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

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#351

Post by sjtindell » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 9:19 PM UTC

DrHilarius wrote: post #332

invisible wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've read over both sides of this, and there is some editorializing going on in this medical journal that makes it less about facts. The title makes no mention of Ventavia, but instead mentions Pfizer. The headline doesn't specify that Ventavia managed 1/44th of the trial, nor anything factual (mostly speculation that the data integrity is questionable). > Revelations of poor practices at a contract research company…

> The questions are all whether this one company had poor practices. If the FDA did not follow up on the whistleblower report it raises far broader questions about oversight of the trials as a whole.

There are so many foaming at the mouth morons desperate to “prove” that the whole thing was a sham that it will take extraordinary evidence to convince me anything improper was done.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#352

Post by henrikschroder » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 9:23 PM UTC

SantalBlush wrote: post #238

deft wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

If fact checking is bad, why are you wrapping it in quotation marks? Is there a difference between fact checking and "fact checking" implied here, and if so, what is that difference? Please elaborate.

In 2020, talking about the lab-leak theory was labelled "misinformation" and brutally purged from social media by "fact-checkers". In 2021, major news outlets started talking about it, and then it suddenly became ok to talk about it on social media again, and the "fact-checkers" did a complete 180 on the issue.

They're not checking facts, they're just enforcing the mainstream view. The mainstream view is often correct, but sometimes it isn't, and then the fact-checkers are just horribly wrong, and suppressing actual debate on the merits of an issue.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#353

Post by themitigating » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 9:24 PM UTC

pfortuny wrote: post #160

As a matter of fact, the real question here is… “What IS a fact?” Nobody is asking this. And that is the first problem here.

I'm 20ft tall

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#354

Post by AlexTWithBeard » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 9:24 PM UTC

sjtindell wrote: post #346

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…

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.

Not always.

I remember scrolling through the flat-earhers forum once and I was amazed how short all the arguments have been. The conversation was usually like:

- Look, the Earth is really flat, I've measured the visible height of such-and-such mountain from such-and-such place and it's way higher than should've been.

- Man, you got the distance wrong. Look at google map, you're off by X hundred miles. Try doing your calculations with the correct numbers

- Fuck off, I've got better things to do in my life than replying your stupid messages

QED

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#355

Post by srcreigh » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 9:28 PM UTC

mmcgaha wrote: post #342

srcreigh wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

BMJ is protecting you from the truth by hiding additional relevant information.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#356

Post by ospzfmbbzr » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 9:28 PM UTC

HideousKojima wrote: post #345

themitigating wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

>>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

HideousKojima you just have to understand it from the correct perspective though... his.

He would wield the ring of power for 'good' so it's ok. Not like those 'others'!

Just trust him!

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#357

Post by commandlinefan » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 9:28 PM UTC

archhn wrote: post #317

There should be a discussion page, like on Wikipedia, for "fact checkers" to publicly interact with those who post "misleading information." It's highly upsetting that there was no process for this entity to challenge the ruling of the "fact checkers." Especially since it is an established medical journal. Why can't we have open discussions about "the facts?" Are we living in a democratic country or an authoritarian…

> "Facebook is a private company, it can do whatever it wants on its platform," I think it's important to distinguish between the legal right for a company

I'll go a step farther. For those who say "facebook is a private company, it can do whatever it wants"... does that include taking a completely hands-off moderation policy? I'm pretty sure that the answer is no - because the U.S. government will step in if they try. They're already in legal trouble over the Myanmar/Rohingya thing - what we're seeing is not Mark Zuckerberg standing up for his moral principles. What we're seeing is government coercion.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#358

Post by lp0_on_fire » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 9:29 PM UTC

chrisseaton wrote: post #161

nradov wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Babylon Bee is already clearly labeled. How much more clear do you want them to be? Only a true moron could possibly be confused by such a headline.

> Only a true moron At Facebook's scale there are very many 'morons' out there who might see it. And this article demonstrably confused at least one person... as it got fact checked didn't it?

Does that not say more about the fact checker than it does the Babylon Bee? It's clearly a satirical site. It takes all of seconds to recognize it if you look at the site.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#359

Post by CursedUrn » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 9:31 PM UTC

eacafdcbac wrote: post #214

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.

Why isn't it a public forum? The Internet has largely replaced all traditional public fora.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#360

Post by greenyoda » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 9:32 PM UTC

lp0_on_fire wrote: post #329

greenyoda wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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".

I certainly agree that Facebook wants its users to believe that their "fact checks" are objective. But the quoted paragraph wasn't intended for the general public to see - it's trying to get a judge to dismiss a lawsuit against them. Facebook would like to have it both ways: credibility for users and deniability for people who want to sue them. I wonder if the judge will be convinced by their argument.