Slashdot Mirror
Pinterest Cracks Down on Anti-Vaxxers, Pressuring Facebook To Follow (cnbc.com)
Social network Pinterest has taken a big step to stop the spread of false content that is damaging people's health, which could put pressure on competitors to follow. From a report: Pinterest said Wednesday that it would no longer return any search results, including pins and boards, for terms related to vaccinations, whether in favor or against them. It took that step in late 2018 after noticing that the majority of shared images on Pinterest cautioned people against vaccinations, despite medical guidelines demonstrating that most vaccines are safe for most people. Pinterest told CNBC on Wednesday that it's been hard to remove this anti-vaccination content entirely, so it put the ban in place until it can figure out a more permanent strategy. It's working with health experts including doctors, as well as the social media analysis company called Storyful to come up with a better solution, the company said.
for advertisers.
During the election when all that fake news was going around somebody interviewed the sys admin of one of the bigger networks. He was just in it for the ad revenue (and racking in a ton).
He was asked why he targeted the folks he did. It came down to certain groups of people would share and spread his crap, while other groups would debunk it instantly and it wouldn't get very far.
Anti-Vaxxers are like that. They'll spread your nonsense because they're already prepared to believe nonsense.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I don't care what people say about vaccines or what ever. Say it, and be counted if you really feel needed. When will be stop "cracking down" on what is ok to say and not? This always sounds great till it's your point of view that is squished. Best part is you usually won't even know it. Companies can do this all the time in the background.
Of course these are public companies so they can do what they like. It's just a medium.
As far as vaccines, I'll get my advise from my doctor.
Look, I'm not only in favour of vaccinations, I need people to have them myself, because I'm immuno-compromised. These kinds of measures, however, are not helpful. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction, and by censoring this discussion you're only going to create a situation where these people are all the more staunchly against it, and create sympathy for them from individuals who value civil liberties. By the by, I would say this is an attempt to create a further propaganda instrument, dressed up in an argument for censorship that looks appealing. As Picard said in Drumhead, "Those whom cloak themselves in good intentions, are well-camouflaged."
It's demonstrably harmful to others. It should be treated the same as advocating for violence.
Ah, and what about those that believe Facebook/ Printerest is the internet?
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
When will be stop "cracking down" on what is ok to say and not?
Why would we stop cracking down on stupid, incorrect, dangerous information? As long as it's not the government inhibiting your right to say it, how could you possibly have a problem with public and private entities of society trying to downplay bad information and promote good information? You'd have to be utterly ignorant of history to think good information magically bubbles up simply by inherent quality.
"Old man yells at systemd"
I also don't think that social pressure like this changes any minds. We should actually reason with people/explain the position on how vaccines save lives and what controls there are if something goes wrong with a vaccine. It's true, they're not perfect, but they're a lot better than the diseases they replace. We wiped out Polio.
It's stupid to try to beat people into believing something like this when they have a mix of real concerns and bad information, instead we should point out that we know the faults, we have a way of handling things, and we're trying to make them better and that we don't just rely on the say-so of random drug companies.
But I think the jihad against anti-vaxxers does more harm than good. Instead, we should help people get vaccinations and help them learn why we promote them so that it's safe to change their minds, rather than trying to make them feel under attack.
Yes, it's stupid and harmful, but they're people who don't know any better and this sort of reaction is also harmful.
I too am a fascist, and enjoy suppressing others who have a different opinion or experience.
I remember when some heretics thought that the Earth wasn't the center of the universe. I supported some moderate flaying of skin, face removals, and burnings as the reasonable response dictated by societal norms.
The minute you start culling your content you open yourself up to liability. Ooops, you missed one and now you are being sued for allowing that content to reach little Johnny's sensitive eyes. People can sue for anything and any reason. This gives them an attack vector. Dewey, Cheetum, & Howe are just waiting for opportunities like these.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
In this case, 100+ years of scientific research have shown that vaccines are good. This is not up for debate; there is no 'controversy' to teach or discuss; there is 100+ years of immunology, virology, and other medical research, and there's Karen from some Mom group on FB or Pintrest saying that aborted monkey fetus cells are in vaccines or some other bullshit.
I am not a fan of censoring people; however, just as there are limits on the First Amendment (no shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater, etc.), helping to curtail the spread of incorrect, unsupported, and--in a lot of cases--dangerous woo-fuckery like the Anti-Vax supports is essential to maintaining public help and ensuring that diseases we were close to eliminating stay that way.
