Disinformation experts slam Meta decision to end U.S. fact-checking

The Meta users are having an absolute ball with this.

I'm on Meta and now people are posting fake stories claiming that Zuckerberg is pregnant / is dead / was caught in a compromising position with Trump involving being on his knees, and pretty much anything else you can dream up.

I'm sure Zuck has set his account up so that he never sees anything resembling criticism, but this decision has really touched a nerve and it's quite fun to watch what happens as a result.

Meta's unsubtle frankly disgraceful announcement to end its U.S. fact-checking program requires a lot more action than throwing a collective hissy fit.

the implications are terrifyingly obvious, opening the flood gates to all manner of skulduggery, misinformation, Ai fakery.

Donald Trump success 2024 US election was not fraudulent or fixed, The democrats need to do much soul searching. The democrat campaign was a shameful tin eared exercise in failure

bass4funk

Fauci was an American director and a different country from where I live. I watched very little of him. I discussed my health problems with my qualified doctors who have kept me cancer-free for five years.

And I questioned doctors who had a different opinion on some of these issues. Anyway, my feelings about Fauci are the same, you think he’s great, I think he’s the worst. That’s what I think.

Why would you post a fake comment when I told you and you reposted that I didn't even follow him?

I don't oppose your opinions and have posted nothing on it.

I also told you the only doctors I consulted were my team of doctors dealing with my cancer. No internet searches or anything else.

My doctors told me to hold off on the vaccine for two years because my immune system was weak from the cancer. That is what I did.

Did your aunt consult with her doctor before the vaccine?

The rest of the comment makes no sense to me.

To our republican and MAGA friends:

The 2024 election was fixed by Trump and Musk and Harris actually won all the swing states, but Musk hired hundreds of Russian hackers to swing the results for Trump.

There is no evidence of this at all, but it's my opinion and I am allowed to have it.

Therefore I refuse to refer to Trump as the President.

I assume you're cool with that? Please bear in mind that every time you come back and state that he is the president, I will just say "that's your opinion and I don't have to agree with it".

I wouldn't even believe posts on buying a second-hand car. Maybe on your sister or mother but probably fake photos. So many fake AI posts on all sites.

I do not understand why anyone would trust what they read on social networks for important health decisions.

I don’t understand why anyone would trust Fauci, but that’s my personal opinion and I will always say and feel that until my last breath. If other people think that he’s great, then that is their opinion and I have no problem with that, I have my own.

Fauci was an American director and a different country from where I live. I watched very little of him. I discussed my health problems with my qualified doctors who have kept me cancer-free for five years.

I do not understand why anyone would trust what they read on social networks for important health decisions.

I don’t understand why anyone would trust Fauci, but that’s my personal opinion and I will always say and feel that until my last breath. If other people think that he’s great, then that is their opinion and I have no problem with that, I have my own.

I do not understand why anyone would trust what they read on social networks for important health decisions.

Quote where I've said "everybody was lying".

When you claim that what the scientific consensus says about the vaccines is false, but if you can accept they are not lying that means you also accept the consensus was not false.

Was it? My son was injured from his 2nd Pfizer shot. That was 2 years ago.

How does this in any way demonstrates the typical information censored was not false? one thing is to say everything (including vaccines, surgeries, antibiotis, diets) have risks, that is true and was NOT censored. Another completely different is to say the risks from the medical interventions outweigh the benefits from those interventions, that should be censored because it is demonstrably false and can mislead people to making wrong decisions about their health.

Would you like to come for a visit for a "demonstration"?

A demonstration of what? hearsay from anonymous accounts? For your argument to be supported you would need actual evidence, for example a medical professional that says the problem happened because of the vaccine (not only after it) and principally an objective demonstration that this is so common that it completely outweigh the millions of lives saved because of the vaccines.

An easy way to understand it, what would you need from someone that says surgeries are a scam made for profit and that people are being fooled into thinking they should be operated? would one case of a patient having serious problems because of a surgery prove that claim?

We were told that the vaccines prevented both infection and the transmission of Covid.

The experts clearly said that the vaccines would reduce this, but that the main benefit was the much lower risk that comes from the disease. This is completely true, even more since the variants were projected to make the vaccines much less effective than what they actually resulted to be.

So, according to such "reliable" sources ( i.e. Rachel Madow MSNBC News, Joe Biden, president of the United States of America) there were no risks to those who were vaccinated.

Try with actually reliable sources, experts, scientific and medical institutions. None of the sources you want to misrepresent as reliable have expertise in the field.

Can you tell us how many people were injured by the vaccines?

Since YOU are the one making a claim that requires this information you are the one that loses by not presenting it, the best experts in the world clearly concluded the vaccines risks are much much lower than the benefits, for you to be able to disprove them you need objective information of the contrary, do you have it?

