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

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#221

Post by choppaface » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 7:39 PM UTC

Facebook / Meta has argued in court that their “fact checks” are opinion and not subject to defamation etc: https://mobile.twitter.com/PoliticalShort/status/14696740408...

This position aligns with Meta CTO boz’s thesis of the “Platinum Rule:” choose personal success over authenticity. https://boz.com/articles/malcontents

The sad thing for BMJ is they spent so much time “investigating” and trying to criticize here. That’s exactly what Zuck wants—- any news is good news when you’re the dominant network. Following boz’s own advice (“co-opt the establishment not fight it”), BMJ should go after sanctioning the Meta board. E.g. file a breach of fiduciary claim with the SEC. Everybody should be doing that. False “fact checks” can legally mislead users, but you can’t mislead investors. Get Zuck and his empty metaverse vision out of there before Snap and Ticktok take he market.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#222

Post by abnry » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 7:40 PM UTC

freddybobs wrote: post #190

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 contr…

It's one of those language things. Newspeak necessarily requires co-opting the good meaning of a work in order for it to work. I am doubtful OP dislikes the true meaning of fact-checking but what "fact checking" has become in this modern age.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#223

Post by ctdonath » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 7:41 PM UTC

How often are “open letters” actually read by the imputed recipient?

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#224

Post by mitchdoogle » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 7:41 PM UTC

deft wrote: post #168

loldk wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because someone can use something to destroy and hurt humanity or smaller or larger groups of people or living things... doesn't mean we should let those bad actors have their way by not using them for good, which is the whole point. Listen to yourself. You are allowing MSM to manipulate the meaning of things in your mind. You literally just suggested that fact checking in general is bad and should go away. I kn…

"fact checking" is bad. I'm not sure what the good version of it you imagine. By "fact checking in general" do you mean pointing out when someone is wrong? The parent comment sees fact checking as one thing: propaganda used to shut down heterodoxy. It has nothing to do with facts or truth.

Fact checking is simply applying some standards to information. People do this in their own minds every day. Outsourcing it to others can be dangerous, but it's not inherently so. If you choose to believe something you read, you're placing your trust in someone else - a news organization, government, friends, family, whoever. If an organization set up for fact checking has published standards and list the violations of those standards when they deem something to be false or misleading, then why shouldn't you trust them? To be clear, I'm not suggesting Facebook fits the bill here - you attacked the very idea of fact checking, which, when done right, is a valuable thing to have in society, unless you just literally trust no third parties that present information to you.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#225

Post by tomohawk » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 7:42 PM UTC

When you have partisans in high positions such as the head of DHS telling companies like Facebook what should be allowed and not allowed, there is a big problem.

Here is a video interview of the head of DHS:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lp3r04dfpZA

Just what does the head of DHS consider "misinformation" you have to wonder. It was not long ago we didn't really care, because they would not have dared to infringe on free speach.

I wonder what other partisans in power are saying to social media companies?

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#226

Post by hedora » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 7:44 PM UTC

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…

As the letter points out, in this particular case, fact checking is not hard.

In fact, this is one of the easiest scenarios for a fact checker to handle correctly.

The source is a reputable, top-tier peer-reviewed publication. Even an inexperienced (but competent) fact checker could check run literature searches on the journal, reviewers and authors. This would reveal that they’re working at reputable institutions, and have been for decades.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#227

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 7:45 PM UTC

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

[deleted]

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#228

Post by streamofdigits » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 7:45 PM UTC

An oligopoly of walled gardens that control all information flow with little accountability based on opaque algorithmic operations and dubious business models is a bad, unworkable design, who could have guessed that?

A small minority of people here and elsewhere are tearing their hair at the insanity. In the meantime a tiny municipality in the Netherlands gives the go ahead for meta to build the largest datacenter in Europe.

Somehow once the giant wheels of societal regression are set in motion there is nothing to stop them.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#229

Post by _lqaf » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 7:45 PM UTC

Svettie wrote: post #176

bastardoperator wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

No, this isn't a trial. It's OK to raise ideas up for others' consideration. The absence of obvious evidence doesn't mean the thing itself isn't happening. There is also a big difference between one person's voice on a platform, and a decision-maker of the platform who is creating policy/process for filtering those voices.

Bitching about 'the elites' is garbage. It is a contentless description unless you identify who you're bitching about, primarily used as a way to get others to agree with you by substituting their own conception of 'elitists'.

If you blame 'elites' with no further clarification for something, I'm going to assume you're pushing a dishonest agenda. If you were being honest, you'd identify your scary shadowy actors.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#230

Post by spaniard89277 » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 7:46 PM UTC

xwolfi wrote: post #211

spaniard89277 wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 so…

I see your point, but two objections.

- Nuanced opinions and good information is rarely free, be it in monetary terms, be it in the invested time, relationships, etc. Thus, if you're not planning to give up most of your time for any topic, you better find good proxies. And currently the press provides more noise than signal. This is problematic.

- If you know anything about Spain is that it's basically Game of Thrones made a country. There's so much internal conflict that it even gets translated INSIDE of the newspapers and TV. You can't take any editorial line for granted, because it's more tied to a group of people seeking power than any background ideology or anything similar. So your balance different views style it's not really that practical in Spain.

In fact I can tell you about an Issue where I'm invested that it's awful across the board: Housing policy.