W.H.O. meets with Silicon Valley Tech Giants to Discuss Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) and “Misinformation”

[Wally]

Facebook, Amazon, Google and more met with WHO to figure out how to stop coronavirus misinformation
...
The meeting was organized by WHO and hosted at Facebook’s Menlo Park campus....

Other companies at the meeting, according to two people familiar with the matter, included representatives from Facebook, Amazon, Twilio, Dropbox, Alphabet’s Google, Verizon, Salesforce, Twitter and YouTube. Private companies including Airbnb, Kinsa and Mapbox also attended. Apple, Lyftand Uber were invited but did not attend, the people said.

The major topic of discussion was how the companies are working to tamp down the spread of misinformation. WHO’s Andy Pattison, who flew to Silicon Valley for the event, said the “tone is changing,” as Big Tech is now starting to step up to combat fake news about the coronavirus. Pattison said he offered at the meeting to help the companies fact check information they or their users post, rather than relying on third parties....”

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/14/fac...h-who-to-talk-coronavirus-misinformation.html

 

[Hip]

I think this issue of fake news and misinformation is hard to combat.

I guess it is only since the advent of the Internet and ubiquitous computers, tablets and smartphones that we have a society in which anyone can publish their words and opinions in written form. Someone can do zero research on a subject, but still put their views online with almost no effort required.

Prior to that, most of the information we read or heard through the media was provided by professional journalists, who have been trained to fact check, and whose work has to pass scrutiny of the editor before it is published.

The trouble with giving the average individual the ability to publish his or her thoughts and views is that the majority of people are not particularly meticulous and diligent when it comes to making sure what they say is fact checked. When you are having a drink with your mates in the bar, it's fine to throw out unchecked opinion, as it's usually only for fun and having a laugh, and it does not go any further than your small social circle.

But when you put the same unchecked statements online, they can be read by millions, and so if they are wrong, can misinform millions.

 

[Wally]

@Hip - In the U.S. as in a number of other countries, individual rights must be balanced/reviewed in the context of whether the attempt to police misinformation could turn into the suppression/censorship of information and the denial of the right of Freedom of Speech.

This article adds some support to your concerns with social media being able to widely and rapidly spread misinformation, but it also addresses the flip side of the argument that removal of information can be falsely labeled as “misinformation” because the information does not serve an individual or group of individuals political, moral, religious or financial beliefs/agenda.

See, https://www.theguardian.com/media/2...kdown-on-fake-news-raises-censorship-concerns
“...Extending existing laws and definitions into the online sphere can be difficult. And now authoritarian regimes can point to democracies taking these steps.

Alemanno said a big part of the problem was the social media platforms’ business model. “The push has to come from the platforms, but the way they make their money – increasing reader engagement, and monetising their data – means they have no incentive to play the role of arbiters of truth,” he said.
“That may change, eventually. But rather than top-down, prescriptive laws, we should be thinking about changing the environment in which readers act, and empowering them: displaying related, fact-checked articles next to disputed stories; apps allowing users to check for veracity; certification systems.”

For Naudert, the platforms are slowly “shifting their thinking”, realising that a pay-per-click model may not be the best guarantee of their long-term success. “What’s needed most,” she said, “is more transparency, all round. This is a societal, media and technological problem. Pointing the finger at just one actor won’t help.”

I posted a Youtube video yesterday from Professor Iwata an infectious disease specialist from Kobe University Hospital in Japan regarding his observations and concerns about how Japanese health authorities were handling the quarantine of passengers on the Diamond Princess cruise ship docked in Japan. Professor Iwata had asked that his video be widely shared because he was very concerned with public safety and he felt his concerns were being suppressed by individuals within the Japanese government.

Before sharing the video, I did some fact checking to determine if the person speaking on the video was Professor Iwata and if other news outlets were discussing this video with their audience. This video may or may not contain misinformation, but I appreciated the fact that this professional decided to speak outside formal channels, so I and other members of the public could be aware of the COVID-19 virus situation in Japan. It gave me the opportunity to try to investigate the truth of his allegations before his video was removed (or perhaps censored) from Youtube. See, https://forums.phoenixrising.me/threads/japanese-infectious-disease-specialist-visits-coronavirus-quarantined-cruise-ship-and-is-shocked-by-lack-of-basic-quarantine-protocols.79203/#post-2259437

 

[Hip]

individual rights must be balanced/reviewed in the context of whether the attempt to police misinformation could turn into the suppression/censorship of information and the denial of the right of Freedom of Speech.

Sure, I agree, and this I think is one of the reasons that it's hard to find good solutions for the problem of fake news and misinformation. We want to remove fake news, but it would be all too easy for the policing of fake news to turn into censorship.