I'm amazed how many people actually believe that is the case. They don't realize that, for example, factcheck.org is indirectly funded by big pharma.

That is a non sequitur, COIs (when actually important) do help explaining when something wrong is identified, but they do not replace actual findings that support your claim about the source being unreliable. If a fact check is supported with evidence than anybody can consult that actually proves this source is reliable.

And many more deaths could have been prevented without the pro-pharmas.

No, that is a lie promoted by antivaxxer propaganda groups, there is zero evidence "many more deaths" come prove vaccines than from lack of them.

If you think so, that’s your right, don’t silence or block my free speech to challenge you.

You would be the one censoring someone else when the argument that you have no evidence to support what you want to believe, while the information that was censored can easily be demonstrated false. Pretending that your freedom of speech requires people to stop saying that a claim you make can be demonstrated as false is self contradictory (and invalid).

I'm glad than now we can watch on Meta's facebook content like the following:

There will always be people glad disinformation is made available, even from a source so repeatedly proved mistaken.

The difference between MSM and social media is that the latter does have some accurate and honest content.

Both have, but social media makes it easier for anonymous sources to present falsehoods without taking any responsibility.

And of course for billionaires to censor accurate and honest content when it goes against their purposes, as it happened with twitter and is facilitated by meta.

Require credentialed journalists to follow journalistic standards for fact checking, timely corrections, and clearly labeling non-fact-based posts as opinions.

Social media is great between friends.

The difference between MSM and social media is that the latter does have some accurate and honest content.

I'm glad than now we can watch on Meta's facebook content like the following:

https://www.facebook.com/watch?v=460503750352123

But I will miss the bright blue warning labels Facebook put on all "controversial" Covid content, which I interpreted as "you might want to check this content out".

The information that was censored was false demonstrably,

If you think so, that’s your right, don’t silence or block my free speech to challenge you.

the same as the misrepresentation that you make, vaccines against covid were safe and effective, even reducing transmission. Pretending that anything in biology must apply in 100% of the cases, absolutely, or else be considered "false" is irrational, absolutely nothing in health would be safe or effective by this irrational approach, clean water, excercise, activity, etc. will always have examples where damage is produced.

All I can say is, thank god, none of this crap will happen anymore, now they will do like with X put a disclaimer for reference and that’s it. So good on Mark for coming to his senses.

The information that was censored was false demonstrably,

Was it? My son was injured from his 2nd Pfizer shot. That was 2 years ago. He still has Parkinson's like symptoms by which he can't write with a pen because he can't hold it properly without his hand shaking.

Would you like to come for a visit for a "demonstration"?

irrational decision as if people should be able to put others at a higher risk without any consequence

We were told that the vaccines prevented both infection and the transmission of Covid. So, according to such "reliable" sources ( i.e. Rachel Madow MSNBC News, Joe Biden, president of the United States of America) there were no risks to those who were vaccinated.

Can you tell us how many people were injured by the vaccines?

Thanks

Pretending the countless medical, scientific sources did not exist and use the declaration of a politician to say "everybody" was lying to you makes no sense

Quote where I've said "everybody was lying".

Thanks

Had you used Facebook you would have noticed that factual information was censored during the pandemic and thus those of us who were desperate to find objective information before having our kids vaccinated were persuaded by a single narrative that proved false in the end...that vaccines prevented transmission and were harmless.

The information that was censored was false demonstrably, the same as the misrepresentation that you make, vaccines against covid were safe and effective, even reducing transmission. Pretending that anything in biology must apply in 100% of the cases, absolutely, or else be considered "false" is irrational, absolutely nothing in health would be safe or effective by this irrational approach, clean water, excercise, activity, etc. will always have examples where damage is produced.

Well, I am just excited that now all sides will be heard and no one will be silenced and the people can choose what’s best for them or who they believe and trust.

Seeing twitter this is not the result, now Musk systematically censors reliable, corroborated information and supports demonstrably falsehoods. The only ones benefited were those that now can use the service to mislead and fool others for profit.

Because there was misinformation being promulgated by governments and pharmaceutical comapnies (such as president Biden claiming if you got vaccinated you wouldn't get infected).

Irrelevant, there are countless sources of scientific information that are not companies nor governments. Health services, medical universities, big hospitals, etc. etc.

NIH (National Center for Biotechnolotgy Information)

This is their disclaimer:

This in no way supports your criticism, if all the different sources coincide in the same conclusions you can't disregard that conclusion just because also a source you don't like supports it. This makes as much sense as having 10 expert doctors and one lawyer diagnose a patient with the same disease and thinking, "they all must be wrong because the lawyer is not a doctor"

So, the US government that mandated vaccines and lied to the American public

Pretending the countless medical, scientific sources did not exist and use the declaration of a politician to say "everybody" was lying to you makes no sense. The same to disregard the validated consequences of a personal, irrational decision as if people should be able to put others at a higher risk without any consequence. A doctor can lose his job if he insist on doing surgery without gloves and washing his hands, even if he chooses to believe microbes don't exist.

