Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

bmj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 702 posts

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#281

Post by chipotle_coyote »

abnry wrote: post #222
freddybobs wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The problem is that there are two interpretations of "fact-checking is bad" which are not mutually exclusive:

(1) "Fact-checking" is a term used by people who are not interested in facts, but just want to control a narrative.

(2) Convincing the public that "fact-checking" is always done in bad faith is in the interest of people who do not want to actually be fact-checked, but rather want to control a narrative.

Well, that's one problem. The other problem is that (2) has the potential to be far more pernicious: it dismisses the possibility of material difference between real fact checks and propaganda disguised as such. "Fact checkers may have their own agendas" can be true without leading us to "therefore no facts should be checked." If we choose the latter, then we have largely given up on the possibility of facts at all, and we are, not to put too fine a point on it, well and truly fucked.

In the case of this BMJ article, it looks like there are reasonable questions as to whether the authors truly make a case that supports their conclusions. There's a comment from PaulDavisthe1st somewhere around here that links to both the actual article and the fact check, and it at least seems a bit more complicated than "THE BMJ IS BEING SUPPRESSED BY THE ELITES WHO DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW THE TRUTH, MAN," which is a distinct vibe I get from the comments.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#282

Post by pcwalton »

OldManAndTheCpp wrote: post #20
dqpb wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 endo…

Tanenbaum was in fact right. Monolithic kernel design has caused no end of problems, which is why modern OS's (including Linux!) are moving a lot into userspace. See Windows moving font parsing out of the kernel, macOS DriverKit, Linux uio, etc.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#284

Post by periheli0n »

dqpb wrote: post #11
periheli0n wrote: post #6

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?

Science has come up with peer review for that purpose. It is far from perfect but works more often than it does not.

Outside science I would recommend to delegate fact checking to knowledgeable persons. For brand new facts ask an expert.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#286

Post by dang »

debacle wrote: post #10
brodouevencode wrote: post #2

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.

Are you not familiar with how closely Zuckerberg worked with Fauci to sway public opinion?

Would you please stop posting unsubstantive and flamebait comments? We already had to ask you this recently.

p.s. I'm not defending Z or F, I'm saying that we don't want shallow dismissals or cheap putdowns. Thoughtful critique is welcome, of course.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#287

Post by a9h74j »

jmeister wrote: post #116
moolcool wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It'd be easier to identify Babylon Bee content as satire if they were actually funny

To be fair to them, their targets make their job so easy that they’ve stopped trying.

This title seemed clever enough after the San Francisco mayor's announcement yesterday: Study shows that defunding the police increases police funding.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#288

Post by bastardoperator »

mariavillosa wrote: post #150
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…

>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 abu…

That's not the purpose of the 1A. If you read 1A it's fairly basic.

  Congress shall make no law...
1A protects you from the government. If we dive deeper into the civil rights act

  no business serving the public can discriminate because of a customer's national origin, sex, religion, color, or race
Unless someone can prove people are being removed from platforms for reasons above companies are well within their rights to refuse service.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#289

Post by bjt2n3904 »

native_samples wrote: post #271
mitchdoogle wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This story is literally about a single instance. By that logic, a single instance where fact checkers proved something was false is enough to justify their existence.

As the BMJ article points out, Cochrane has had the same problem, and it's not like these are the only two cases. There have been huge numbers of statements by high profile experts and professors being labelled as fake news by journalism interns at "fact checkers". You may not be aware of them but this is a very frequent problem.

People just don't get that this is a matter of principle, not a matter of large numbers.

The truth being suppressed once is far worse than a thousand lies.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#290

Post by AlexandrB »

Facebook's actions increasingly resemble those of a traditional media company. They make editorial decisions about what to promote via their algorithms and fact check posts. I wonder if there's a risk of them losing section 230 protection if they continue down this path.
Post reply on HN