wp-plugin-hostgator domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /home4/scienrds/scienceandnerds/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6114ol-scrapes domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /home4/scienrds/scienceandnerds/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6114Source: https:\/\/www.theverge.com\/2022\/7\/27\/23280404\/facebook-instagram-covid-antivax-misinformation-oversight-board-review<\/a> Today, let\u2019s talk about a settled question that Meta has decided to re-open: what should the company do about misinformation related to COVID-19?<\/p>\n Since the earliest days of the pandemic, Meta has sought to remove false claims about the disease from Facebook and Instagram<\/a>. And for just as long, the company has faced criticism that it hasn\u2019t done a very good job. A year ago this month, asked about the role \u201cplatforms like Facebook\u201d played in spreading misinformation about the disease, President Biden said \u201cthey\u2019re killing people\u201d \u2014 though he walked his statement back a day later<\/a>.<\/p>\n Still, Biden voiced a fear that is deeply held among Meta critics: that the platform\u2019s huge user base and algorithmic recommendations often combine to help fringe conspiracy theories reach huge mainstream audiences, promoting vaccine hesitancy<\/a>, resistance to wearing masks, and other public health harms.<\/p>\n The pandemic is not close to over \u2014 an estimated 439 people died of COVID in the past day<\/a>, up 34 percent in the past two weeks. And highly infectious Omicron subvariants continue to tear through the country, raising fears of a surge in cases of long COVID<\/a> \u2014 a condition that experts say has already been \u201ca mass disabling event.\u201d An estimated 1 in 13 American adults reported having long COVID symptoms earlier this month, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.<\/p>\n Despite that, Meta is now considering whether to relax some of the restrictions it has placed on COVID-related misinformation, including whether to continue removing posts about false claims about vaccines, masks, social distancing, and related subjects. It has asked the Oversight Board \u2014 an independent group funded by Meta to help it make difficult calls relating to speech \u2014 for an advisory opinion on how to proceed.<\/p>\n Nick Clegg, the company\u2019s president of global affairs, explained Tuesday in a blog post<\/a>:<\/p>\n In many countries, where vaccination rates are relatively high, life is increasingly returning to normal. But this isn\u2019t the case everywhere and the course of the pandemic will continue to vary significantly around the globe \u2014 especially in countries with low vaccination rates and less developed healthcare systems. It is important that any policy Meta implements be appropriate for the full range of circumstances countries find themselves in.<\/p>\n Meta is fundamentally committed to free expression and we believe our apps are an important way for people to make their voices heard. But some misinformation can lead to an imminent risk of physical harm, and we have a responsibility not to let this content proliferate. The policies in our Community Standards<\/a> seek to protect free expression while preventing this dangerous content. But resolving the inherent tensions between free expression and safety isn\u2019t easy, especially when confronted with unprecedented and fast-moving challenges, as we have been in the pandemic. That\u2019s why we are seeking the advice of the Oversight Board in this case. Its guidance will also help us respond to future public health emergencies. <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n For all the criticism Meta has received over its enforcement of health misinformation, by some measures the steps it took clearly had a positive effect on the platform. The company estimates it has taken down more than 25 million posts under its stricter policies, which now require the removal of 80 separate false claims<\/a> about the disease and its vaccines.<\/p>\n At the same time, the platform arguably has at times overreached. In May 2021, I wrote about Meta\u2019s decision to reverse an earlier ban on discussing the possibility that COVID-19 leaked from a Chinese lab<\/a>. The company made that decision amidst a spike in hateful violence against Asian people, fearing that conspiracy theories related to the disease\u2019s origin could be used to justify further attacks.<\/p>\n But as debate about the virus\u2019 origin intensified, Meta began allowing people to speculate again. (To date, no consensus on the issue has emerged.) I wrote at the time that the company probably should not have taken a position on the issue in the first place, instead using its existing hate-speech policies to moderate racist posts:<\/p>\n I generally favor an interventionist approach when it comes to conspiracy theories on social networks: given the harm done by adherents to QAnon, Boogaloo, and other extremist movements, I see real value in platforms reducing their reach and even removing them entirely.<\/p>\n On some questions, though, platform intervention may do more harm than good. Banning the lab-leak hypothesis gave it the appearance of forbidden knowledge, when acknowledging the reality \u2014 that it is unlikely, but an open question \u2014 may have been just dull enough to prevent it from catching fire in those fever swamps.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Last week, I asked Clegg why the company had decided to ask the board for a second opinion on health misinformation now. One, he said, Meta assumes there will be future pandemics that bring with them their own set of policy issues. The company wants to get some expert guidance now so it can act more thoughtfully the next time around. And two, he said, the Oversight Board can take months to produce an opinion. Meta wanted to get that process started now.<\/p>\n But more than anything, he said, the company wanted a check on its power \u2014 to have the board, with which this month it signed a new three-year, $150 million operating deal<\/a>, weigh in on what have been some fairly stringent policies.<\/p>\n \u201cThis was a very dramatic extension of our most exacting sanction,\u201d Clegg told me. \u201cWe haven\u2019t done it on this scale in such a short period of time before. \u2026 If you have awesome power, it is all the more important that you exercise that awesome power thoughtfully, accountably, and transparently. It would be curious and eccentric, in my view, not to refer this to the Oversight Board.\u201d<\/p>\n
\n
<\/br><\/code><\/p>\n\n
\n