world

Facebook shuts NZ political party's page before polls over COVID-19 misinformation

42 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Thomson Reuters 2020.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

42 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

"We have clear policies against this type of content and will enforce on these policies regardless of anyone’s political position or party affiliation," it said.

Totally believable, just like the tons of personal info you and your friends keep begging me every single time I login, very trueworthy a-sns.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

More deaths in NZ, abuse, poverty etc from lockdown in NZ than from SARS-CoV-2, but an American company that has made $30billion plus exploiting the virus for financial gain, interference in a member of a 5 Eyes member sovereign state?

People must know a vaccine is safe by peer reviewed long term studies, which is now probably banned.

0 ( +9 / -9 )

Wow, for a party polling just 1% that sure seems like an over reaction.

-2 ( +7 / -9 )

Facebook is really getting political these days with all the censorship.

2 ( +11 / -9 )

Time to break up big tech's monopoly on the dissemination of information.

-1 ( +8 / -9 )

“This is a cynical example of election interference by an American-owned social media outlet that has no business performing any such operation in our sovereign nation," party co-leader Billy Te Kahika said in a statement.

Actually, yes they do. If you dont like the platform, stop posting and use/start another one.

I wonder if Te Kahika understands that if this virus hits his community - sadly far from the healthiest in NZ - it will be impacted more than probably any other. Stop spreading rubbish in a desperate attempt to win a couple of votes.

2 ( +8 / -6 )

about time to uphold the Terms of Service

2 ( +6 / -4 )

@Goodlucktoyou, got any facts and figures to back up those NZ stats claim ? I, for one, am very sceptical.

3 ( +8 / -5 )

I'm surprised Jacinda's page wasn't shut down then for all her coronavirus lies about going "hard and early" since she actually started acting months after the virus spread around the world. Her inaction is the only reason the virus is in NZ, and her bad management of it is the reason hundreds of thousands are out of jobs and we're in recession. People pretend it was either "money" or "lives" but if Jacinda had gone hard and early as she said, we could have had both, instead we lost lives as well.

-6 ( +5 / -11 )

Wow, for a party polling just 1% that sure seems like an over reaction.

It's to set a precedent for the next time and the next time after that. Facebook is in a spiral downwards.

0 ( +6 / -6 )

To be honest, it is hard to see why Facebook has done this. Few people in New Zealand take this party seriously, and they have zero hope of getting any representation in parliament.

-7 ( +3 / -10 )

The Barbara Streisand effect - try and suppress something and you just draw more attention to it. FB, Twitter, Youtube are all skating on thin ice

-2 ( +6 / -8 )

Suppression is how you keep 1% from becoming 10%.

Censor any inconvenient truth so that you can keep calling it “conspiracy” that “no one believes”.

-3 ( +7 / -10 )

its censorship.

nothing else just-pure censorship.

freedom of speech?

oh give me a break mate...

-3 ( +6 / -9 )

Peters, the leader of the New Zealand First party, was answering questions when an unidentified man asked "where is your evidence that there is a virus that causes this disease?".

"Here's someone who gets up and says 'the Earth is flat'," Peters responded. "Sorry sunshine, wrong place."

Good on you, Winston. That's the way to deal with dolts. Ridicule them.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

The best part of Winston's reply is cut off above:

"We've got someone who obviously got an education in America. 220,000 people have died in the US, where there are eight million cases to date. We've got 79,000 cases just today, probably in India, and here is someone who gets up and says 'the Earth is flat'.

"Sorry sunshine, wrong place," Mr Peters said, to applause.

((Note: The unidentified man asking for evidence of a virus had an American accent.))

4 ( +7 / -3 )

Thanks, taj. That's even better.

American accent? Foreign interference?

2 ( +5 / -3 )

The fact Big Tech now wants to be self-declared arbiter of what people can see and can not see should scare the beejeesus out of everyone. It is high time to revoke Article 230 for Fakebook and Twitter. If they want to act as publishers, they should have the responsibility of publishers.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

More deaths in NZ, abuse, poverty etc from lockdown in NZ than from SARS-CoV-2, but an American company that has made $30billion plus exploiting the virus for financial gain, interference in a member of a 5 Eyes member sovereign state?