The problem of fake news arises because of the advent of social media, where we have effectively allowed anyone with a computer or smartphone to easily publish their views on any subject, even though they have no training in journalism, and usually show little interest in the painstaking task of fact checking.

 

[Snow Leopard]

The solution is to train the populace to no longer be gullible idiots who believe everything they see on the internet.

 

[Rufous McKinney]

The solution is to train the populace to no longer be gullible idiots who believe everything they see on the internet

People should learn how to think and discern....critical thinking and all that.

My husband just read me something...holding his phone. Who said that? What is the source of that info was my first question...he just- believed it at face value.

Well, natural selection is at work still.

 

[Wally]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/science...formation-fake-news-Harmfully-Misleading.html

Twitter is testing a new feature to combat misinformation and fake news on its platform ahead of the 2020 presidential election.

Orange and red badges would appear underneath posts shared by politicians and public figures that are deemed 'Harmfully Misleading', according to NBC.

Fact-checkers and journalists verified on Twitter will be tasked with the responsibility of providing the correct information, which will be placed below the badge.

Twitter is also allowing users to participate in community reports, which allows the public to determine if the post with a badge is likely or unlikely harmfully misleading. . . .

However, the roll out of the new badges seems to hit before the potential candidates start revenging. . .

Twitter confirmed the leaked demo to NBC and said it could roll out as a live feature on March 5th.

'We're exploring a number of ways to address misinformation and provide more context for tweets on Twitter,' a Twitter spokesperson said. 'Misinformation is a critical issue and we will be testing many different ways to address it.'

.


It is interesting that this article, which primarily discusses “misinformation” related to political matters, appeared under the “Science” section of the paper. If you review the sample “tweets” cut and pasted from the article, you will see that a tweet about the coronavirus is included along with a tweet about gun control from U.S. Democratic Presidential Candidate Senator Bernie Sanders.

It will also be interesting to see how Twitter will determine which “journalists” and “community members” will be given the opportunity to “fact-check” tweets. This article about the accuracy/credibility of information on Wikipedia might be worth reading to understand why Twitter’s use of a “community” of fact-checkers may not solve the issue of “misinformation”, but could skew information to fit the agenda of who has the most power to control the “community”. See, https://www.foxbusiness.com/features/just-how-accurate-is-wikipedia

Could the push by organizations like the W.H..O. to get the Tech Giants on board to “tamp down” misinformation about the coronavirus have a much bigger agenda? Could this “scary” new virus have opened a great public health opportunity to control the conversation about the “V” word? This paper came out lthis week from the University of Pennsylvania re “vaccine misinformation and social media”.. See, https://www.foxbusiness.com/features/just-how-accurate-is-wikipedia

People who rely on social media for information were more likely to be misinformed about vaccines than those who rely on traditional media, according to a study of vaccine knowledge and media use by researchers at the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania.

The study, based on nationally representative surveys of nearly 2,500 U.S. adults, found that up to 20% of respondents were at least somewhat misinformed about vaccines. Such a high level of misinformation is "worrying" because misinformation undermines vaccination rates, and high vaccination rates are required to maintain community immunity, the researchers said. . . .

The researchers said this study suggests that "increasing the sheer amount of pro-vaccination content in media of all types may be of value over the longer term." They said the findings also underscore the importance of decisions by Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Pinterest to reduce or block access to anti-vaccine misinformation.

- Note - bolding and underlining of the last sentence does not appear in the article, added for the purpose of directing the reader of this post back to the first post re the W.H.O.meeting with Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, etc...

 

[Rufous McKinney]

Could the push by organizations like the W.H..O. to get the Tech Giants on board to “tamp down” misinformation about the coronavirus have a much bigger agenda? Could this “scary” new virus have opened a great public health opportunity to control the conversation about the “V” word? This paper came out lthis week from the University of Pennsylvania re “vaccine misinformation and social media”.. See, https://www.foxbusiness.com/features/just-how-accurate-is-wikipedia

It could very well be...the conversation over Vaccination is the most stymied and suppressed on the planet.

 

[Wally]

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/02/200225164213.htm

Using social media to understand the vaccine debate in China

Vaccine hesitancy is a top challenge for public health officials

Date:​

February 25, 2020​

Source:​

George Washington University​

Summary:​

Vaccine acceptance is a crucial public health issue, which has been exacerbated by the use of social media to spread content expressing vaccine hesitancy. Studies have shown that social media can provide new information regarding the dynamics of vaccine communication online, potentially affecting real-world vaccine behaviors.​

​

A team of United States-based researchers observed an example of this in 2018 related to the Changchun Changsheng Biotechnology vaccine incident in China.

