as head of Religion and Ethics at both Channel 4 and the BBC simultaneously, and put in charge of the Christian “Songs of Praise”.
But don’t worry, nothing to see here.
Thanks for confirming my suspicions
Yes, maybe we should all just give up and rename the British Isles as
“Outer Pakistan”.
Well researched. Thanks.
Ab-so-lute-ly spot on. Heretic. I posted something similarly critical before I saw your post, but you know more about this catspaw than I did.
I reckon he’s only got a few months left before he’s kicked out of his job by the next government.
Yeah, then Starmer can appoint another of the same ilk, but even worse. Maybe Chinese?