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

361–370 of 702 posts

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#361

Post by yesenadam »

scythe wrote: post #275
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…

It appears that the source of the confusion is the lack of articles. The 'true' headline is "revealed flaws in A Pfizer vaccine trial", the misleading interpretation is "revealed flaws in THE Pfizer vaccine trial". Lead Stories emphasizes the significance of the other trials, The BMJ emphasizes the significance of the findings, and neither is really lying. Where Lead Stories goes overboard is in the way they present…

Pedantic, sorry, but I don't think "malapropism" means what you think it means:

Here are some examples of malapropisms: Mrs. Malaprop said, "Illiterate him quite from your memory" (obliterate) and "She's as headstrong as an allegory" (alligator). Officer Dogberry said, "Our watch, sir, have indeed comprehended two auspicious persons" (...suspicious persons). Rainy weather can be hard on the sciences. (sinuses)

https://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-malapropism....

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#362

Post by NoPie »

angry_octet wrote: post #334
NoPie wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was ultimately Pfizer's trial and Pfizer bears all responsibility for their contractors.

What you’re saying is true, and completely tangential to the problem. When you are concerned that validation done by a subcontractor might be weak, it is entirely sensible that you subdivide the work. What we need is a statistical reanalysis that considers that, e.g., 10% of each step is done wrongly. And a regulatory regime that doesn’t hand wave away complaints, has rigorous protection for whistleblowers, and serio…

It will not be misunderstood by intended readers of BMJ. As for facebook it has all kinds of readers and groups including those that are meant for professionals.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#363

Post by superflit2 »

spaniard89277 wrote: post #179
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…

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…

Well...

Who owns the Media then?

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#364

Post by adjkant »

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

There are solutions here that aren't predicated on that decision, such as shutting down the dangerous avenue to all data equally (though that would break the Facebook ad machine).

The point that a lie in this context can be societally dangerous is still very relevant. Next up is the frequency / commonality of these dangerous lies.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#365

Post by colinmhayes »

concinds wrote: post #338
colinmhayes wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

> "potential to mislead" I can't find that expression anywhere in the Lead Stories article. Facebook outright labelled the BMJ article "false" and containing "false information". Beyond that, should fact-checkers really become an "optics police"? For every single news story, you will have (wild) misinterpretations on social media. It becomes too convenient if a fact-checker can point to those, and then have Facebook…

My bad, the actual quote is "Missing context ... Independent fact-checkers say this information could mislead people"

As far as whether Facebook should become "optics police" I think it's obviously a difficult decision, but with life and death questions such as "is the vaccine safe" I have to go with yes, facebook shouldn't let itself propagandize people who decide to read headlines instead of articles.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#366

Post by [deleted] »

simonh wrote: post #119
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…

Both these things can be true: That this BMJ article is correct and this particular part of the trial was botched by the contractor who covered it up, and the BMJ is unsatisfied with the level of follow-up by the FDA. That the other trial sites were well managed and valid, that the results at this trial site do not overturn the overall results, and that the FDI found it unnecessary to investigate further.

[deleted]

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#368

Post by brodouevencode »

AlexandrB wrote: post #314
brodouevencode wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm always wary of throwing more laws at a problem. I'd much rather market forces solve it.

This seems like a statement of faith. Facebook, and the markets it operates in, have seen very little government oversight for most its lifetime. It's mostly market forces that got us here. I don't see any reason to think that market forces will improve the situation in the future.

I'd much rather put my faith in markets than any government. Markets persuade while governments enforce, usually with a gun.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#369

Post by krapp »

brodouevencode wrote: post #368
AlexandrB wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems like a statement of faith. Facebook, and the markets it operates in, have seen very little government oversight for most its lifetime. It's mostly market forces that got us here. I don't see any reason to think that market forces will improve the situation in the future.

I'd much rather put my faith in markets than any government. Markets persuade while governments enforce, usually with a gun.

Trusting corporations to behave requires trusting governments, because governments are the only reason corporations compete at all, versus simply collaborating and shaking people down like the mafia. You really don't want the monopoly on force to become a free market of force, that doesn't end well for the average consumer.
Post reply on HN