Just label/mark/tag non-credentialed journalists as "opinion, not factual" and be done with it.

Require credentialed journalists to follow journalistic standards for fact checking, timely corrections, and clearly labeling non-fact-based posts as opinions.

Social media is great between friends.

Social media is terrible for all other purposes.

This is purely a political move to make Trump happier. It is a business decision to avoid being hassled by Trump and MAGA people who don't actually care about facts.

Geopolitical bias:

Critics claim CIR primarily targets disinformation campaigns originating from countries like Russia, potentially overlooking similar activities by Western powers, which could create a perception of selective reporting.

Social media was a mistake. This may be the final confirmation.

Just to play devil's advocate a bit here: while you're not completely wrong, I do think social media has one fundamentally vital role.

I think that it's important, especially for younger people who still don't have a great deal of life experience, to be aware of the gamut of humanity, so to speak.

To find the best of humanity, you can go out and make friends, join groups or clubs, volunteer, etc.

But it's also wise to sometimes observe humanity at its absolute worst, and for that we have social media.

(With source from a medical journal.)

NIH (National Center for Biotechnolotgy Information)

This is their disclaimer:

Content in NLM literature databases may be published by academic publishers or institutions, scholarly societies, or government and non-governmental organizations.

So, the US government that mandated vaccines and lied to the American public (if you get the vaccine you won't get infected, President Biden) that promulgated false information is a contributor to the NIH information page.

Social media was a mistake. This may be the final confirmation.

No, the mistake was for Social media to buckle under this administrations pressure to silence the right and its critics and experts and it totally backfired on them the way it should have.

Why were you using social networks to source vital information about your health matters? 

Because there was misinformation being promulgated by governments and pharmaceutical comapnies (such as president Biden claiming if you got vaccinated you wouldn't get infected). Also, there were disease epidemiologists and public health scientists who warned about adverse effects from the vaccine. So, what is a person to do with conflicting information? What I did was contact my friends in Canada (which began vaccinations months before Japan) via facebook, all of whom have children to inquire about any adverse effects they may have experienced.

Social media was a mistake. This may be the final confirmation.

This is why it's useful to approach social media with the assumption that anything and everything posted on it is untrue until proven otherwise.

I would not trust any social network for vital information about my health which is why I haven't used any of them for more than 15 years.

A quarter million deaths could have been prevented without the anti-vaxxer:

Well, I am just excited that now all sides will be heard and no one will be silenced and the people can choose what’s best for them or who they believe and trust. That’s how it should always be, Social media or the government should never control speech.

A quarter million deaths could have been prevented without the anti-vaxxer: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10123459/

I don't believe Facebook had any effective fact checking anyway. At least, it seems a lot of fake ads got through there fact checking, a lot of animal cruelty post got through, a lot of fake friend requests from fake people who post links to dodgy porn sites got through, and hardly any of them contravened Facebook's community guidelines. But then, it seems nothing that makes money for Facebook in any way goes against their community guidelines.

Ending fact-checking will cause chaos with the truth no longer known. I don't use Meta/Facebook.

Had you used Facebook you would have noticed that factual information was censored during the pandemic and thus those of us who were desperate to find objective information before having our kids vaccinated were persuaded by a single narrative that proved false in the end...that vaccines prevented transmission and were harmless.

Why were you using social networks to source vital information about your health matters? I discussed it with my team of qualified doctors during my post-cancer who advised me to wait before having the COVID-19 vaccine. After a two-year wait, I had the vaccine. If I had children, which I don't here, I would not have had them vaccinated.

Ending fact-checking will cause chaos with the truth no longer known. I don't use Meta/Facebook.

Had you used Facebook you would have noticed that factual information was censored during the pandemic and thus those of us who were desperate to find objective information before having our kids vaccinated were persuaded by a single narrative that proved false in the end...that vaccines prevented transmission and were harmless.

Ending fact-checking will cause chaos with the truth no longer known. I don't use Meta/Facebook.

So you’re saying the fact-checkers are honest and the purveyor of truth, honesty and dignity? If that’s the case, FB wouldn’t have made this move. In the end it was hurting their business period, they were losing subscribers, they really had no choice but to stop policing what a person can say or cannot say. Again, you should be allowed to say what you want. If you say the J6 prospers are criminals, I have the right to disagree and call them patriotic heroes. I should not be blocked or cancelled or silenced for saying or believing that.

Ending fact-checking will cause chaos with the truth no longer known. I don't use Meta/Facebook.

I’m so stoked about this! Great news!!! Just fantastic! Speech should never be controlled, people should be allowed to say whatever they want.

Disgraceful. Now we can have no restraints on the public's ability to delude itself.

Bravo Meta!