Repeal section 230.
Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg
401–410 of 702 posts
Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg
#402In 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…
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…
That’s not fact checking, that’s reputation assessment.
It’s not hard to keep a list of journals and assign them a reputation score. Commercial services do exactly this.
But even the best journals screw up, especially in their blog posts!
Remember the “fact-check” wasn’t for the peer reviewed article itself, but a blog post promoting it.
Even if the BMJ has a high reputation score, not all of its blogs should share that. It might be run by the social media team - not the editorial staff.
Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg
#403Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or it means that FDA is not doing its job properly. It could be do to lack of manpower or whatever but the fact that the FDA did not inspect the sites in question doesn't mean that the complaint wasn't justified. It just means it wasn't investigated, so no clear conclusions can be made.
>Or it means that FDA is not doing its job properly. So you're saying it "raise[s] questions about... regulatory oversight"?
It definitely does.
There have been many scandals with pharma and regulators. Opioid crisis is one example, even though all involved parties currently blame each other and it has not been established who shares the most guilt yet. In either case, we definitely needed alarming articles about risks from newly marketed opioids 10 years ago.
The other worry is the recent approval of aducanumab by the FDA.
Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg
#404Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg
#405I'm happy that Nikola Tesla didn't lived in such world. Fact-checkers are dangerous option, especially when backed-up by capital and/or politics.
I'd rather live in a world with fact-checking than in a world with gene-checking:
»The only method compatible with our notions of civilization and the race is to prevent the breeding of the unfit by sterilization and the deliberate guidance of the mating instinct ... The trend of opinion among eugenists is that we must make marriage more difficult. Certainly no one who is not a desirable parent should be permitted to produce progeny.«
- Nikola Tesla, 1937
Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg
#406I prefer to do my own fact checking.
This is an impossible task. You are reliant on the opinion of experts who you should pay to take the time to evaluate the topic. We use to do this with proper journalism. But the internet has largely destroyed the industry.
If there is a topic I feel it is really crucial for me to evaluate then I will learn what's necessary to do so.
Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg
#407Appropriate 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.'
> Meta is alleged only to have superimposed a fact-check label on the Fire Video, describing Climate Feedback’s conclusion that the video was “missing context.” Stossel does not claim that label is actionably false—presumably because it is protected opinion. The conclusion that the video was “missing context” is necessarily a judgment call, one that is “not capable of verification or refutation by means of objective proof.”
Seems like a reasonable claim to me. https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Faceb...
Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg
#408I prefer to do my own fact checking.
There's not enough time in the day for you to "fact check" every piece of purported information you come across. You're also not an expert in all areas despite your Gell-Mann amnesia. At some point you're going to have to rely on some sort of external "fact check".
I don't see the need to pay attention to every bit of so-called information streaming by. When there are topics I care about I will do what's necessary to form my own opinion, as I did with covid and the mRna injections.
Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg
#409Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am not a fan of Facebook, but this is one reason they did not want to get into being the arbiter of what is true (Along with a lot of other less noble reasons). There are indeed things that are demonstrably not true, or presented in a very misleading manner, but there's a whole class of things that are in between. The scientific world in general is a community where research about things comes in, people digest it,…
If Facebook doesn't want to be arbiter, they should stop arbitrating. The moment Facebook chooses what to display, they own the content. And it just so happens that what Facebook chooses to display, chooses to recommend, are the lies, more often than not.
The moment Facebook stops trying to be the arbiter is the moment the government steps in and places heavy regulations on them.
Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg
#410Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm French, live in China, so familiar from both countries with what you say. But I think I disagree a bit with your annoyance with agenda setting and journalist incestuous relationship with ideology or politics. Look I dont know how you're taught in Spain but in France we gave up neutral journalism centuries ago. Each newspaper is clearly categorized and we learn as children, around 7 IIRC all the links (le monde so…
I see your point, but two objections. - Nuanced opinions and good information is rarely free, be it in monetary terms, be it in the invested time, relationships, etc. Thus, if you're not planning to give up most of your time for any topic, you better find good proxies. And currently the press provides more noise than signal. This is problematic. - If you know anything about Spain is that it's basically Game of Throne…
> You can't take any editorial line for granted, because it's more tied to a group of people seeking power than any background ideology or anything similar.
I don't mean to misrepresent the parent's argument, but I think they would demand the same solution of editorial transparency towards the groups of people seeking power you mention. That said, I might be coming from a place of ignorance here.