The researchers found:

• Expressions of distrust in government pertaining to vaccines increased significantly during and immediately after the incident.
• Self-reports of vaccination changed from positive endorsements of vaccination to concerns about vaccine harms.
• Expressed support for vaccine acceptance in China may be decreasing.

"The World Health Organization identified vaccine hesitancy as one of their top 10 challenges of 2019. When combined with virulent illnesses, such as COVID-19 or influenza, small changes in vaccination rates could spell the difference between smaller, contained outbreaks and a worldwide pandemic. Governments and public health agencies around the world need to prioritize health communication efforts. Even the safest and most effective vaccine is useless if people refuse to take it, said David Broniatowski, associate professor of engineering management and systems engineering at the George Washington University.

The new study, "Chinese Social Media Suggest Decreased Vaccine Acceptance in China: An Observational Study on Weibo Following the 2018 Changchun Changsheng Vaccine Incident," highlights the dangers of public perception of even a single vaccine safety incident, according to the researchers.

The team also believes the possible emergence of vaccine opposition in China is a potential cause for concern, especially considering the density of several large Chinese population centers.

2018 VACCINE INCIDENT IN CHINA

In July 2018, Chinese government inspectors determined that Changchun Changsheng Biotechnology, a prominent manufacturer of vaccines in China, had violated national regulations and standards when producing 250,000 rabies vaccine doses. The violation might have undermined the effectiveness of the involved vaccines. News began slowly escalating on Chinese social media platforms not long after the incident.

See, Chinese social media suggest decreased vaccine acceptance in China: An observational study on Weibo following the 2018 Changchun Changsheng vaccine incident. Vaccine, 2020; DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2020.02.027

Note - On Dec 1, 2019 a new vaccine law became effective in China. http://www.ecns.cn/news/2019-06-26/detail-ifzkmhnc3009144.shtml and http://www.ecns.cn/news/2019-06-26/detail-ifzkmhnc3008790.shtml

Here is an article that provides some background information on how safety problems in China with vaccines led to the enactment of this new vaccine law. http://www.sixthtone.com/news/1005035/how-a-new-law-turned-chinas-vaccine-industry-upside-down

 

[Wally]

Interesting . . apparently Facebook employees and Facebook’s Artificial Intelligence program is capable of being the “arbiter of truth” for information about vaccines but not for political ads. I wonder why?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/science...le-fact-checking-political-ads-wanted-to.html

Facebook's Sheryl Sandberg claims the platform 'isn't capable' of fact-checking political ads

• Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg said it's not able to fact-checking political ads
• Sandberg's comments mark a shift in narrative from previous statements
• Facebook has claimed that fact-checking political ads violates free speech

. . .Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg claims that the platform simply isn't capable of fact-checking the ads even if they wanted to.

'If you look at political ads and fact-checking political ads,' she said during the interview.
'That's really not something anyone is capable of doing. And we don't think we can make ourselves the arbiter of the truth.'

The claim marks a shift in the narrative from Facebook which previously took a stance against fact-checking political ads by citing ideals about censorship.

In September the platform gave false claims that appear in paid political ads an exemption from its misinformation policies saying that 'newsworthiness' took precedent. . . .
'Our policy is we do not fact check politicians’ speech, and the reason for that is that we believe that in a democracy it is important that people can see for themselves what politicians are saying,' Zuckerberg said in the hearings.

Facebook has said it will refrain from removing claims in political ads, even those that are found to be false, if they 'believe the public interest in seeing it outweighs the risk of harm.' . . .
The platform is also engaged in a holsitic effort to combat other misinformation on its platform using a mix of human moderators and artificial intelligence designed to identify and flag propaganda before it spreads.

Note - I added the bolding to last sentence of the quoted article above for reference to the link below regarding information provided by a Google Employee Whistleblower and manipulation of the Google Search Engine to control content that comes up on a search using their platform.

Google Whistleblower - Zach Vorhies
(The video is long, but censorship discussion at minute marker 38:30 to the end of video ties into the “misinformation” topic re vaccines).

 

[Wally]

Apparently, Vitamin C information shared via social media platforms is now on the novel coronavirus “hit list” of topics that are being censored from the public.

If you want to read about what is happening on-line re Vitamin C before the censorship police 👮‍♂️👨🏻‍💻 sweep 🧹 through the.Internet and dispose 📚📰💽🎞🚽✂️🔥 of information that may be of interest to you, then look here https://www.brighteon.com/646ad120-775a-4464-a0d1-609be7a0a9dc and here https://forums.phoenixrising.me/threads/antivirals-effective-against-coronavirus.79014/ at Reply No. 82.

