Live data from Hacker News

Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

bmj.com

11–20 of 702 posts

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#11

Turns out fact checking is hard and costs money. What's surprising is that Meta, which has capable staff and lots of money, can't seem to be bothered to do it properly.

How do you fact check someone who has more expertise than you?

How do you fact check a brand new fact?

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#12
"Fact checking" serves only to ossify the current view on any emerging discussion. Vatican "fact checkers" kept Galileo under house arrest for spreading "fake news", in a sense.

This is an unwinnable fight, the only reasonable response is to abandon the pretense that opinions are facts, and that most people can't distinguish truth from falsehood.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#13

Turns out fact checking is hard and costs money. What's surprising is that Meta, which has capable staff and lots of money, can't seem to be bothered to do it properly.

The fact check was correct in this instance though?

https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2021/11/fact-check-britis...

The conclusions in the original BMJ article make zero sense when actually scrutinized.

https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#16
post #9

We're only going to see more of these types if incidents, right? As platforms[sic] farm editing tasks out to third parties (presumably to wash their hands of any sort of liability) there will be a problem of lowest-bidder-wins which results in sub par work.

Well, as long as we tolerate it. To the extent Americans (and others) live in a democracy and can pass laws to address social harms this situation is entirely our own fault.

I'm always wary of throwing more laws at a problem. I'd much rather market forces solve it.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#18
post #9

We're only going to see more of these types if incidents, right? As platforms[sic] farm editing tasks out to third parties (presumably to wash their hands of any sort of liability) there will be a problem of lowest-bidder-wins which results in sub par work.

Well, as long as we tolerate it. To the extent Americans (and others) live in a democracy and can pass laws to address social harms this situation is entirely our own fault.

Since most "fact" checking is legally a matter of opinion it's difficult to pass laws about it without running afoul of the 1st Amendment. We already have libel laws that allow private parties to seek damages in civil court for harmful false statements.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#20
post #11

Turns out fact checking is hard and costs money. What's surprising is that Meta, which has capable staff and lots of money, can't seem to be bothered to do it properly.

How do you fact check someone who has more expertise than you? How do you fact check a brand new fact?

Expertise isn't a cure all. An example is the famous Minux/Linux fight. Tanenbaum was a distinguished professor, arguing with some guy on the internet who built a kernel. "Is a monokernel a viable way to build a first rate operating system?" Fact Check: operating system researchers widely believe that monolithic kernels are a fundamentally flawed way to build a system...

The premise that there are some specially endowed people who, by virtue of their credentials, are the only ones able to mark things as true sounds like the core tenants of a religion, not a secular society!

Post reply on HN