Apparently, Meta deems climate change too controversial for discussion
April 13, 2024 5:37 PM Subscribe
How Meta Nuked A Climate Story, And What It Means For Democracy, David Vetter, Forbes, April 11 2024
Social media giant Meta appears to have just experienced its own Streisand Effect moment. The company that owns Facebook, Instagram, Threads and Whatsapp last week blocked all links on its platforms to the Kansas Reflector, a non-profit news outlet that had published a piece criticizing the firm’s alleged suppression of content about climate change. When journalist Marisa Kabas wrote about the event, all Meta links to her site, The Handbasket, were blocked too. Kabas was even momentarily blocked from posting anything at all on Threads, Meta’s microblogging site.
Then, CNN got hold of the story.
It's wild, all it takes is a significant minority of science deniers and other types of angry ignorati to get anything true labeled as 'controversial'. For some value of 'controversial'.
Science is not a popularity contest, but zuck et al don't know/don't care about that. It's like a partial converse of Einstein's line in response to '100 authors against Einstein': If I were wrong, then one would have been enough.
posted by SaltySalticid at 6:03 PM on April 13 [17 favorites]
Science is not a popularity contest, but zuck et al don't know/don't care about that. It's like a partial converse of Einstein's line in response to '100 authors against Einstein': If I were wrong, then one would have been enough.
posted by SaltySalticid at 6:03 PM on April 13 [17 favorites]
Please note that this wasn't just Meta blocking a story on climate change, it was Meta blocking a story about their apparent systematic suppression of stories about climate change.
posted by MrVisible at 6:04 PM on April 13 [73 favorites]
posted by MrVisible at 6:04 PM on April 13 [73 favorites]
JHarris - same. But Mastodon succeeding is not a story that the media are interested in promoting, because no one has figured out how to control or monetize the platform.
Frankly, if the big companies are going to censor stuff that doesn’t make them money? We need small federated systems more than ever.
posted by caution live frogs at 6:05 PM on April 13 [15 favorites]
Frankly, if the big companies are going to censor stuff that doesn’t make them money? We need small federated systems more than ever.
posted by caution live frogs at 6:05 PM on April 13 [15 favorites]
Science is not a popularity contest
You are incorrect; it is a popularity contest if enough delusional “Christians” claim it is.
They’re more motivated than you, so they get to decide.
posted by aramaic at 6:12 PM on April 13 [5 favorites]
You are incorrect; it is a popularity contest if enough delusional “Christians” claim it is.
They’re more motivated than you, so they get to decide.
posted by aramaic at 6:12 PM on April 13 [5 favorites]
How Meta Nuked A Climate Story, And What It Means For Democracy,
that we shouldn't be depending on Meta for our news?
posted by philip-random at 6:48 PM on April 13 [14 favorites]
that we shouldn't be depending on Meta for our news?
posted by philip-random at 6:48 PM on April 13 [14 favorites]
It's like a partial converse of Einstein's line in response to '100 authors against Einstein': If I were wrong, then one would have been enough.
Oddly, I quote that every time people tell me I should believe in anthropogenic climate change because millions of scientists do.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 6:58 PM on April 13
Oddly, I quote that every time people tell me I should believe in anthropogenic climate change because millions of scientists do.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 6:58 PM on April 13
I mean, science is a popularity contest. An concept needs to be successful enough to be considered consensus reality to succeed as a scientific theory. The outlier theories that nobody believes are considered crackpot right up until enough people somehow decide that is actually what the scientific truth now is. This has been going on since the scientific method was developed.
The above cynicism that involves Christians and their belief systems in with science isn't actually how science works. But actual science works by someone suggesting an idea and enough people deciding that idea is true, through whatever means required, that it becomes accepted truth. That is by definition a popularity contest.
posted by hippybear at 7:09 PM on April 13 [1 favorite]
The above cynicism that involves Christians and their belief systems in with science isn't actually how science works. But actual science works by someone suggesting an idea and enough people deciding that idea is true, through whatever means required, that it becomes accepted truth. That is by definition a popularity contest.
posted by hippybear at 7:09 PM on April 13 [1 favorite]
But actual science works by someone suggesting an idea and enough people deciding that idea is true
The difference I think between science and a popularity contest is the criteria people are expected use for deciding on the winner. For me the phrase "popularity contest" evokes a sense of the winner being determined by emotional appeal.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 7:14 PM on April 13 [7 favorites]
The difference I think between science and a popularity contest is the criteria people are expected use for deciding on the winner. For me the phrase "popularity contest" evokes a sense of the winner being determined by emotional appeal.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 7:14 PM on April 13 [7 favorites]
Emotional appeal is one kind of popularity contest. Being judged to be actually true is another. We're living through a time where things that were judged to not be true in the past have begun to shift to being considered true in a lot of ways, some of them social or cultural concepts. The whole thing is really an interesting concept and I'm sure is a field of study someplace.
posted by hippybear at 7:21 PM on April 13
posted by hippybear at 7:21 PM on April 13
If we're done discussing popularity contests, can we focus on the dire need to break up the digital oligopoly?
posted by signal at 7:27 PM on April 13 [30 favorites]
posted by signal at 7:27 PM on April 13 [30 favorites]
I can see it's not the Reflector's style, but I suspect the way to get the word out to the people who need it most is to scream bloody murder about "Facebook CENSORSHIP" and "Facebook is the DEEP STATE" and "Here's the story WOKE TRIED TO HIDE" with tons of emojis and pounds of spelling mistakes.
