Facebook removes Trump post for 'harmful COVID misinformation'

[ThinkingSapien]

Facebook removes Trump post for 'harmful COVID misinformation'

Donald Trump finally found a line Facebook is unwilling to allow him to cross: promoting misinformation about the coronavirus. The social network removed a post from Donald Trump’s account Wednesday after the president shared a clip from a Fox News interview in which he falsely claimed that children are “almost immune” to COVID-19.

“This video includes false claims that a group of people is immune from COVID-19 which is a violation of our policies around harmful COVID misinformation,” a Facebook spokesperson said in a statement to NBC News .

It marks the first time Facebook has removed one of Trump’s posts under the policy. The company has previously taken down Trump campaign ads for breaking its rules around “organized hate” and misleading information about the US census.

The video was also shared on Twitter, where it remains up. On Facebook, the video was visible for at least four hours and was viewed hundreds of thousands of times before it was removed, according to New York Times reporter Davey Alba.

Facebook has previously been reluctant to enforce its rules when it comes posts from politicians, especially Trump. Mark Zuckerberg criticized Twitter CEO for fact checking one of Trump’s tweets, though Zuckerberg later said he would consider adding labels to some posts from politicians that might otherwise break Facebook’s rules. The company has taken a somewhat tougher stance when it comes to misinformation about COVID-19, and Zuckerberg has called the US response to the pandemic “disappointing.”

Update 8/5 8:05pm ET: Twitter also took action on the clip for breaking the company’s rules against COVID-19 misinformation. A spokesperson said Twitter “required removal” from the @TeamTrump account that originally shared the video.

 

[umamibella]

Twitter removed some of his posts on the pandemic that were false.

 

[Dr_Meinheimer]

I am curious if they still have the clips of Biden claiming that the deaths in the US from COVID were in the millions. Just to see if they are being consistent with regards to the pandemic.

Zuckerberg’s problem is claiming he doesn’t like fact checking as a rule (unless he considers the matter too serious). The last part is so vague and amorphous that he might as well not say he doesn’t like fact checking at all; he does like it, if he cares about the issue.

The real problem is the consumerism of humans who willingly hand this much power to one company. The world does not need Facebook, Twitter, etc. But people have willingly created these giants, have spent too many mindless hours with them, and given them so much influence over their lives, and now hope to rein them in when they start doing things people don’t like. That’s not something I blame MZ for per se. That’s on Facebook’s legions of users over the last 15 years or so.

 

[7_Sorrows]

So Twitter and Facebook now are credible experts in the medical field that they can determine with 100% certainty what is misinformation about covid-19?

Children are definitely not 100% immune. They might be less likely to get covid-19
than teens and older adults.

I have never used Twitter. I have a facebook account that I never use or post on.
I agree with Dr. Meinheimer - the real problem is the consumerism of humans who willingly hand this much power to a company. Facebook made the world believe
it could not live without Facebook and Twitter. How many minutes and hours of
people’s lives have been wasted on Facebook and Twitter?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I am curious if they still have the clips of Biden claiming that the deaths in the US from COVID were in the millions. Just to see if they are being consistent with regards to the pandemic.

I dont think that would be a good test. Facebook’s stated position is that they don’t fact check, but will intervene if a message could lead to harm. Overestimating the death count might not be a message that would lead to harm. Stating that children are immune could lead to behaviour that endangers the child and further spreads the virus to adults.

The last part is so vague and amorphous

That ends up leaving decisions open to their discretion. It isn’t uncommon for online forums to leave room for the discretion of the moderating body to make decisions.

The real problem is the consumerism of humans who willingly hand this much power to one company.

This is going to depend on the person, but for some people social media has allowed individuals to reach a much wider audience. Under traditional media, reaching wider audiences could have been prohibitively expensive and had high barriers to entry. Ofcourse this isn’t necessarily all good. People with awful ideas and bad intentions too are able to reach wider audiences. In either case, the social media companies are not the only entities that have gained higher influence.

How many minutes and hours of
people’s lives have been wasted on Facebook and Twitter?

I find CAF to be a far more enjoyable place to waste my time.

Curious: are you pressing “enter” at the end of every line? Your messages have an unusual reflow on some mobile devices.

 

[7_Sorrows]

CAF will never be comparable to Facebook or Twitter. I would much rather waste my time here than on Facebook or Twitter too. I don’t spend as much time here as I used to though.

I use a 6 year old Kindle to post with and it has a mind of it own.

 

[Montrose]

I am curious if they still have the clips of Biden claiming that the deaths in the US from COVID were in the millions. Just to see if they are being consistent with regards to the pandemic.

You obviously did not fact check. He incorrectly stated 120 million had died and then corrected himself and said it was 120,000.

 

[blackforest]

The real problem is the consumerism of humans who willingly hand this much power to one company.

What I don’t understand is why tech companies simply don’t disclaim responsibility for what is posted instead of trying to police it.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

What I don’t understand is why tech companies simply don’t disclaim responsibility for what is posted instead of trying to police it.

Reactions to misinformation campaigns during the 2016 election got the attention of the public and congress. These services were asked to get that problem under control, or else…

When there is no moderation the environment becomes less palatable for people in general. Those willing to tolerate the hostility tend to be lower in number. I think there is an interest in having a larger audience as it provides potential for more income.

Additionally these services tend to be ad supported. Large brands have withdrawn from purchasing ads unless there are assurances that their ads wont get associated with certain types of content.

 

[blackforest]

Reactions to misinformation campaigns during the 2016 election got the attention of thr public and congress.

Private corporations can legally suppress free speech. It doesn’t justify the action fundamentally, but it’s technically their right. But I get nervous when government officials step in.

When there is no moderation the environment becomes less palatable for people in general.

That would depend. I see a fair amount of outrage from conservatives, for example, accusing FB and Twitter of exercising their censorship and “fact-checking” powers with a liberal bias.

Large brands have withdrawn from purchasing ads unless there are assurances that their ads wont get associated with certain types of content.

Not that I don’t believe you, but what are some examples?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Not that I don’t believe you, but what are some examples?

YouTube Adpocalypse is one of the most well known. Advertisers were being asked why they were supporting extremist content (terrorism, far right, white-supremacist ). Several big brands temporarily stopped advertising until google did something about this. Part of the fix was that videos could now have a status of not being eligible for any advertisement. As Google makes much of its money through ads, videos that make them money tend to have higher visibility than those that don’t. This was viewed by some as only a Google decision to suppress certain types of content.

Less well known may be the boycott for the month of July 2020 on advertising on Facebook as a message for Facebook to do more to stop hate speech.

Edit: corrected facebook ad boycott month from June to July.

Facebook ad boycott: Why big brands 'hit pause on hate' - CNET