Humans were never reasonable. The only difference is that in the past, the guy from your town who was a complete nutter mainly kept to himself and no one else paid him any mind. Now, that nutter can go on Facebook or other websites and connect with nutters from the next town over or even on the other side of the country. Now you've got a big collection of nutters and since they don't have jobs or real hobbies, they've got more time than any sane individual to go around spewing their bullshit or acting on it in ways that they couldn't before.
Try avoid looking back at the world through rose tinted glasses and thinking that things were so much better. It usually wasn't and people tend to tunnel on one or two small areas that were pretty good while forgetting all of the things that weren't.
This is how society loses its freedom of speech. Sure it's just pintrest and possibly facebook; but what if google decided to weigh in with their opinon on the matter?
The slippery slope might be a fallacious argument, but it's not always wrong.
The only ways to preserve freedom of speech are through anonymity (if desired) and the right to say whatever you want (aside from direct threats or calls to violence). Allowing a few companies to essentially serve as gatekeepers to the internet is risky and foolish.
This is how society loses its freedom of speech.
Oh bullshit. A private company squashing factually wrong information that results in people becoming sick and dying is hardly a slippery slope to the elimination of free speech. Anti-vaxxers are the slow equivalent of people shouting fire in a movie theater. They are causing needless panic and should be liable for the harm the lies they spread cause.
Sure it's just pintrest and possibly facebook; but what if google decided to weigh in with their opinon on the matter?
I hope they do. Anti-vaxxers are hurting people and it needs to stop as soon as possible.
The slippery slope might be a fallacious argument, but it's not always wrong.
It's definitely wrong in this case.
When the private platform is the only platform for speech then it is just as bad as any goverment censorship.
Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
Who decides what information is good then? Think for one second.
Scientists and doctors backed up by appropriate government agencies staffed by experts in the field. This question is EXACTLY why we have the NIH, the CDC, the FDA, etc. It's their mission to prevent quackery and they do it very well. Pretending that nobody is worthy to decide what is good data is idiotic.
I'm vaccinated, I have two 1y grandkids not through the regimen yet. Until then THEY are susceptible to any mobile Petri dish who's sure their opinions trump a century of factual data on vaccine efficacy. I'm not quite to the age range yet where my immune system will start ramping down regardless of what vaccinations I've had; then *I'm* vulnerable. Some people have naturally weak immune systems and vaccines "don't take"; THEY'RE vulnerable. Part of the "social contract" if you will, is helping protect your neighbors, Vaccinating to avoid the chance of passing some damaging disease to them is part of the deal. The people who skip assuming The Other Guy will get THEIR kids covered and protect their Special Snowflake are the worst sort of societal leeches.
Got it, you think children(who cannot choose their parents) should die for the sins of the father (or mother). And, further, that herd immunity shouldn't exist for the non-negligible number of people for whom the vaccine doesn't take fully or cannot be vaccinated because of immune system disorders.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Oh YOU're the one who knows someone harmed by vaccines!
Hey, folks, we found the guy!
Great. Want to go back a few years and discuss whether a polio vaccine could potentially be a good thing? Maybe in an Iron Lung ward?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Got it, you think children(who cannot choose their parents) should die for the sins of the father (or mother).
Isn't that the norm these days? Assuming we're talking about evil white people being punished for the sins of their ancestors, of course. It's happening right now in South Africa.
Or assuming we're talking about late-term abortions, that's another way children can die for the sins of their parents.
I too am a fascist, and enjoy suppressing others who have a different opinion or experience.
Hey Anonymous Coward, I don't know why we have to keep writing the same response over and over and over again when someone like you makes a strawman "fascist" anti-"free speech" argument again, but here we are.
This is not a fascist government saying that morons can't make anti-vax posts, and jailing them from doing so.
You can park yourself in front of the White House from dawn to dusk with anti-vax signs and no one will arrest you or shut you down. Other people will engage with you and call you a moron, but no one in government will curtail your freedom of speech. If you put up an anti-vax blog, no one from the government will shut it down.
It's not fascist when private corporations like Pinterest, Facebook, YouTube and Twitter regulate what content can be hosted on their platforms. YouTube could update their terms tomorrow saying that they are now only hosting cat videos, and it would be within their rights. If you don't like their rules, don't use their platforms, or create your own platform.
Comment removed based on user account deletion