I mean, I thought that was what Facebook was like today anyhow.
posted by Western Infidels at 7:29 PM on April 13 [5 favorites]
I mean, I thought that was what Facebook was like today anyhow.
posted by Western Infidels at 7:29 PM on April 13 [5 favorites]
actual science works by someone suggesting an idea and enough people deciding that idea is true
Not so much deciding that an idea is true as testing whether it is or not. Ideas that do not admit of repeatable testing are by definition not scientific.
And of course it's the case that countless ideas that are scientific - that is, ideas completely capable of being rigorously tested - get widely judged as true or false without being tested by those who make those judgements, for a huge range of reasons, and that public policy adopted on that basis is the result of a popularity contest. But the process by which that happens is absolutely not "actual science".
posted by flabdablet at 7:30 PM on April 13 [11 favorites]
Not so much deciding that an idea is true as testing whether it is or not. Ideas that do not admit of repeatable testing are by definition not scientific.
And of course it's the case that countless ideas that are scientific - that is, ideas completely capable of being rigorously tested - get widely judged as true or false without being tested by those who make those judgements, for a huge range of reasons, and that public policy adopted on that basis is the result of a popularity contest. But the process by which that happens is absolutely not "actual science".
posted by flabdablet at 7:30 PM on April 13 [11 favorites]
Not so much deciding that an idea is true as testing whether it is or not. Ideas that do not admit of repeatable testing are by definition not scientific.
True, but it can also be argued that even getting ideas accepted enough to be tested is the first step of the process, and that in and of itself is a popularity and lobbying effort sometimes.
posted by hippybear at 7:35 PM on April 13
True, but it can also be argued that even getting ideas accepted enough to be tested is the first step of the process, and that in and of itself is a popularity and lobbying effort sometimes.
posted by hippybear at 7:35 PM on April 13
I think I see what you're saying hippybear. The process of doing science can sometimes be a popularity contest. The actual results, not so much.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 7:42 PM on April 13
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 7:42 PM on April 13
Yes, that's it exactly. What is accepted should be judged by testing, but even talking about ideas can be a popularity contest.
posted by hippybear at 7:45 PM on April 13 [2 favorites]
posted by hippybear at 7:45 PM on April 13 [2 favorites]
I mean, ask Galileo.
posted by hippybear at 7:45 PM on April 13 [3 favorites]
posted by hippybear at 7:45 PM on April 13 [3 favorites]
Yeah, that makes sense. Meta/Facebook are trash across the board and climate change rather does tend to be too controversial for discussion.
Like how you can't point out, without people becoming defensive, that we all really need to stop eating meat and driving cars as much as possible, and do so immediately. Electric cars are a dead-end and our only hope is re-designing cities around mass transit and bicycles.
posted by seraphine at 7:46 PM on April 13 [14 favorites]
Like how you can't point out, without people becoming defensive, that we all really need to stop eating meat and driving cars as much as possible, and do so immediately. Electric cars are a dead-end and our only hope is re-designing cities around mass transit and bicycles.
posted by seraphine at 7:46 PM on April 13 [14 favorites]
that we all really need to stop eating meat
Aaaand now people are voting Republican. Stop trying to dictate people's diets: everyone hates this.
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 7:55 PM on April 13 [4 favorites]
Aaaand now people are voting Republican. Stop trying to dictate people's diets: everyone hates this.
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 7:55 PM on April 13 [4 favorites]
that we shouldn't be depending on Meta for our news?
Some background on this comment. I'm Canadian. Due to Canada's Online News Act, Facebook/Meta/Whatever have been blocking pretty much all news links since last summer. Which I'm now thinking has proven more feature than bug. My Facebook experiences have certainly proven less contentious and stupid.
If I want news, I go elsewhere.
posted by philip-random at 7:59 PM on April 13 [9 favorites]
our only hope is re-designing cities around mass transit and bicycles
Then you have no hope, because that’s not gonna happen, at least not in the US.
posted by aramaic at 8:05 PM on April 13 [12 favorites]
Then you have no hope, because that’s not gonna happen, at least not in the US.
posted by aramaic at 8:05 PM on April 13 [12 favorites]
Aaaand now people are voting Republican. Stop trying to dictate people's diets: everyone hates this.
Yes, this makes sense, o_h. When people hear something true that they don't like, their response is often to act in ways that make the problem worse.
... which is kind of what the OP is all about.
posted by heyitsgogi at 8:11 PM on April 13 [6 favorites]
Yes, this makes sense, o_h. When people hear something true that they don't like, their response is often to act in ways that make the problem worse.
... which is kind of what the OP is all about.
posted by heyitsgogi at 8:11 PM on April 13 [6 favorites]
The US may be largely responsible for the climate crisis, but I doubt anybody seriously expects it to be a significant part of the hypothetical solution.
posted by signal at 8:13 PM on April 13
posted by signal at 8:13 PM on April 13
Yes, this makes sense, o_h. When people hear something true that they don't like, their response is often to act in ways that make the problem worse.
Literally not the mechanism that is being described here, but you seem determined to believe these other things, so go ahead.
posted by hippybear at 8:13 PM on April 13 [1 favorite]
Literally not the mechanism that is being described here, but you seem determined to believe these other things, so go ahead.
posted by hippybear at 8:13 PM on April 13 [1 favorite]
Like how you can't point out, without people becoming defensive, that we all really need to stop eating meat and driving cars as much as possible, and do so immediately.