For recent discussions related to Vitamin C and the novel coronavirus then look at the thread linked above and Reply Nos. 13, 34, 35, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44, 45, 52, 82, 83, 86, 88, 91 111 and 115

For entertainment purposes only - I bring you a clip from a classic Indiana Jones movie.

 

[Wally]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/science...-content-not-shared-health-organizations.html

Instagram is removing coronavirus-related content not shared by health organizations in order to stop false claims and conspiracies from spreading

Social media giants can't stop coronavirus from infecting the globe, but they are working to end misinformation about the virus from spreading on their platforms – and Instagram is the latest newcomer to this fight.

The Facebook-owned app is now removing coronavirus-related content and accounts from recommendations and 'Explore' unless posted by or belonging to credible health organizations.

Users who search for information related to the outbreak will be presented with an educational message connecting them to resources from the World Health Organization and local health ministries.

The move is to stop false claims and conspiracy theories that have been flagged by authorities from causing harm to the public during the pandemic. . . .

'We will also start to downrank content in feed and Stories that has been rated false by third-party-fact checkers,' the photo-sharing platform added.

The move comes a week after Facebook's CEO Mark Zuckerberg held a phone press conference from the comfort of his home Wednesday to announce the firm's new 'Coronavirus Information Center.'

The hub will appear at the top of users' Feeds with authoritative information from organisations such as the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the CDC. . . .

'The top priority for us has been making sure people can get access to good trustworthy information about the outbreak from reliable sources,' Zuckerberg said during the call. . . ,

Although working from home at the moment, the firm has a full team of moderators who are souring the site for misleading posts related to the virus- and they have algorithms to help elevate the burden.

The CEO also revisited yesterday's news about a bug in its anti-spam system that was blocking the publication of links to legitimate news stories about the coronavirus.

Facebook users were complaining earlier last week that their attempts to share information and articles about the virus was being blocked by the social media giant.

'Legitimate links were being marked as spam, the issues have been fixed and articles have been reposted,' Zuckerberg explained.

'A lot of people are wondering if it is connected to the shift of our content moderators working from home, it is not.'

'We have a completely separate system on spam.'

'A vast majority, about 98 percent, of spam content is taken down by AI systems.'

'I do think we will make false positives when taking down some content that is no supposed to be taken down.'

 

[Wally]

A recent headline that seemed to grow a pair of wings, both through regular news channels and on social media platforms, related to topic of the drug - hydroxychlorinquine and the ownership interest in the companies that manufacturer this drug. It was represented that the President of the United States owns stock in these drug manufacturers. It was implied that this created a conflict of interest (a significant personal financial benefit) for this powerful and influential political figure and it could be the reason that he was so supportive of the idea that doctors try this particular drug as a possile treatment for COVID-19. Linked below is what one investigative reporter discovered about the headline and news reports that had taken flight thru the traditional airwaves and by other forms of publication (i.e. Digital Newspapers, Blogs, Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.

This investigative journalist apparently dug down just a little deeper into the circumstances that gave rise to these news reports. A good lesson to all that asking detailed questions and fact checking is an important skill to develop when passing on information even from what we believe to be reliable or authoritative sources. Also, Interesting to note that this reporter produced a movie that had been available to purchase/rent on Amazon, but the movie was removed from availability from this site soon after this interview aired.

Another attempt to censor coronavirus information, but this time done in a more indirect way? Check out the interview to see what you think about the news reports and how the long arm of news creators/distributors and powerful censors may be manipulating coronavirus (COVID-19) information or misinformation. 🤔

 

[Float]

No no no. This is otherwise known as censorship.

 

[Wally]

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/04/200414095727.htm

Students often do not question online information

Study examines students' ability to critically assess information from the Internet and from social media

Date:​

April 14, 2020​

Source:​

Johannes Gutenberg Universitaet Mainz​

Summary:​

According to a new study, students struggle to critically assess information from the Internet and are often influenced by unreliable sources. In this study, students from various disciplines such as medicine and economics took part in an online test, the Critical Online Reasoning Assessment (CORA).​

The Internet and social media are among the most frequently used sources of information today. Students, too, often prefer online information rather than traditional teaching materials provided by universities. According to a study conducted by Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (JGU) and Goethe University Frankfurt, students struggle to critically assess information from the Internet and are often influenced by unreliable sources. . . ,

Learning using the Internet offers many opportunities, but it also entails risks. It has become evident that not only "fake news" but also "fake science" with scientifically incorrect information is being spread on the Internet. This problem becomes particularly apparent in the context of controversially discussed social issues such as the current corona crisis, but it actually goes much deeper. "Having a critical attitude alone is not enough. Instead, Internet users need skills that enable them to distinguish reliable from incorrect and manipulative information. It is therefore particularly important for students to question and critically examine online information so they can build their own knowledge and expertise on reliable information," . . ,

. . . Critical online reasoning skills could therefore be promoted during the course of studies. In the United States, a significant increase in these kinds of skills was observed only a few weeks after implementing newly developed training approaches. . . .

. . ."As we know from other studies, students are certainly able to adequately judge the reliability of well-known media portals and Internet sources. We could build on this fact and foster the skills required to critically evaluate new sources and online information and to use the Internet in a reflected manner to generate warranted knowledge,". . .

 

[pamojja]

 

[Wally]

https://mobile.reuters.com/article/...&utm_source=twitter&__twitter_impression=true

Facebook to notify users who have engaged with harmful COVID-19 posts


Facebook Inc said on Thursday it would start notifying users who had engaged with false posts about COVID-19 which could cause physical harm, such as drinking bleach to cure the virus, and connect them to accurate information.

The social media giant, which also owns photo-sharing network Instagram and messaging app WhatsApp, said it has been battling to control large volumes of misinformation such as posts that say physical distancing will not curb the disease.

Facebook has taken an uncharacteristically aggressive stance on false coronavirus posts, with Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg saying hoaxes about the virus pose more of a threat to users than political falsehoods, which it generally permits. . . .

Facebook said it has taken down hundreds of thousands of false posts that could be harmful and in March displayed warnings on another 40 million dubious claims related to the virus, without removing them.

"We will also soon begin showing messages in News Feed to people who previously engaged with harmful misinformation related to COVID-19 that we've since removed, connecting them with accurate information," Zuckerberg said in a post.

The new alert is a concession to critics who have long called for Facebook to "correct the record" by telling users about posts it later removes or labels as false. The company previously resisted those proposals, arguing that drawing attention to dubious claims can inadvertently fuel their spread.

The notifications, which will start appearing in the coming weeks, will direct people to a World Health Organization list of common myths about the virus and encourage them to "help friends and family avoid false information," Facebook said.

The alerts will not inform users they are receiving the nudge because they had previously liked, reacted or commented on false posts, nor will they debunk specific claims. . . .

 

[Wally]

You may be interested in taking a look at CNN business interview with Youtube CEO, Susan Wojcicki, on 4/19/2020. (Length of video is approximately 4 minutes.)

Inside Youtube’s ‘numerous policy changes’ during the pandemic

Reliable Sources

“I never thought we’d have so many videos of hand washing.”
Youtube CEO Susan Wojcicki remarks.

She says the online video giant is focused on “raising authoritative information”, like videos from news sources and removing information that is false and “medically unsubstantiated”. . .

Youtube CEO, Susan Wojcick, states:

. . . We also talk about removing information that is problematic.

Of course anything that is medically unsubstantiated - so people say take Vitamin C, take Tumeric, like those will cure you.

Those would be examples of things that would go against our policy.

Anything that goes against World Health Organization recommendations will be a violation of our policy.

So “remove” would be part of our policy. . . .

 

[Wally]

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-n...its-supreme-court-content-moderation-n1201181

May 6, 2020
Facebook names 20; people to its ‘Supreme Court’’ for content moderation.

Facebook on Wednesday appointed 20 people from around the world to serve on what will effectively be the social media network’s “Supreme Court” for speech, issuing rulings on what kind of posts will be allowed and what should be taken down.

The list includes nine law professors, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate from Yemen, journalists, free speech advocates and a writer from the libertarian Cato Institute.

Absent, however, was any prominent expert in studying disinformation. Facebook has struggled to contain state-based manipulation efforts as well as hoaxes on subjects like false curesand gun violenc.
.. . .
The oversight board is more than two years in the making, its creation prompted by CEO Mark Zuckerberg, who said in 2018 that he wanted to create “some sort of structure, almost like a Supreme Court,” for users to get a final judgment call on what is acceptable speech and relieve the company's executives of having to decide.

 

[Wally]

If you censor information and then exclusively control the message, what could result from those actions?


1.

2.

Secondary link on BitChute to documentary “Out of Shadows” - https://www.bitchute.com/video/C9wHYkChNVB2/


Here is some alternative news resources from “Citizen Investigative Journalists” investigating the global coronavirus pandemic. Currently this “news” is still available on Youtube,


3.

4.

5.

6.
https://youtu.be/_ZcctMaHGHc