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

321–330 of 702 posts

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#321

Post by specialist »

marstall wrote: post #218
clarge1120 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 whe…

TLDR: Show your work, cite your sources, sign your name. Update content as new details emerge. Tada! Journalism.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#322

Post by linuxhansl »

Let's please not throw out the baby with the bathwater and dismiss all fact checking as political, biases, or agenda-driven.

Not agreeing on basic facts in the prime problem in our current political discourse. Disagreement is usually a good problem to have and leads to testing the complete problem space.

What we are seeing now, though, is the absence of the problem space exploration. Instead any discussion is just dismissed by calling the other party's information "fake news". In that fact-checkers are crucial.

Can the fact checkers be wrong? Sure. Could they have an agenda? Sure. Let's fix that. Let's not dismiss them outright as some of the comment here suggest.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#323

Post by paxys »

> We also discovered that, despite receiving a direct complaint about these problems over a year ago, the FDA did not inspect Ventavia’s trial sites.

This is where Facebook is going to stop reading and toss out the letter. The claims BMJ is making may or may not be accurate – I personally don't have the scientific knowledge to judge. But ultimately Facebook is going to always defer to the authorities of the jurisdiction it operates in over random third parties.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#324

Post by lp0_on_fire »

a9h74j wrote: post #54

Appropriate indignation and demand on BMJ's part. Meanwhile, in the Stossel libel case, Facebook's lawyers allegedly 'claim that Facebook’s “fact-checks” are merely “opinion” and therefore immune from defamation.'

I am not a lawyer but that seems like some like a legal "gotcha" claim that most courts would frown upon.

They positioned these "fact checkers" as arbiters of truth. At no point in the past year has Facebook indicated that these were merely opinion.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#325

Post by colinmhayes »

hammock wrote: post #318
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #45

This one is much trickier than it looks. Reposting user nojito's post ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29596111 ), but here in a top level comment: > The fact check was correct in this instance though? > https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2021/11/fact-check-britis... > The conclusions in the original BMJ article make zero sense when actually scrutinized. > https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635 Please read b…

The BMJ article is light on conclusions and is mostly just a report of facts. In the way of true conclusions I can find these: > Revelations of poor practices at a contract research company helping to carry out Pfizer’s pivotal covid-19 vaccine trial raise questions about data integrity and regulatory oversight. > for researchers who were testing Pfizer’s vaccine at several sites in Texas during that autumn, speed ma…

Facebook users aren't reading the article. They're reading the title, and saying "aha, I knew it. The vaccine was unsafe all along." That's literally all the fact checkers said, "potential to mislead".

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#326

Post by throw10920 »

shadowgovt wrote: post #137
throwaway_2009 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your doctor is, indeed, simply a fact checker. A real one. Much as I and you, I assume, are fact checkers; we attempt to determine the veracity of information we encounter. Your doctor is not a "fact checker" in the newspeak meaning of the term, because your doctor is not preventing other people from speaking to you.

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.

"A government that censors the press is also not preventing anyone from speaking to me; they are refraining from giving some sources a megaphone."

"refraining from giving some sources a megaphone" is exactly equivalent to "censorship". There's no difference.

Your argument confuses the prescriptive and the descriptive.

Descriptively, yes, Facebook is under no legal obligation to treat speech on its platform equally.

Prescriptively, Facebook is morally obligated to either assume full responsibility for user content (both editorialization and moderation), or no responsibility (passing through legal challenges directly to the user).

Additionally, as a de-facto public square, the principles of free speech still apply - a platform with more users than almost any single nation on Earth has citizens is morally bound to allow free speech.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#327

Post by HideousKojima »

AlexandrB wrote: post #304
ospzfmbbzr wrote: post #200

Fact checking is the business of publicly labeling as false those narratives that people with real power already viewed negatively. It becomes necessary when you lie all the time. The whole notion of fact checkers is laughable -- who pays them? Do they still get paid if they 'fact check' their benefactors? There is no debate. There is no invitation for refutation. It's propaganda.

This all sounds good, but if I assert that the earth is flat on Facebook why shouldn't that simply be labelled false so others can avoid wasting their time trying to refute a ridiculous assertion? And if you agree with that, all we're arguing about is where to draw the line between "obviously false" and "disputed" facts. > It becomes necessary when you lie all the time. There are plenty of people lying and/or griftin…

>This all sounds good, but if I assert that the earth is flat on Facebook why shouldn't that simply be labelled false so others can avoid wasting their time trying to refute a ridiculous assertion?

The issue is I don't agree with all that. Who cares if crazies share flat earth theories on Facebook? You either trust your fellow humans to be able to think critically, or you don't. And if you don't, then why do you trust them with power of life and death over you via the state and voting?

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#328

Post by concinds »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #45

This one is much trickier than it looks. Reposting user nojito's post ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29596111 ), but here in a top level comment: > The fact check was correct in this instance though? > https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2021/11/fact-check-britis... > The conclusions in the original BMJ article make zero sense when actually scrutinized. > https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635 Please read b…

There are multiple problems:

1. The Lead Stories article aims to debunks social media narratives linked to the BMJ article, but the result is the BMJ article itself being censored on social media (preventing it from being sent in DMs among other things)

2. The gist of the Lead Stories article is that Pfizer, the FDA, and Ventavia have found the whistleblower report "unsubstantiated". These organizations have not to my knowledge offered any facts that would lead us to doubt the whistleblower's report; and further, have made claims that were directly contradicted by the whistleblower (with proof), such as which team she worked on.

3. The last part of the LS article seems like it would be a violation of fact-checking ethics (if such a thing existed), since it brings the debate out of a dispassionate argument about facts, into an ugly ad-hominem attack (stating that she "does not express unreserved support for COVID vaccines" on her personal Twitter). Similar errors are made in another fact-check below the HN comment you link to (by Dr. David Gorsky, oncologist).

Given these points, I don't see how you can call the fact-check "correct".

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#329

Post by lp0_on_fire »

greenyoda wrote: post #297
natded wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fact checking is censorship taken on behalf of protected opinions. This is what Facebook itself has asserted in a lawsuit[1]. It is an political act, taken against political enemies. Schmitt would have a field day in 21st century. > [1] https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1469331084550852615/ph...

> "Fact checking is censorship taken on behalf of protected opinions" In this context, it is the fact checks that are claimed to be protected speech. "Protected" refers to statements of opinions (as opposed to facts) being protected by law against allegations of defamation. For example, if I publish something as a factual statement, e.g., "Mark Zuckerberg is a criminal", I can be sued for defamation (if it is false).…

At no point prior to this claim in court has Facebook ever labeled one of their "Fact checks" as opinion. They've been passing them off as "objective".

I don't see how that's much different than a newspaper running front page stories that asserting that everything John Doe says is inaccurate then a year later saying "oh it was just our opinion".

Post reply on HN