An even better solution would be to stop creating more humans, but talk about things people don't want to hear...
posted by Faint of Butt at 8:30 PM on April 13 [15 favorites]
An even better solution would be to stop creating more humans, but talk about things people don't want to hear...
posted by Faint of Butt at 8:30 PM on April 13 [15 favorites]
The thing is, when we say "science", there are several distinct, though interrelated, things we may mean. There's science as a method of inquiry, which is something anyone can do, though the types of questions that individuals can ask may be limited compared to what large teams with access to specialized training and resources can do. There's science as a community of professionals who employ the scientific method in their work, having specific cultural practices, norms, and beliefs that are not necessarily related to that method. There's science as a body of knowledge, which generally reflects the activities and consensus of scientific professionals. And there's science as a cultural feature within the larger culture including non-professionals, influencing the way lay people understand the world around them. So when saying something like "science is a popularity contest", it's important to be clear about which of these you mean, and in what ways.
posted by biogeo at 8:41 PM on April 13 [107 favorites]
posted by biogeo at 8:41 PM on April 13 [107 favorites]
Wow, biogeo, that is an amazing consolidation of a lot of things in a concise way and that should be on an index card in everyone's rolodex, or something!
posted by hippybear at 8:42 PM on April 13 [3 favorites]
posted by hippybear at 8:42 PM on April 13 [3 favorites]
I guess also we should be talking about how maybe Meta is censoring climate discussion.
Meta is not a good company and expecting them to do anything good is foolish, and discovering they've done anything good should be regarded as a mistake by some young team member who has since been fired.
posted by hippybear at 8:51 PM on April 13 [7 favorites]
Meta is not a good company and expecting them to do anything good is foolish, and discovering they've done anything good should be regarded as a mistake by some young team member who has since been fired.
posted by hippybear at 8:51 PM on April 13 [7 favorites]
This is an example of how knee jerk snobbery can obscure a very real problem.
(General) you might think that Facebook is a waste of time and the people on there should not [be on Facebook /exist].
And you can soothe the cognitive dissonance these ideas bring up (because you consider yourself a good, tolerant person) by reminding yourself that those people are [insert thing you despise. ]
But whether or not it should be so, Facebook is a primary news source for a enormous amount of people. Its influence is vast.
Just imagine the Impact if Facebook made it easy to see content that isn't there simply to drive outrage-engagement.
posted by Zumbador at 8:56 PM on April 13 [10 favorites]
(General) you might think that Facebook is a waste of time and the people on there should not [be on Facebook /exist].
And you can soothe the cognitive dissonance these ideas bring up (because you consider yourself a good, tolerant person) by reminding yourself that those people are [insert thing you despise. ]
But whether or not it should be so, Facebook is a primary news source for a enormous amount of people. Its influence is vast.
Just imagine the Impact if Facebook made it easy to see content that isn't there simply to drive outrage-engagement.
posted by Zumbador at 8:56 PM on April 13 [10 favorites]
Facebook has deprecated news across its entire service, so anyone who is depending on it for a primary news source at this point in time has been cut off from the outside world.
That link suggests that Facebook removed its News link in February? So maybe you don't look at Facebook at all?
I'm not a member and never have been so I cannot tell you what they offer there, but Facebook isn't doing news anymore. In case you missed that news. Maybe because you're on Facebook.
posted by hippybear at 9:03 PM on April 13 [3 favorites]
That link suggests that Facebook removed its News link in February? So maybe you don't look at Facebook at all?
I'm not a member and never have been so I cannot tell you what they offer there, but Facebook isn't doing news anymore. In case you missed that news. Maybe because you're on Facebook.
posted by hippybear at 9:03 PM on April 13 [3 favorites]
hippybear, it seems like you think that the only way people could be getting their news from facebook is if they use the "news" feature and read licensed articles. but that is not how news stories spread on facebook, for the most part.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 9:20 PM on April 13 [14 favorites]
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 9:20 PM on April 13 [14 favorites]
So one of the two biggest propaganda outlets in the world is actively and systemically working to suppress information about climate change. And the other was recently bought with the help of Saudi oil money and is also busily spreading disinformation.
So I think it's safe to say that there's something the wealthy and powerful don't want people to know about climate change. They've been putting a lot of effort and money into this PR campaign of late. So, what could they be trying to hide? The existence of climate change? The cat's pretty well out of the bag on that one; even the denialists have moved on to minimization.
I think they're trying to hide how bad things are going to get.
posted by MrVisible at 9:30 PM on April 13 [11 favorites]
So I think it's safe to say that there's something the wealthy and powerful don't want people to know about climate change. They've been putting a lot of effort and money into this PR campaign of late. So, what could they be trying to hide? The existence of climate change? The cat's pretty well out of the bag on that one; even the denialists have moved on to minimization.
I think they're trying to hide how bad things are going to get.
posted by MrVisible at 9:30 PM on April 13 [11 favorites]
The US may be largely responsible for the climate crisis
The U.S. flatters itself.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 9:33 PM on April 13 [8 favorites]
The U.S. flatters itself.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 9:33 PM on April 13 [8 favorites]
facebook has limited climate stories for over a decade now. And much of any environmental messaging. You can only be an environmentalist if you are a "conservation group" on facebook, you can't select to be an environmental or environmental justice organization. apparently, you have to own land to be an environmentalist.
many people have approaching my organization like a conservation group, and not an environmental group, because that is what facebook has forced us to advertise as. It's years of lost and wasted communications time.
posted by eustatic at 9:36 PM on April 13 [7 favorites]
many people have approaching my organization like a conservation group, and not an environmental group, because that is what facebook has forced us to advertise as. It's years of lost and wasted communications time.
posted by eustatic at 9:36 PM on April 13 [7 favorites]
The US may be largely responsible for the climate crisis
The U.S. flatters itself.
