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

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#181

Post by 323 » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 7:20 PM UTC

YossarianFrPrez wrote: post #94

Two things worth noting. First, this is dated from the November 2nd. Second, as has been pointed out by other commenters, this article is worth reading: https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2021/11/fact-check-britis... Unfortunately, the research misconduct that the BMJ letter points to plays right into the hands of anti-vaxxers and anti-science types. Science hard, science communication is even harder, but how is the…

No, the original article is dated Nov 2.

This open letter is dated today (Dec 17) - see sidebar.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#182

Post by berberous » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 7:20 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…

https://youtu.be/Y2EPgix5_5w

The elites, like any other group, have a culture and a worldview shaped by it. They believe similar things, read similar news sources, have similar incentives and goals, etc.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#183

Post by scotty79 » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 7:20 PM UTC

> “Missing context ... Independent fact-checkers say this information could mislead people.”

I can agree with that. After learning about this BMJ article some people with certain bias might take it as an evidence that Covid vaccine trials were seriously flawed and resulted in wrong conclusions and that the vaccine is unsafe or ineffective.

So plenty of context is sometimes necessary to avoid misleading people despite the fact that everything you say is true.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#184

Post by AlexTWithBeard » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 7:21 PM UTC

cycomanic wrote: post #154

AlexTWithBeard wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder how much more expensive would it be to have "explainers" instead of "fact-checkers". We all have heard about "the same lies being repeat over and over". Well, if these lies are indeed all kinda the same, then it should be relatively easy to (1) gather a proper, extensive set of facts that disprove the lies and then (2) hire an army of war hamsters to introduce these facts into discussion - following the guid…

But that has been done again and again. Let's not talk about Covid, but climate change (which interestingly never attracted the Facebook et al fact checkers even though it is a much more existential crisis for humanity). There are many sites that debunk the arguments like "it was warmer in the middle ages", "warming can be attributed to sun activities", realclimate.org is a great resource for instance. Still the same…

Correct. The last step needed: the debunkers need to debunk the myths not in their cozy groups and websites, but in the enemy's lair. This achieves two purposes:

First, those reading the myths will immediately see the refusal. They don't need to search through multiple websites. They don't have to go through the layers of meaningless arguments. Here's bullshit in the post - here's refusal in the reply. Easy-peasy.

Second, with this everyone knows that once he posts some burp - someone will call him out. And nobody - not even a group moderator - will be able to come to the rescue.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#185

Post by FalcorTheDog » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 7:21 PM UTC

mensetmanusman wrote: post #76

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

That made me laugh. I don’t know anyone who would think that is a serious article.

A quick glance at: https://www.reddit.com/r/AteTheOnion may be enlightening/horrifying.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#186

Post by andrewclunn » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 7:22 PM UTC

webdoodle wrote: post #50

temp8964 wrote: post #35

Quoted post unavailable.

> There’s no other explanation. The other explanation is that they are being paid to control the narrative that the 'elites' order them to, by censoring anything outside their agenda.

So they wouldn't be bad people if they knowingly engaged in misleading the public for money?

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#187

Post by adventured » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 7:22 PM UTC

mensetmanusman wrote: post #76

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

That made me laugh. I don’t know anyone who would think that is a serious article.

The people working in mainstream media - including the clowns at CNN - in the US are extraordinarily stupid on average.

A lot of media outlets ran with the (non-)story that Elon Musk was planning to quit his roles at SpaceX and Tesla to become an influencer. Musk was joking and very obviously so; and yet so many of them ran stories with tags like "it's not certain yet if he's serious." (CNBC for example promptly ran a story with that elaboration)

They're really, really, really, stupid.

In the US if you can't cut it doing anything else, you become a faux journalist. You write hack regurgitated tweet-based articles for Business Insider or MSNBC or CNN. Which also partially explains the condition of journalism in the US.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#188

Post by borplk » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 7:23 PM UTC

dekhn wrote: post #3

Both Facebook (now Meta) and Youtube bungled their fact checking by disabling posts and videos that were counter to some narrative, but not factually incorrect. That places them in a bad position, and they need to be called out publicly, as no other mechanism so far has pushed them towards more accurate fact checking.

They didn't "bungle" it. It's working as designed.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#189

Post by dr-detroit » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 7:23 PM UTC

beefman wrote: post #171

goopthink wrote: post #46

In addition to the points raised by BMJ and in the comments below, there is a limit to what independent fact checking can accomplish. For example, are their fact checkers conducting their own scientific experiments validating claims and outcomes of a scientific paper? Are fact checkers reaching out to sources from a news article and verifying quoted information? When “breaking news” or “scoops” are reported presentin…

This isn't about the inherent limits of fact-checking (substantial though they are). It's about the inherent bias of Facebook's fact-checking.

Dont cross Musk or Zuck. They seem like harmless tools but they are the face of the megatechnocrats.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#190

Post by freddybobs » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 7:23 PM UTC

throwaway_2009 wrote: post #40

"Fact checking" is newspeak for censorship. If the Telegraph controlled the "fact checker" the Guardian wouldn't exist. If the Guardian controlled the "fact checker", the Telegraph wouldn't exist. If you support "fact checkers", you are not welcome in my life and I will route around you. You could, perhaps, consider yourself to have been "fact checked".

No not in general.

There are facts. There are ways to make rational arguments based on those facts.

Those arguments don't have to be the same, or even produce the same results to be useful - because they state their basis and how, based on that they produce their conclusions.

That is a really useful and powerful thing.

> If the Telegraph controlled the "fact checker" the Guardian wouldn't exist. If the Guardian controlled the "fact checker", the Telegraph wouldn't exist.

Why? Having a fact checker that explains (even arguably incorrectly) why something is wrong isn't censorship.

A newspaper could be a factchecker (and sometime are) - if they explain their reasoning, or have some transparent way to see their reasoning.

This feels like a 'let perfect be the enemy of the good' type situation. Fact checking doesn't mean everything will be correct. It doesn't need to. Much like science doesn't claim to have the correct answer for everything - it's to the best of our knowledge based on the scientific method.