Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg • Hacker News Board

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#141

Post by Mountain_Skies » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 7:08 PM UTC

BlueTemplar wrote: post #91

endisneigh wrote: post #22

Is fact checking that difficult? Imagine a forum that works in the following way: 1. You post similar to here. 2. Any post that has a claim is flagged. The poster, or another commenter has 24 hours (or some time period) to link to both a page and specific text (similar to how Google highlights search text when visiting a link) that supports the claim. 3. Once a claim is attached, posters can vote and downvote how wel…

> posters can vote and downvote how well the source(s) support the claims (claims themselves are not voted/downvoted). Great idea, however I'm not sure how to make so that the first doesn't degenerate into the second, especially about sensitive issues... Hmm, maybe this is one of the cases where prediction markets can work ?

The wealthy wouldn't mind losing money in that market to prop up the rating of their favorite propaganda outlet.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#142

Post by QuarterReptile » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 7:08 PM UTC

pwned1 wrote: post #53

Facebook themselves state that their "fact checkers" are not really checking facts, their work is opinion.

"The stories and information posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#143

Post by nradov » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 7:09 PM UTC

chrisseaton wrote: post #109

GSimon wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Repeat offenders will see their distribution reduced and their ability to monetize and advertised removed." Is the problem, a satire post by a satirical publication has been notified their distribution and monetization could be penalized as a result of their satire, because a 'fact checker' decided to identify the content and treat it like a news piece.

Maybe they should mark the content more clearly as satire to avoid causing confusion?

Babylon Bee is already clearly labeled. How much more clear do you want them to be? Only a true moron could possibly be confused by such a headline.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#144

Post by xenocratus » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 7:09 PM UTC

jf22 wrote: post #103

pfortuny wrote: post #17

They seem to have forgotten the Inquisition. Really, in their view they were just trying to help people not be infected by false claims.

Can I ask if you think Facebook fact checking is as serious as the Spanish Inquisition?

Another question would be: which Spanish Inquisition - the real one, or the one that lives in popular culture?

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#145

Post by endisneigh » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 7:09 PM UTC

yosito wrote: post #122

endisneigh wrote: post #22

Is fact checking that difficult? Imagine a forum that works in the following way: 1. You post similar to here. 2. Any post that has a claim is flagged. The poster, or another commenter has 24 hours (or some time period) to link to both a page and specific text (similar to how Google highlights search text when visiting a link) that supports the claim. 3. Once a claim is attached, posters can vote and downvote how wel…

First of all, even genuine, sincere upvotes and downvotes are not a reliable way to evaluate truth. Second, even if they were, such a system could easily be gamed by parties with political interests.

The up and downvotes are not there to evaluate the truth, the cited source of the claim is. No system can be a substitute for the reader to investigate themselves. The things I'm proposing basically just help triage your effort.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#146

Post by srcreigh » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 7:09 PM UTC

After reading both articles, I am skeptical about the BMJ article.

It paints a bad picture, but it doesn't seem to answer overall picture about the vaccine. Namely, was there testing done by other people for the vaccine?

Misinformation doesn't have to be completely made up. The worst misinformation is carefully selected parts of the truth.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#147

Post by bjt2n3904 » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 7:09 PM UTC

chrisseaton wrote: post #69

nradov wrote: post #33

In 2018 Facebook "fact checked" a Babylon Bee article with this headline: “CNN Purchases Industrial-Sized Washing Machine to Spin News Before Publication”. (Babylon Bee is a humor site and clearly labeled as such.) https://twitter.com/Adam4d/status/969405110324523008

Well... that seems to be working? The story isn't a fact. Got marked as not a fact. What's the problem?

This comment has been marked as not fact, but opinion.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#148

Post by pfortuny » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 7:09 PM UTC

jf22 wrote: post #103

pfortuny wrote: post #17

They seem to have forgotten the Inquisition. Really, in their view they were just trying to help people not be infected by false claims.

Can I ask if you think Facebook fact checking is as serious as the Spanish Inquisition?

It is the thought behind it: there is a single true opiniom.

Mind you: it may even be worse. Not in terms of physical harm.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#149

Post by QuarterReptile » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 7:10 PM UTC

colinmhayes wrote: post #126

zanethomas wrote: post #8

I prefer to do my own fact checking.

Most people just believe what they read on Facebook without even clicking the link. Sucks, but we can't allow idiots to be propagandized by misleading titles. Unfortunately nuance is dead.

Who are "we", and why not?

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#150

Post by mariavillosa » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 7:10 PM UTC

bastardoperator wrote: post #117

webdoodle wrote: post #38

The 'elites' control the narrative through propaganda censors like Facebook, Twitter and Reddit. Anything that doesn't conform to their predetermined agenda gets discredited, the author smeared, then eventually banned from posting. These are legitimate 1st amendment issues that need to be defended or what little freedom we have left will be boiled away like baby frogs.

Pot meet kettle. You're spreading propaganda about propaganda. I need concrete evidence of who these 'elites' are. Names, dates, actionable steps taken by individuals, and proof of the agenda. If you can't provide these basic data points, from this vantage point you're no different then the folks you're complaining about. This has nothing to do with 1A. Businesses have the right to refuse service if you're being too…

>This has nothing to do with 1A. Businesses have the right to refuse service if you're being too loud in their establishment. Sorry, not sorry.

If the purpose of 1a is to foster a society where speech is democratic, then it does, because corporations have largely replaced governments as the primary arbiters of information. So philosophically, the idea behind it is very relevant.

The kind of power that governments abused, leading to 1a, is in some ways analogous to corporate power today. Whether that analogy is valid is the debate, right?

I'm not from the US, but I wonder - just like how liberalism radically reimagined governance and the role of the commons in their relationship to the state, I wonder how a revolution this century could radically reimagine the digital commons.

What will seem like obvious, basic digital rights, 100 years from now, that are completely unimaginable to my digitally medieval brain, like a preliberal medieval peasant?