...sort of both right:
Global cumulative CO₂ emissions from fossil fuel combustion 1750-2022, by country
Published by Ian Tiseo, Dec 12, 2023
The United States was the biggest emitter in history as of 2022, having released 427 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide (GtCO₂) into the atmosphere since the birth of the industrial revolution. This accounted for roughly a quarter of all historical CO₂ produced from fossil fuels and industry. China was the second-largest contributor to historical emissions, having released over 260 GtCO₂. CO₂ is a greenhouse gas and the main driver of climate change and rising temperatures.
Regional emissions
Europe had accounted for almost 100 percent of global cumulative CO₂ emissions produced between 1750 and 1850, with the United Kingdom the biggest contributor. However, the region's share of emissions shrank in the following decades as the U.S. emerged as a major industrial power. By 1950, the U.S.'s share of historical global CO₂ emissions had increased to 40 percent, while Europe's had fallen to 50 percent.
China's contribution to historical emissions has soared
Between 1750 and 1950, China had contributed less than one percent of total CO₂ emissions ever produced. However, soaring emissions in China in recent decades has seen the country's share of historical emissions rise to nearly 15 percent. This growth has been driven by China's rapid industrialization and its reliance on coal consumption for energy.
posted by Reasonably Everything Happens at 9:53 PM on April 13 [9 favorites]
The U.S. flatters itself.
...sort of both right:
Global cumulative CO₂ emissions from fossil fuel combustion 1750-2022, by country
Published by Ian Tiseo, Dec 12, 2023
The United States was the biggest emitter in history as of 2022, having released 427 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide (GtCO₂) into the atmosphere since the birth of the industrial revolution. This accounted for roughly a quarter of all historical CO₂ produced from fossil fuels and industry. China was the second-largest contributor to historical emissions, having released over 260 GtCO₂. CO₂ is a greenhouse gas and the main driver of climate change and rising temperatures.
Regional emissions
Europe had accounted for almost 100 percent of global cumulative CO₂ emissions produced between 1750 and 1850, with the United Kingdom the biggest contributor. However, the region's share of emissions shrank in the following decades as the U.S. emerged as a major industrial power. By 1950, the U.S.'s share of historical global CO₂ emissions had increased to 40 percent, while Europe's had fallen to 50 percent.
China's contribution to historical emissions has soared
Between 1750 and 1950, China had contributed less than one percent of total CO₂ emissions ever produced. However, soaring emissions in China in recent decades has seen the country's share of historical emissions rise to nearly 15 percent. This growth has been driven by China's rapid industrialization and its reliance on coal consumption for energy.
posted by Reasonably Everything Happens at 9:53 PM on April 13 [9 favorites]
You can't play these games with consensus reality forever. Reality has a way of asserting itself. Some people, aw man, they need to see their house floating away before they get it. Remember the Herman Cain awards? All those people meeting with reality in isolation, all alone because of the hoax plague.
But that's not everyone. People will peel off until you have a core group of suckers and no more. And you can't get that credibility back. Facebook and birdshit are in decline and I don't see any return to the glory days.
And fuckface is going to find out 4chan 2.0 ain't worth shit.
posted by adept256 at 11:15 PM on April 13 [8 favorites]
But that's not everyone. People will peel off until you have a core group of suckers and no more. And you can't get that credibility back. Facebook and birdshit are in decline and I don't see any return to the glory days.
And fuckface is going to find out 4chan 2.0 ain't worth shit.
posted by adept256 at 11:15 PM on April 13 [8 favorites]
Would an analyst be able to prove there was no malware related to the Kansas Reflector? Would be great to turn the incident back on facebook and show them up as corporate shills (at best).
posted by unearthed at 12:57 AM on April 14
posted by unearthed at 12:57 AM on April 14
that we shouldn't be depending on Meta for our news?
This is the heart of the question IMO, now that Meta and big media conglomerates have killed off the daily paper, where is the average person supposed to get news? Searching out new sources of information and evaluating their trustworthiness is capital-w Work - this fact was obvious when obtaining information required the physical effort of going to a library or archive, or at least picking up a telephone and talking to a human, but seems to have been forgotten with the advent of always-on internet. Expecting average people with busy lives and no training to be constantly doing this labor of research and evaluation is not a realistic or sustainable solution for society. Especially for older folks, who may not have the technical know-how to enter a URL but can hit that big blue icon on their phone's home screen, which conveniently serves them both pictures of their grandkids AND frothing right-wing hate and fake news! I don't know what the answer is, but it's clear that it's got to be regulatory rather than individual (putting strict limits on content suggestion algorithms would be a great start!)
