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

341–350 of 702 posts

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#341

Post by cloverich »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #59
ninkendo wrote: post #32

It seems to me that if you have a whistleblower account of some poor research practices for a vaccine trial, spreading it around Facebook to be commented on by random people who have no idea how to interpret it, probably isn't the best place for it. I know that means publications like these which may have something important to add to the vaccine conversation, won't be able to have millions of "likes and shares"... b…

My concern is that I don't think that is the endgame. I think the endgame is a world where Facebook still seems to have a variety of news information, but it's heavily censored under the hood, and your parents/grandparents think you're talking nonsense if you bring up one of the topics Facebook fact checks don't allow.

My relatives today think I am a misguided, manipulated communist because I believe in climate change and universal healthcare. Such is the experience of many of my friends so while I also find your end game concerning, that's how the internet as our parents (etc) experience it already works.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#342

Post by mmcgaha »

srcreigh wrote: post #262
hedora wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, a…

No.. the fact checker should also make sure true facts aren't being used out of context causing the reader come to incorrect conclusions. That's what is happening with the BMJ article. That's why the fact check report doesn't mention any specific factual inaccuracies. Context matters, missing context is a problem. EDIT: see here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29597047

Please do not protect me from the truth even if it leads me to inconvenient conclusions.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#343

Post by subpixel »

ninkendo wrote: post #32

It seems to me that if you have a whistleblower account of some poor research practices for a vaccine trial, spreading it around Facebook to be commented on by random people who have no idea how to interpret it, probably isn't the best place for it. I know that means publications like these which may have something important to add to the vaccine conversation, won't be able to have millions of "likes and shares"... b…

Agree. The notion that moderation of any kind can make individual Facebook comments and opinions _at scale_ a trustable source of information is false. I’m not sure anyone believes it, and the outsourcing of the whole operation suggests it’s acknowledged to be a cost of doing business but not a strategy.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#344

Post by AlexTWithBeard »

rajin444 wrote: post #300
AlexTWithBeard wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Se…

This is great in theory if each individual has the ability to arrive at the same conclusion as the “debunkers”. They don’t, so they fallback to trust, and that’s when it all breaks down. The most important thing to combat misinformation is to build trust. Anyone trying to combat misinformation while disparaging their tribal outgroup is playing politics, not combating misinformation. In your post you call people you n…

Most people are quite reasonable and can be convinced.

On the other hand most people are lazy and often it's about "some explained right here" vs. "an alternative (and probably much better) explanation of the same thing on some smarty-pants website". Well, people just don't go to that somewhere else and ignore it. Out of site - out of mind.

If you see an inconvenient reply under every message of your local prophet, you may not get convinced right away, but the seeds of doubt will be sown.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#345

Post by HideousKojima »

themitigating wrote: post #339
HideousKojima wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 trus…

Because other lies are dangerous and I don't trust people to think critically. We also don't have a direct democracy and maybe that's what saves us most of the time.

>Because other lies are dangerous

And who has power/moral authority/whatever to decide that? There's no answer to that that doesn't lead to tyranny

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#346

Post by sjtindell »

AlexTWithBeard wrote: post #184
cycomanic wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Se…

Such a fantasy. This is exactly how it happens. And they literally just respond to the “debunking” post with garbage and move on. It’s not about information, it’s about emotion and tribe.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#347

Post by ospzfmbbzr »

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…

> If I assert that the earth is flat on Facebook why shouldn't that simply be labelled false

Isn't that implying that the reader is too ignorant to know at a glance? In the marketplace of ideas shouldn't that nonsense content just get buried anyway?

> There are plenty of people lying and/or grifting on the other side of this power structure as well.

Agreed. Lying is how you create something out of nothing after all.

I don't like being lied to but some amount of lying does seem to be necessary to maintain any control over a group of people and impose order.

> No one felt the need to fact-check discussion forums because those posts were not likely to spread to millions of people.

Exactly. The range and impact presents a challenge to their long held ability to unequivocally decide what is 'true' -- which is the authority's most critical power because this effectively creates reality, from which everything else flows. It's not surprising they are defending it so vigorously... they just don't call it that. They use phrases like 'combating misinformation' and 'fact checking'.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#348

Post by AlexTWithBeard »

henrikschroder wrote: post #335
cycomanic wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Actually, I saw some "Climate Facts" blob from Facebook on a post that was extremely tangentially related, but the glorious Algorithm had apparently decided it was a discussion on climate change, and therefore needed to insert itself into it, making sure there was no wrongthink, or something. Completely tone-deaf, and therefore extremely off-putting. I would not be surprised if an effort like that completely backfire…

A mandatory prayer at school is the best way to breed an atheist.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#350

Post by AlexTWithBeard »

emtel wrote: post #240
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?

For most people, Facebook is the only place where they can stay in touch with their family and friends. My friends and family are not and never will be on mastodon or diaspora or anything like that. Also, private special interest groups on Facebook are really excellent. There's nothing else like it. Sub Reddits are good for anonymous/psuedonymous general discussion, but for actually meeting and interacting with peopl…

> For most people, Facebook is the only place where they can stay in touch with their family and friends.

I don't understand what's wrong with a group chat in ?

Not arguing. Just lost. Completely lost.

Post reply on HN