Hacker News Reader

> 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.

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. I guess we need someone to round off the points on all of our scissors so we can't hurt ourselves?

This is the post I was referring to - it was this image (no text) and a link to the above article

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

Yes, I know what you're talking about, but it has nothing to do with the post. Someone posted a link to a CDC page on Facebook, and Facebook flagged it as misinformation.

Maybe someone, somewhere used this link to argue something misleading, but as I said before, you can do that with any fact.

Oh. I'm not defending labelling the link as fake news. And my post wasn't an argument in favour of this being ok. Just adding an example for the poster and any other readers who haven't seen the "context problem" first hand

> timr 8 hours ago | parent [–] | on: Facebook is now claiming official CDC.gov links ar...

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.

I am for one didn't knew until this week that current COVID PCR tests will test also positive for the flu.

... they won't, that desinformation is exactly the point of the comment you are replying to.

Are you sure about that? Can you explain to me what the wording from the CDC announcement means?

If I understand correctly it means that the old tests tested only for covid and the new ones test for covid and influenza at the same time. This makes them more efficient because you won't have to test twice to detect each virus separately.

That's not why they are decommissioning this test though. There's no reason that both this test, and a covid/influenza test cannot coexist. CDC is explicitly decommissioning this test, and it's not clear why in their announcement. I'm just trying to gain more context here. It's pretty easy to see how this could imply that the current PCR test could have issues.

It's encouraged to use test that can detect both to save both time and resources. It's literally in the announcement.

If labs want they can still test them separately.

They could coexist in a world with unlimited time and resources. We don't live in that world.

If you go into the wayback machine WHO says in plain wording that the PCR false positive rate was higher than desired: https://web.archive.org/web/20210120083427/https://www.who.i...

"Higher than desired" is a given. Particularly the early WHO tests had accuracy and sensitivity problems.

The consequences of this is not neutral because false positives were treated for Covid. No one knows what the consequences of that medical misapplication of treatment was.

Which wording? The one quoted above? That means "if you are switching tests anyways, consider using one that does multiple things so you don't waste (somewhat) scarce and expensive testing capacity on double-testing"

...and therein lies the problem.