posted by nanny's striped stocking at 1:43 AM on April 14 [8 favorites]
This is the heart of the question IMO, now that Meta and big media conglomerates have killed off the daily paper, where is the average person supposed to get news? Searching out new sources of information and evaluating their trustworthiness is capital-w Work - this fact was obvious when obtaining information required the physical effort of going to a library or archive, or at least picking up a telephone and talking to a human, but seems to have been forgotten with the advent of always-on internet. Expecting average people with busy lives and no training to be constantly doing this labor of research and evaluation is not a realistic or sustainable solution for society. Especially for older folks, who may not have the technical know-how to enter a URL but can hit that big blue icon on their phone's home screen, which conveniently serves them both pictures of their grandkids AND frothing right-wing hate and fake news! I don't know what the answer is, but it's clear that it's got to be regulatory rather than individual (putting strict limits on content suggestion algorithms would be a great start!)
posted by nanny's striped stocking at 1:43 AM on April 14 [8 favorites]
Yesterday I saw an instagram page called something like “if only there was a page dedicated to feminists being put in their place” (not the exact title). I felt sick. It’s unusual for me to be so outright revolted by an online page, but apparently anti-woman bullshit is fine, and climate change stuff is not?
The thing is, not using the product doesn’t change it. If we all walked away from meta now, there would be still be misogynistic content factories pumping out stories, being read by bored dudes. We have to both legislate and campaign to make online companies good actors, in the same way that we stopped polluting and other detrimental effects to humans.
posted by The River Ivel at 1:46 AM on April 14 [6 favorites]
The thing is, not using the product doesn’t change it. If we all walked away from meta now, there would be still be misogynistic content factories pumping out stories, being read by bored dudes. We have to both legislate and campaign to make online companies good actors, in the same way that we stopped polluting and other detrimental effects to humans.
posted by The River Ivel at 1:46 AM on April 14 [6 favorites]
Mod note: [btw, biogeo's elegant explication of a seemingly straightforward but often misused term has been added to the sidebar and Best Of blog!]
posted by taz (staff) at 1:59 AM on April 14 [25 favorites]
posted by taz (staff) at 1:59 AM on April 14 [25 favorites]
Wait, we stopped polluting and other detrimental effects to humans?
Woohoo!
Climate change, war, greedy fucks all solved!
Next!
posted by nofundy at 3:59 AM on April 14
Woohoo!
Climate change, war, greedy fucks all solved!
Next!
posted by nofundy at 3:59 AM on April 14
It's not Meta, it is Facebook. It is hopefully not a rant to remind the reader that their management are responsible for numerous crimes across the world, which have lead to deaths of innocent people. Using the company's false name helps them evade accountability for their actions by distancing them from actions taken prior to the name change.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 4:08 AM on April 14 [3 favorites]
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 4:08 AM on April 14 [3 favorites]
I'm not a member and never have been so I cannot tell you what they offer there, but Facebook isn't doing news anymore. In case you missed that news. Maybe because you're on Facebook.
I am a member and I am still on there and so I can tell you that Facebook did not itself "offer" news, it is the members that post links to the news articles themselves. Unless Facebook stops them from doing so. Which is what this article is about.
In case you misunderstood. Maybe because you're not on Facebook.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 4:47 AM on April 14 [12 favorites]
I am a member and I am still on there and so I can tell you that Facebook did not itself "offer" news, it is the members that post links to the news articles themselves. Unless Facebook stops them from doing so. Which is what this article is about.
In case you misunderstood. Maybe because you're not on Facebook.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 4:47 AM on April 14 [12 favorites]
I don't think this is a solvable problem. That is, there's a solution within easy reach, regulations around what Facebook can and cannot moderate and limit the reach of. But a lot of that depends on pressure being put on the government, and that depends on the right people being informed correctly about the problem. "FB is suppressing my views" is not in any way a new complaint--I mean, I think I've heard it from every point of the 11th-dimensional political compass by now. "Why won't FB tell the TRUTH about the SOROS VACCINE?!?!" The people who believe FB-spread (yet somehow simultaneously FB-suppressed) conspiracy stories are not the kind of people who make sustained, intelligent complaints to their congressperson about the need for sensible, boring regulation, whether that be grandma worrying over the migrant caravan, or your cousin the stalinist.
This isn't a story primarily about the climate. It turns out the climate doesn't really care what we say about it, it's going to do what it's going to do, and reasonable projections of what that means aren't hard to find, and they are absolutely chilling in an existential way (if you can swallow back the bile and navigate past the bots well enough, Twitter still has many climate scientists that aren't being suppressed, sharing their work in a way that'll ruin your day if you read their threads). This is the story of an organization protecting itself from the mildest possible criticism, because it has the power to do so with no consequences, because your grandma and your cousin (and my mom) have given it an almost unlimited amount of sellable insight into their lives, and all it has to do to survive is envelop them in a fog of grouchy engagement.
posted by mittens at 6:20 AM on April 14 [5 favorites]
This isn't a story primarily about the climate. It turns out the climate doesn't really care what we say about it, it's going to do what it's going to do, and reasonable projections of what that means aren't hard to find, and they are absolutely chilling in an existential way (if you can swallow back the bile and navigate past the bots well enough, Twitter still has many climate scientists that aren't being suppressed, sharing their work in a way that'll ruin your day if you read their threads). This is the story of an organization protecting itself from the mildest possible criticism, because it has the power to do so with no consequences, because your grandma and your cousin (and my mom) have given it an almost unlimited amount of sellable insight into their lives, and all it has to do to survive is envelop them in a fog of grouchy engagement.
