Facebook Requests Feedback From Public on Censorship Policy

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.

Subscribe
Notify of

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.

17 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Marcus Aurelius knew
3 years ago

“…would provide direct links to authoritative information.”

I believe I see a problem here.

So-called “authoritative information” has been (and continues to be) THE misinformation!

The problem throughout this terrible episode of human history is the very humans in authority!

Eppur si muove

YouDontSay
3 years ago

There’s no “just stop the censorship” option then?

Marcus Aurelius knew
3 years ago
Reply to  YouDontSay

Exactly! Not difficult, is it?! Just. Stop. Censoring!

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words? They will never hurt me!

Last time I checked (which was a while ago, admittedly), Facebook was a virtual world. There were no real sticks and stones being used.

Where are the effing adults?

huxleypiggles
3 years ago

“Facebook Requests Feedback From Public on Censorship Policy”

Presumably, in order to censor it.

jeepybee
3 years ago

I essentially just asked them why they haven’t fukt-checked Joe Biden’s “Vaccines stop you getting COVID 100%” comment to the entire world.

huxleypiggles
3 years ago
Reply to  jeepybee

A ban coming up.

jeepybee
3 years ago
Reply to  huxleypiggles

Fairly sure they already banned me once for suggesting that vitamin D was useful. 😀

huxleypiggles
3 years ago
Reply to  jeepybee

How dare you!
😀

AethelredTheReadier
AethelredTheReadier
3 years ago
Reply to  jeepybee

Maybe you could get around their censorship by saying things like ‘Vit D was useful as a bottle stopper.” or ‘Use Vit C for lubricating your bike chain and keeping your machine nicely oiled”…little euphemisms for the reader between lines…

RW
RW
3 years ago

I suggest a cryptographically secure PRNG which should be applied to all content posted on Facebook to meet a predermined deletion & punishment quota. This would eliminate human error and malfeasance from the process while remaining exactly as related to stated Facebook content policy as the present system already is.

huxleypiggles
3 years ago
Reply to  RW

err, right. OK.

RW
RW
3 years ago
Reply to  huxleypiggles

That’s still the universe where a suggestion to drop the obese leader of the most hawkish pro-war party in Germany from a plane over Moscow in lieu of a bomb to support Ukraine as this would certainly have a devastating impact counts as credible call for violence likely to endanger public safety. Presumably, because it had meant employing extremely massive means of destruction against civilians.

Or something.

🙂 🙂

stewart
3 years ago

To be honest, I can’t help seeing in a positive way the fact that the censorship options FB is asking its oversight board to choose from all indicate they are temporary and is also asking for clarity on when when they should end.

This would suggest they don’t want to be wasting their time and resources on censorship, which is what I’ve always believed. I am quite certain that if it was entirely up to them, none of these tech companies would want to be held responsible for the content nor particularly want to be telling others what to do. At least that is how they started out. And I think the evidence is pretty clear that it has been the establishment that has come knocking on their doors – after Brexit and Trump – telling them they had to step into line.

But I’m sure someone on here is going to tell why I am being very naive.

transmissionofflame
3 years ago
Reply to  stewart

Who tells YouTube to put stuff on my suggestions page to do with Black Creators?

rwatson1955@gmail.com
3 years ago

My comment: There ought to be no censorship by a social media company other than for indecent images or incitements to violence. Social media companies have no place in enforcing scientifically disputed government guidelines. All suspended accounts on that basis ought to be restored. It is abundantly clear now that lockdowns were severely damaging socially, economically and for physical and mental health; face masks did not work to prevent the spread of Covid and the Covid vaccines are proving both ineffective and, in some cases, lethal. 

Covid-1984
Covid-1984
3 years ago

Put simply, Facebook and Twitter are complicit in the deaths of people who deserved a choice.

Anthony_Blighe
3 years ago

Seriously? They can’t even get a web form right?

Screenshot_20220826-012900_Chrome.jpg