And where is your evidence? Of course, you have none - this is simply something you have made up on the spot. This is why Facebook steps in to prevent people deliberately spreading misinformation (or "lies" as they are commonly know).

but let's talk facts:

New Zealand has recorded the lowest excess deaths of any country throughout the pandemic. In fact, the death rate among the population is currently running well below where it would be in a typical year - it is the only country to have recorded this from the available data. So not only has it kept COVID deaths to a minimum, but deaths overall are much lower.

Well done NZ - it can compare itself well to those countries that failed in their approach like the UK and USA.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/excess-mortality-raw-death-count?tab=chart&stackMode=absolute&time=earliest..latest&region=World

2 ( +6 / -4 )

its censorship.

nothing else just-pure censorship.

freedom of speech?

oh give me a break mate...

No one is stopping them spreading dangerous lies about COVID-19 - they can print as many leaflets as they want and go and post them through every letter box in New Zealand. However, Facebook, a private corporation, has a moral duty to prevent false, dangerous and extremist material myths from being spread.

These are not matters of opinion, but flat out falsehoods. Blocking them is absolutely the right thing to do.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

sounds like a "publisher" to me. As Facebook is taking unilateral action prior to any external "fact checks".

However, Facebook, a private corporation, has a moral duty to prevent false, dangerous and extremist material myths from being spread.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

It seems like every country has their share of flat out nuts and kooks who think the virus is either a hoax or that it's spread by standing near a 5G network tower...

They complain they get censored on regular media but these folks don't trust anything that is "regular - they lurk on 8-chan, Breitbart, Newsmax, and Russia Today...or from JFK Jr blogging in a basement...

Maybe there's an uninhabited island we can send them all to - following their disciple just like Jim Jones in Guyana. Give it a year or two, and you'd have the same ending...

2 ( +6 / -4 )

Ah_so

No one is stopping them spreading dangerous lies about COVID-19 - they can print as many leaflets as they want and go and post them through every letter box in New Zealand. However, Facebook, a private corporation, has a moral duty to prevent false, dangerous and extremist material myths from being spread.

Nope. It is not just Facebook, it is the whole Big Tech conglomerate, and they control the social media which have now become the de-facto public square. Who reads printed leaflets these days? And who pays for printing them?

And the Big Tech monopoly operates under Article 230, which relieves them from the obligations of publishers because they claim to be "platforms". But while claiming to be "platforms", they want to act as publishers, i.e. suppressing information they dislike (see also also the lastest Biden e-mail news), while promoting information they like.

Something has to give. Hiding behind the "private corporation" excuse does not hold water.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

Good. Lies that can kill people should be censored. It would be nice for other websites to take this to heart.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

Suppression is how you keep 1% from becoming 10%.

Yeah. Suppressing a virus is good, and one way we can do this is by deleting disinformation. I’m glad you agree with Facebook on this issue.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

And the Big Tech monopoly operates under Article 230

This requires a little bit of reading, which I know you are opposed to, but this news story is about New Zealand. US law is not the law of the land. Consider your opinions more carefully in future.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

you can also purposely take things out of an obvious context to support your own opinion rather than honestly reflect the comments of another poster.

Which Facebook also does (as well as yourself). Like when someone isnt speaking about a virus at all but obviously speaking about suppression of speech by online "platforms" and ignorance of facts.

Again, who determines what is "disinformation"? or does that word just mean anything a liberal doesnt like or that doesnt match the liberal narrative of the day?

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

Does this make ANY sense? what signals? that it hurts a preferred political candidate?

"Asked about Facebook’s decision, spokesman Andy Stone referred a reporter to a 2019 blog post, “Helping to protect the 2020 U.S. elections.” That post states, “In many countries, including in the U.S., if we have signals that a piece of content is false, we temporarily reduce its distribution pending review by a third-party fact-checker.”

Stone did not elaborate on what signals Facebook used to determine the Post story required further fact checking."

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

you can also purposely take things out of an obvious context to support your own opinion rather than honestly reflect the comments of another poster.

Which Facebook also does (as well as yourself).