posted by mittens at 6:20 AM on April 14 [5 favorites]
When I first read the post title, "Apparently, Meta deems climate change too controversial for discussion" and then quickly scanned the the article title, "How Meta Nuked A Climate Story, And What It Means For Democracy," I was aghast because honestly, MetaFilter just doesn't have the power to threaten democracy. ... I was kind of slow on the uptake, is what I'm saying. Thanks for the post, MrVisible!
posted by Bella Donna at 7:25 AM on April 14 [1 favorite]
posted by Bella Donna at 7:25 AM on April 14 [1 favorite]
Science is not a popularity contest
*laughcries in writing grant proposals and CVs*
"Facebook is the DEEP STATE"
MAGAs are already there. WI just passed a referendum to prevent corporations from donating to election infrastructure (NOT campaigns, just the actual failing structure of physically being able to vote) based on Republican messaging “KEEP ZUCKERBUCK$ OUT OF ELECTIONS!” Zuckerbuck$ is their actual word.
Electric cars are a dead-end and our only hope is re-designing cities around mass transit and bicycles.
Or, even better, forcing companies into a massive WFH movement instead of shrugging as they dig their heels in and whine and scream about “back to the office!”. A large chunk of transit time is due to commuting and that could be cut out almost literally overnight in millions of jobs whose “but face to face meetings!” does not outweigh the cost of climate change.
posted by brook horse at 7:33 AM on April 14 [7 favorites]
*laughcries in writing grant proposals and CVs*
"Facebook is the DEEP STATE"
MAGAs are already there. WI just passed a referendum to prevent corporations from donating to election infrastructure (NOT campaigns, just the actual failing structure of physically being able to vote) based on Republican messaging “KEEP ZUCKERBUCK$ OUT OF ELECTIONS!” Zuckerbuck$ is their actual word.
Electric cars are a dead-end and our only hope is re-designing cities around mass transit and bicycles.
Or, even better, forcing companies into a massive WFH movement instead of shrugging as they dig their heels in and whine and scream about “back to the office!”. A large chunk of transit time is due to commuting and that could be cut out almost literally overnight in millions of jobs whose “but face to face meetings!” does not outweigh the cost of climate change.
posted by brook horse at 7:33 AM on April 14 [7 favorites]
There are a handful of factors that go into something like this:
posted by majick at 8:08 AM on April 14 [5 favorites]
- Low information voters decide elections. Largely in favor of large, powerful entities.
- The bad PR of suppressing information is less damaging—in the long run—than the bad PR of the truth. At least to a large, powerful entity.
- Suppressing information in this way (preventing links from being added to a post or comment through auto-moderation) is kind of invisible to low-information voters.
- Climate concerns are, for low information voters, mostly not a hot-button issue in and of themselves; only the secondary effect of policy based on climate concerns are: "I did that!" stickers.
posted by majick at 8:08 AM on April 14 [5 favorites]
Meta acknowledged it made a mistake and ultimately fixed it, albeit in a frustratingly opaque way that left content creators with a lot of questions.
The consensus (on BlueSky anyway) seems to be that this was some kind of internal error on Meta's part rather than censorship, i.e, the kind of error that gets people locked out of their accounts for weeks because the average person has no way to address the problem.
The difference here was that because it happened to a reporter, they got the kind of publicity that the average person wouldn't and so it was fixed. The problem is that Meta and similar companies rely almost exclusively on automation and are almost completely opaque. They should be required to have adequate support mechanisms.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 8:25 AM on April 14 [4 favorites]
The consensus (on BlueSky anyway) seems to be that this was some kind of internal error on Meta's part rather than censorship, i.e, the kind of error that gets people locked out of their accounts for weeks because the average person has no way to address the problem.
The difference here was that because it happened to a reporter, they got the kind of publicity that the average person wouldn't and so it was fixed. The problem is that Meta and similar companies rely almost exclusively on automation and are almost completely opaque. They should be required to have adequate support mechanisms.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 8:25 AM on April 14 [4 favorites]
From TFA:
If journalists, activists and democratic institutions stand to lose from Meta’s policy to limit political content, who stands to gain?
“I think ultimately it benefits the fossil fuel industry, for one,” says climate justice campaigner Wawa Gatheru, founder of the non-profit Black Girl Environmentalist. “For example, if more people don't know about the fact that the build-out of LNG exports [in the US] is currently the single largest [fossil fuel] expansion in the world, that benefits the industry and the corporations that are attempting to build them.”
This is a key bit. The fossil companies are rich and scared, so they keep spending and influencing to maintain their extraction industries.
posted by doctornemo at 9:01 AM on April 14 [7 favorites]
If journalists, activists and democratic institutions stand to lose from Meta’s policy to limit political content, who stands to gain?
“I think ultimately it benefits the fossil fuel industry, for one,” says climate justice campaigner Wawa Gatheru, founder of the non-profit Black Girl Environmentalist. “For example, if more people don't know about the fact that the build-out of LNG exports [in the US] is currently the single largest [fossil fuel] expansion in the world, that benefits the industry and the corporations that are attempting to build them.”
This is a key bit. The fossil companies are rich and scared, so they keep spending and influencing to maintain their extraction industries.
posted by doctornemo at 9:01 AM on April 14 [7 favorites]
No shade on anyone who has explained Facebook in this thread but how do you argue that Facebook doesn't post news? People tend to think of social media as a collection of posts by people who post stuff and link to stuff just as they themselves do. That's not what it is. Facebook, in this example, has a big bucket of user posts and links, and commercial posts and links, and Facebook is the ultimate decider of what you see. Whatever settings ordinary people have are mostly window dressing and have little or nothing to do with what is fed. Meta isn't posting news like, say, The City Star Ledger website, but it is posting news.
[Edits for crashing]
posted by Lesser Shrew at 9:40 AM on April 14 [1 favorite]
[Edits for crashing]
posted by Lesser Shrew at 9:40 AM on April 14 [1 favorite]
internal error on Meta's part rather than censorship, i.e, the kind of error that gets people locked out of their accounts for weeks because the average person has no way to address the problem.
While I don't buy that for a second, given that such "errors" have been a problem with their service for, what, a decade? I'd really call it more 'failure by design' than 'internal error' at this point.
posted by majick at 10:37 AM on April 14 [1 favorite]
While I don't buy that for a second, given that such "errors" have been a problem with their service for, what, a decade? I'd really call it more 'failure by design' than 'internal error' at this point.
posted by majick at 10:37 AM on April 14 [1 favorite]
So, as much as I am likely to believe that FB/Meta suck, there is also an explanation for this that does not rely on quite so much nefariousness, and in fact relies on poorly-maintained systems and the unbelievable difficulty of filtering out garbage on the internet.
Rahaeli is well-known on Twitter and Bluesky; she manages a small social media site called Dreamwidth, and she spent a decade at LJ before she left to start DW. She knows a lot about social media security and the difficulty of fighting automated bad behavior.
This is her big thread on the Meta/Reflector story.
Her analysis is supported by Pwnallthethings, who is also a cyber-security expert.
And here is a follow-up where Rahaeli confirms that the Reflector's site was full of really old junk plugins and whatnot, that would have been likely to trigger automated blocks by any number of websites. Regardless of the content.
So I'm on the fence: I think FB sucks. But I also know from following and reading a fair number of cyber-security folks that nearly every site has a ton of old code that is ripe for abuse, and filtering that out can be really difficult. So I think it's entirely possible that FB caught what it thought was malware on the site, and fucked up the response when it realized that it wasn't malware, and wasn't able to get their technical solutions out in front of the bad press they were getting.
Hanlon's Razor. (But also my corollary: sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.)
posted by suelac at 10:54 AM on April 14 [13 favorites]
Rahaeli is well-known on Twitter and Bluesky; she manages a small social media site called Dreamwidth, and she spent a decade at LJ before she left to start DW. She knows a lot about social media security and the difficulty of fighting automated bad behavior.
This is her big thread on the Meta/Reflector story.
Her analysis is supported by Pwnallthethings, who is also a cyber-security expert.
And here is a follow-up where Rahaeli confirms that the Reflector's site was full of really old junk plugins and whatnot, that would have been likely to trigger automated blocks by any number of websites. Regardless of the content.
So I'm on the fence: I think FB sucks. But I also know from following and reading a fair number of cyber-security folks that nearly every site has a ton of old code that is ripe for abuse, and filtering that out can be really difficult. So I think it's entirely possible that FB caught what it thought was malware on the site, and fucked up the response when it realized that it wasn't malware, and wasn't able to get their technical solutions out in front of the bad press they were getting.
Hanlon's Razor. (But also my corollary: sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.)
posted by suelac at 10:54 AM on April 14 [13 favorites]
> Please note that this wasn't just Meta blocking a story on climate change, it was Meta blocking a story about their apparent systematic suppression of stories about climate change.
I used to at least partially believe that this kind of thing was "just a mistake" and "automated systems somehow getting it wrong" but so many documented instances have been uncovered where these large tech companies were doing this type of thing very, very purposefully, that has now become my default explanation for this type of situation.
I can be convinced it was "just a mistake" but they have to lay out all the evidence in detail.
Until that definitive proof-of-innocence arrives (I'll be here waiting...), it is clearly a deliberate and malevolent act.
posted by flug at 12:25 PM on April 14 [1 favorite]
I used to at least partially believe that this kind of thing was "just a mistake" and "automated systems somehow getting it wrong" but so many documented instances have been uncovered where these large tech companies were doing this type of thing very, very purposefully, that has now become my default explanation for this type of situation.
I can be convinced it was "just a mistake" but they have to lay out all the evidence in detail.
Until that definitive proof-of-innocence arrives (I'll be here waiting...), it is clearly a deliberate and malevolent act.
posted by flug at 12:25 PM on April 14 [1 favorite]
Also I will just mention: the Right wins on all sorts of issues like this by "playing the refs". They continually harp on the "fact" that the media, social media, etc etc etc, are "biased against the Right," "censor Conservative opinion," have a "Liberal bias," and all that.
That is complete bullshit of course but as a tactic it is very effective. That is, for example, why a publisher like Meta tends to simply squelch all climate change discussion in an "even-handed" way rather than simply doing the obvious and squelching the small but very vocal minority of right-wing nutters and industry shills.
Point is, we kind of cede the field of "playing the ref" to the right-wing nutters and we shouldn't.
Meta should feel the holy fires of hell roasting them for stuff like this. We should complain, and hard. Write about it, talk about it, post about it, complain about it, write your member of Congress, disinvest in their company, delete your account - all that and more.
That is the only thing that will change their behavior. They have to feel the heat.
posted by flug at 12:32 PM on April 14 [5 favorites]
That is complete bullshit of course but as a tactic it is very effective. That is, for example, why a publisher like Meta tends to simply squelch all climate change discussion in an "even-handed" way rather than simply doing the obvious and squelching the small but very vocal minority of right-wing nutters and industry shills.
Point is, we kind of cede the field of "playing the ref" to the right-wing nutters and we shouldn't.
Meta should feel the holy fires of hell roasting them for stuff like this. We should complain, and hard. Write about it, talk about it, post about it, complain about it, write your member of Congress, disinvest in their company, delete your account - all that and more.
That is the only thing that will change their behavior. They have to feel the heat.
posted by flug at 12:32 PM on April 14 [5 favorites]
According to the latest data, the country with the most Facebook users is India with over 385.65 million active users, followed by the US (188.6 million), Indonesia (136.35 million), Brazil (111.75 million), and Mexico (94.8 million).
See more.
The fact that it's a US company helps, but bear in mind that the chance of influencing Meta into changing policies based on a few upset people is pretty low.
posted by warriorqueen at 12:51 PM on April 14 [1 favorite]
See more.
The fact that it's a US company helps, but bear in mind that the chance of influencing Meta into changing policies based on a few upset people is pretty low.
posted by warriorqueen at 12:51 PM on April 14 [1 favorite]
To test theory that that the Reflector’s domain had some kind of security issue, a Brooklyn-based journalist, Marisa Kabas, asked for permission to republish the text of that column on her own website.
But sure enough, when Kabas posted her own link to the column on Threads, Meta flagged it as malicious content and took it down. Then Meta nuked everything her website had ever published on its platforms, a block that lasted at least two hours, Kabas told CNN.
This does not sound like security on the Reflector website was the main problem for FB.
posted by rocinante at 2:59 PM on April 14 [12 favorites]
But sure enough, when Kabas posted her own link to the column on Threads, Meta flagged it as malicious content and took it down. Then Meta nuked everything her website had ever published on its platforms, a block that lasted at least two hours, Kabas told CNN.
This does not sound like security on the Reflector website was the main problem for FB.
posted by rocinante at 2:59 PM on April 14 [12 favorites]
And here is a follow-up where Rahaeli confirms that the Reflector's site was full of really old junk plugins and whatnot, that would have been likely to trigger automated blocks by any number of websites. Regardless of the content.
Okay, I looked at this.
Now, I'm in the business of the security of fabulously large high traffic websites, so I have some biases that are coming into play here, but... yeah, no. No. Just, no.
If "the target site has vulnerabilities" was the criterion for auto-blocking, it would be essentially impossible to post links to Facebook. There is a crown regal shitpot of vulnerable code running out there, behind a metric assload of vulnerable front ends, on a galactic gob of vulnerable platforms. No. Hell no.
Throwing an automated vulnerability scanner at posted linked endpoints is (A) a dick move, and (B) going to ring false positives like the unanswered phone at the Comcast complaints desk. Hooking that up in an automated way to an auto-moderator is not "sufficiently advanced incompetence," it's "breaking your service beyond usability."
posted by majick at 3:00 PM on April 14 [12 favorites]
Okay, I looked at this.
Now, I'm in the business of the security of fabulously large high traffic websites, so I have some biases that are coming into play here, but... yeah, no. No. Just, no.
If "the target site has vulnerabilities" was the criterion for auto-blocking, it would be essentially impossible to post links to Facebook. There is a crown regal shitpot of vulnerable code running out there, behind a metric assload of vulnerable front ends, on a galactic gob of vulnerable platforms. No. Hell no.
Throwing an automated vulnerability scanner at posted linked endpoints is (A) a dick move, and (B) going to ring false positives like the unanswered phone at the Comcast complaints desk. Hooking that up in an automated way to an auto-moderator is not "sufficiently advanced incompetence," it's "breaking your service beyond usability."
posted by majick at 3:00 PM on April 14 [12 favorites]
Which suggests that what it really is is "plausible deniability via selective enforcement."
posted by biogeo at 4:05 PM on April 14 [7 favorites]
posted by biogeo at 4:05 PM on April 14 [7 favorites]
And here is a follow-up where Rahaeli confirms that the Reflector's site was full of really old junk plugins and whatnot, that would have been likely to trigger automated blocks by any number of websites. Regardless of the content.I’m with majick in finding this unconvincing: it’s certainly possible that there’s some wild security vulnerabilities on that site but Rahaeli didn’t describe anything verifiable, let alone provide any evidence that Facebook automatically blocks sites with that vulnerability. Regardless of your personal assessment of their credibility, this kind of stuff is all about showing your work: people make mistakes, the are limits to what you can tell from a server you don’t have access to (many vulnerabilities have preconditions which you can’t confirm without actually trying to exploit it, which is unethical if not illegal), and it’s definitely out of community norms not to simply say what has you concerned in cases where doing so doesn’t put other people at risk.
It’s also odd that Meta would not take such an easy out from a PR mess: “to protect the safety of our users, we block infected sites. Last year we blocked … sites. Once their site is safe, we’ll welcome them back to our community…”
Among other things, I’d want to see an explanation for why Marisa Kabas’ site was blocked after posting it. There is at least one plausible scenario for that, where the copied content included some kind of malware-inserted signature or link, but in such cases again it would be very easy for someone to say that, either in a Meta PR response or when “confirming” speculation.
posted by adamsc at 6:52 PM on April 14 [4 favorites]
« Older The Interdimensional Jukebox | We'll Have To Share Newer »
Funny, I first heard about it on Mastodon.
posted by JHarris at 5:53 PM on April 13 [20 favorites]