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

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#211

Post by xwolfi » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 7:34 PM UTC

spaniard89277 wrote: post #179

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…

I don't know in your country, but in Spain most fact-checkers have very evident ties with two political parties, and they handle info in an agenda-setting style. They even have very personal links to politicians. Of course they really polish their communication and websites, and they know how to sound scientific-y throwing in some graphs and stuff. The problem is not only that, but that the same people who works in t…

I'm French, live in China, so familiar from both countries with what you say.

But I think I disagree a bit with your annoyance with agenda setting and journalist incestuous relationship with ideology or politics.

Look I dont know how you're taught in Spain but in France we gave up neutral journalism centuries ago. Each newspaper is clearly categorized and we learn as children, around 7 IIRC all the links (le monde socialist, le figaro gaulist trending christian, l'humanité communist, and so on and there are many more subtle variations too French to list here) and learn to read them all, sometimes with clenched fist, but no truth has ever been reveled by a single perspective: embrace the chaos and join perspective to build a multi facet view.

It's something I despair to see in China where politicians, journalist and the mass try to identify a pure source of truth. But no communist think like another, so even their way will never work.

Let them all fight, balance out the arguments, take a decision in the voting booth and stop dreaming of a universal truth given to you from greater mind: even a genius in his lab building a life saving cure will forget to listen to the victims of the sacrifices he requires for the greater good, and that voice must be heard too.

Fight for MORE ideology and agenda in media in exchange for editorial transparency about it, so you're clear who they propose you to vote for when they present an argument, and you'll be free. Any other way, and it goes with fact checking semi anonymous facebook crap, is doomed to muddy this clarity. That s what facebook must do: what is the political party or alignment behind each piece, and you're done (or almost: also need to learn to read and understand all perspectives, the hardest part in the US it seems).

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#212

Post by tomohawk » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 7:35 PM UTC

Everyone wants/needs to be the hero of their narrative. Facebook is no different. At some point, they will get over themselves or go out of business, hopefully before they do even more damage.

They've already admitted that their "fact checks" are opinion. Why the false advertising, then? I guess the word 'fact' can mean what they want since they have the megaphone and the cancel button.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#213

Post by caddemon » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 7:35 PM UTC

MattGaiser wrote: post #121

Facebook does fact checking because people decided to blame them for misinformation rather than the people actually doing it. Their customers demanded that they take action, so whether or not the action is useful, they were required to do so.

The algorithmic news feed incentivizes misinformation in a way that the old chronological feed did not. Facebook absolutely helped to create this situation in the first place.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#214

Post by eacafdcbac » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 7:35 PM UTC

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.

The Internet is not, and has never been, a "public forum." At the end of the day the only piece of hardware you own is (probably) the one on your desk. You may put whatever data you want into it, but it's no one's responsibility to share that data.

Beyond that the suggestion that all user's data should be shared equally is inherently flawed.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#215

Post by frenchyatwork » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 7:35 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.

Well, I used to think /pol/ was satire, but they managed to start a whole religion (QAnon).

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#216

Post by threatofrain » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 7:37 PM UTC

standyro wrote: post #156

shadowgovt wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook is also not preventing anyone from speaking to me; they are refraining from giving some sources a megaphone. If I want to know what the BMJ is writing, https://bmj.com is right there. Facebook is under no obligation to center it on my wall.

That’s not true. Facebook actively censors certain URLs from being shared in a DM on Messenger and WhatsApp. How is that any better than the “Great Firewall of China”?

China bans content through government policy, and government policy carries the force of government which applies to all public and private parties. The force of government means laws, courts, police, and prison, which is typically the sole prerogative of government.

HN, BMJ and Facebook pay for their expenses as private parties and may not wish use their money to help you broadcast your speech. The main difference between HN and Facebook is that Facebook is Very Big.

If your idea of free speech means that either HN or Facebook must pay for a metaphorical Dang and other fancy engineers to maintain your free speech...

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#217

Post by Karunamon » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 7:37 PM UTC

brodouevencode wrote: post #16

hodgesrm wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Agree in principle, but that becomes hard/impossible at the scale Facebook and friends operate at. Monopoly isn't the right term, but it's close.

I'd welcome laws that requires specific kinds of transparency and conduct at Facebook/Reddit/Twitter/YouTube user counts. Simply tie this conduct to S230 protections, and we evade all first amendment issues. The companies would do anything to avoid being responsible for the hateful, libelous, harassing, and terroristic content they convey every single day.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#218

Post by marstall » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 7:38 PM UTC

clarge1120 wrote: post #21

OldManAndTheCpp wrote: post #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.

"Fact checking" as guard rails for protecting a narrative is (hopefully) a fad that will pass us by like bad fashion choices in the 1980's.

fact checking is a normal part of a normal news organization. They all do it and it's above board. I was briefly a freelance journalist at a major urban newspaper and here's how it worked for me:

- as I researched and reported, I kept notes about the source of every piece of info I got.

- as I wrote, I noted that source every time I stated a fact (using phrases like "according to")

- my editor asked me in general whether I had done all this - and during the editing process drilled down on several facts I stated and what the basis for them was.

- A factual error once crept into my story through the headline, which was written by a different editorial team. It was a minor thing, but it was a big deal, my editor was super stressed, and they issued a printed retraction.

- This was all inline with the general policy followed by a 300 person newsroom.

- Editor's year-end review is partly based on the number of retractions issued.

- The culture of the organization was such that if a known error made it into print, and there wasn't a retraction, that would be basically a scandal.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#219

Post by olyjohn » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 7:38 PM UTC

vmception wrote: post #78

AlexTWithBeard wrote: post #65

One thing that puzzles me: why people (still?) use Facebook? What's so good about it? There are dozens of platforms where people can post their thoughts, like and be liked. I feel like something's evading me. Is it because I'm an old fart?

People believe they get value from the groups This has largely replaced forums Facebook tried to make a separate groups product for people that just want groups and not the rest of Facebook Just like Messenger can be used without a full Facebook account It is higher value for users than the newsfeed other social network experience, but it mostly sucks too

Groups are a disorganized mess of the same repetitive trash over and over. It's the same problem in every group. Just miles and miles of random posts with no way to organize them, and a shit search feature.

The only reason it killed forums is because they lowered the effort barrier. Forums were great because it required logins, and a minimal level of competency in order to use it. Only people who really wanted to be part of the forum would join. A simple login was enough barrier to keep out people who didn't want to put in any effort to their contribution. Facebook made it so that you can just go click a button and upload a picture and contribute a shitpost with no effort.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#220

Post by joshuamorton » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 7:38 PM UTC

pfortuny wrote: post #148

jf22 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What single true opinion is that?

As I see it, there's lots of opinions, some are clearly wrong, and some are varyingly plausible. Annotating the clearly wrong ones isn't anything close to claiming that there is only one opinion.