This is a deeply offensive accusation. I cannot accept your accusing me of being dishonest, and I know the moderators will not, either.

Like when someone isnt speaking about a virus at all but obviously speaking about suppression of speech by online "platforms" and ignorance of facts. 

Ah, I see. Please accept my apologies. I gave you too much credit, it seems. That was my honest mistake.

Again, who determines what is "disinformation"? or does that word just mean anything a liberal doesnt like or that doesnt match the liberal narrative of the day?

I really don’t know much about what liberals think.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

Face it - the far-right kooks want "1984" - a state-controlled media that only publishes information favorable to those in power - just like we see in Russia, China, and Iran today....and even Saudi Arabia...

In their world, the sheep need led...they can't think on their own....if you want proof, just look at a Trump rally...

The free world won't let that happen....

0 ( +6 / -6 )

Yes, I find it interesting that since yesterday social media platforms are suddenly interested in where legitimate media sources (NY Post) got their information that is not otherwise proven as false. they suddenly dont publicize unauthorized information or things that are "personal" or that were "hacked".

No one cared where the NY Times Trump tax info came from and who gave it or if it was unauthorized/personal or hacked. we arent allowed to know who they got it from. Secret!

or how the Access Hollywood tape was obtained and who provided it. many other examples that Facebook didnt care about until changing policy yesterday. But yeah lets keep blocking anything COVID related that doesnt meet the liberal narrative as "misinformation" too.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Suppression is how you keep 1% from becoming 10%. 

Censor any inconvenient truth so that you can keep calling it “conspiracy” that “no one believes”.

Lol “inconvenient truth”

A trumper inadvertently quoting Al Gore.

I had you more as a Tipper kind of guy.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Yes, I find it interesting that since yesterday social media platforms are suddenly interested in where legitimate media sources (NY Post) got their information that is not otherwise proven as false. they suddenly dont publicize unauthorized information or things that are "personal" or that were "hacked".

It’s definitely a Deep State, Soros funded initiative to suppress information in an attempt to undermine a duly elected president.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

or how the Access Hollywood tape was obtained and who provided it. many other examples that Facebook didnt care about until changing policy yesterday. 

Nixon would have loved you.

If your primary news source is Facebook, you deserve all the dumb you can eat.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

If your primary news source is Facebook, you deserve all the dumb you can eat.

But Twitter is a great source for news.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

It’s definitely a Deep State, Soros funded initiative to suppress information in an attempt to undermine a duly elected president.

Oh my god, you’ve exposed the biggest scandal in history! How are are the right not all over this?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Oh my god, you’ve exposed the biggest scandal in history! How are are the right not all over this?

They are trying their hardest, but keep getting censored by social media. Instead of creating their own social media platforms, they prefer to whine about it on JT.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

The party has roughly 1% support and Facebook goes all Big Brother on them. Horrible!

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

The party has roughly 1% support and Facebook goes all Big Brother on them. Horrible!

Damn private corporations and the free market!

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Facebook is a private company. They can post, or refuse to post, whatever they wish. Nobody is forcing anyone to read anything on Facebook. If you don't like them, don't patronize them. Simple. Governments have no business telling them what they can or cannot say. The press and other media are not obligated to support anything any government does and are in fact free to publish in opposition to the government or anything else in a society. They are not even bound to tell the truth. It is up to the public to read multiple sources, do their own research and come to their own conclusions.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

lincolnman: Face it - the far-right kooks want "1984" - a state-controlled media that only publishes information favorable to those in power - just like we see in Russia, China, and Iran today....and even Saudi Arabia...

Really? Isn’t it the Left that only wants their views allowed in the public square, on university campuses, in newsrooms, on the radio, in Hollywood, and on the Internet? All other views are deplorable because well, they aren’t the views of the dominant culture. The Left is the culture, the Right is the new counter-culture.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Isn’t it the Left that only wants their views allowed in the public square, on university campuses, in newsrooms, on the radio, in Hollywood, and on the Internet?

Nope. I'm the left, and I want the right to be able to broadcast their views freely on whatever private platform that will let them. I strongly oppose any government that would oppress the free speech of people restricting them from saying these things.

My nuanced approach must be baffling to binary thinkers.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites