What's the underlying problem? How are we dealing with it? As someone who does not and has never had a facebook account, I have very little context to understand what you are talking about.
> CDC encourages laboratories to consider adoption of a multiplexed method that can facilitate detection and differentiation of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses
Used to claim that many positive test results were not covid cases, but were flu cases.
This _isn’t_ the case — the CDC is now recommending tests that can check for multiple infections rather than just one.
But the wording does leave it open to being a possibility, on first reading that may even be a sensible assumption.
So the problem is complicated —
1) this is an official and authoritative source posting wording that’s explaining what’s changing with ambiguity about what the status quo is.
2) Amid that ambiguity, people are posting information that is not true, using this as a source.
3) Facebook’s response is the “Fake News” label, when while the source has its faults it is not Fake or News, it’s just having meaning attributed to it that’s not there
I would also be unsurprised to learn that this is something like an original conspiracy post being correctly flagged as fake news and subsequent posts with the same URLs either being auto-tagged or suggested as the same to a reviewer who is almost certainly overworked and underpaid.
All of the big tech companies like to rely on automation to avoid hiring more people and it's really easy to imagine this repurposing infrastructure which was originally built to quickly block things like spam or malware links being shared where the presence of a particular URL does in fact mean the post is highly similar.
If labs want they can still test them separately.
Sure, you can use this fact to make a misleading claim. But literally any piece of information can be used in a harmful manner. I guess we need someone to round off the points on all of our scissors so we can't hurt ourselves?
https://i.imgur.com/8TEAXQW.png
I think another commenter's idea is reasonable - people are flagging false claims like this, and the link is being punished by association
Maybe someone, somewhere used this link to argue something misleading, but as I said before, you can do that with any fact.
I see a picture of a link with a "false information" notice. What are you seeing that I am not that causes you to interpret all of this ostensibly harmful missing context? Sure, you can use this fact to make a misleading claim. But literally any piece of information can be used in a harmful manner.
That is the gist of the problem.
It's not quite entirely true, as taking a quote from an astronaut about how the ground on the moon didn't feel like anything on earth isn't going to convince anyone that the moon is made of green cheese who didn't think that anyway, but that is the general problem.
Disinformation is a hell of a drug.
Huge chunks of the American public are refusing to take a vaccine that could end the pandemic and save tens-to-hundreds of thousands of lives because people are lying to them on forums like Facebook (also right here on HN) and telling them it's dangerous.
Is that the standard to determine whether to censor the speech?