Meta acknowledged in a statement to The Washington Post that Threads is intentionally blocking the search terms and said that other terms are being blocked, but the company declined to provide a list of them. A search by The Post discovered that the words “sex,” “nude,” “gore,” “porn,” “coronavirus,” “vaccines” and “vaccination” are also among blocked words.

“The search functionality temporarily doesn’t provide results for keywords that may show potentially sensitive content,” the statement said, adding that the company will add search functionality for terms only “once we are confident in the quality of the results.”

Lucky Tran, director of science communication at Columbia University, discovered this himself when he attempted to use Threads to seek out research related to covid, something he says he does every day. “I was excited by search [on Threads],” he said. “When I typed in covid, I came up with no search results.”

Other public health workers criticized the company’s decision and said its timing was especially poor, given the current coronavirus uptick. Hospitalizations jumped nearly 16 percent in the United States last week and have been rising steadily since July, according to CDC data, though they remain less than what they were for the comparable week a year ago. Deaths are less than a quarter of what they were year to year, CDC statistics show.

(OP: Sorry, paywall, can’t find another source yet. Someone got an archive?)

  • Infynis@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m surprised people are criticizing this. Facebook was the cause of a lot of deaths the first time around. This seems like an attempt to prevent the spread of misinformation

    • Nougat@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      ::taps forehead:: Can’t be spreading misinformation if you don’t allow people to search for any information.

    • Steeve@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      This community loses all critical thinking skills as soon as the title mentions Meta or Google lol

  • hyperhopper@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    the company will add search functionality for terms only “once we are confident in the quality of the results.”

    So is meta now taking responsibility for all search results?

  • philomory@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    Man, I’d never read “Stop talking to each other and start buying things” before, that’s a hell of an article.

  • virtualbriefcase@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    (OP: Sorry, paywall, can’t find another source yet. Someone got an archive?)

    Quick tip: disabling JavaScript will get you past the paywall. Ublock Origin can disable JavaScript on a temp/permanent bases for specific websites, and I always set news websites to JavaScript off or else they’re a real pain to read.

  • sammydee@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Good. Folks trying to get info about serious topics from Threads … shouldn’t. Nor from X, nor Facebook, nor Kbin, nor Mastodon. Or tiktok or any other social media platform.

    • unwellsnail@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      There’s a lot of dis/misinformation on them, but those sites are also useful tools for organizing around issues and getting the correct information in front of people who otherwise would never see it and unfortunately there aren’t great alternatives available.

    • Rhaedas@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      A medium is as good as the content within. I wouldn’t throw everything out to try and sanitize the internet. Better to show why some data is worse than others, and how to validate that data. Start with not trusting the first thing you find, and dig deeper. That requires some time and effort, unfortunately, but there’s no easy answer to filtering facts and fiction.

    • sab@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Well, in theory social media platforms could be good. The idea is solid - you follow trustworthy people, they post valuable information, you see it.

      I think for example journa.host is an interesting experiment in making social media actually valuable - everyone there is a confirmed journalist of some sort.

      Of course, it can never be perfect. But it allows for greater variety of content: I often find myself reading just two or three newspapers regularly, and in the end social media posts are useful supplement that gives me stories I might not otherwise see elsewhere. That said, I have a pretty strictly curated Mastodon feed.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    Lucky Tran, director of science communication at Columbia University, discovered this himself when he attempted to use Threads to seek out research related to covid, something he says he does every day.

    Julia Doubleday, outreach director at the World Health Network, a nonprofit dedicated to fighting the coronavirus, said: “Social media is a lifeline for patients, literally.

    Long covid patients have died of organ failure, infections, cardiac events and more, and social media is one place they can share information.

    In July, Instagram CEO Adam Mosseri said that Threads is “not going to do anything to encourage” politics and “hard news,” and that “the goal isn’t to replace Twitter.”

    Emily Vraga, an associate professor at the University of Minnesota’s Hubbard School of Journalism and Mass Communication, said the decision to block search results for important keywords “does not situate Threads as a replacement for the Twitter that once existed.”

    Blocking certain words from search outright is also ultimately ineffective, Farid said, because users will quickly develop euphemisms and turns of phrase to get around them.


    The original article contains 894 words, the summary contains 175 words. Saved 80%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

  • 14th_cylon@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Other public health workers criticized the company’s decision and said its timing was especially poor, given the current coronavirus uptick.

    shouldn’t public health workers prefer that general public uses some real news source instead of morons on fucking social network?

    i am not even sure sure what the purpose of the article is. are they complaining about “censorship”, or is the article happy that it prevents spreading of misinformation?

    • Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      When vaccines for COVID rolled out in Ontario, the Conservatives did such a piss poor job of managing the whole thing that basically no one could figure out where to find them or when they were available. Vaccination rates remained some of the lowest in Canada while thousands of vials sat around expiring.

      During this epic shit show, the only reliable and useful source of information on where and how you could get vaccinated was a single Twitter account.

    • ominouslemon@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      The purpose of the article is reporting on something. It’s just facts, not an opinion piece