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

431–440 of 702 posts

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#431

Post by endisneigh »

nradov wrote: post #390
endisneigh wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. The whole point of down and upvoting the sources is because the sources themselves might be erroneous. Without an infinite cascade of the process I described, relying on down and upvoting of specific claims is more tractable. In other words, you might have a claim that's supported by an otherwise bad website, but the bad website actually has a morsel of legitimately factual evidence there. It would be up…

No that would never work. The flat earthers will all upvote each other's bullshit. And you are missing a fundamental concept in that for most fields of science there are very few objective facts or proven truths. If I write a post on Newtonian physics should I be "fact checked" for misinformation if I fail to state that it's only an approximation and doesn't always give correct answers? It used to be an accepted "fac…

your example makes no sense - flat earthers are a minority, the cited claims would ultimately receive more down than upvotes. also, the point of the votes is to help readers understand things themselves.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#432

Post by henriquez »

colinmhayes wrote: post #325
hammock wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

Therefore we must algorithmically censor the internet, checkmate Drumpftards.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#433

Post by isoskeles »

colinmhayes wrote: post #325
hammock wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

> Facebook users aren't reading the article. They're reading the title, and saying "aha, I knew it. The vaccine was unsafe all along."

You literally just made this up.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#434

Post by clusterfish »

sjy wrote: post #407
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.'

> 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…

Either you're checking objective facts, or you're providing subjective opinion. You can't label it as the former in public, but in court claim it's the latter. Legally, maybe, IANAL. Reasonably - no.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#435

Post by colejohnson66 »

isoskeles wrote: post #433
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".

> Facebook users aren't reading the article. They're reading the title, and saying "aha, I knew it. The vaccine was unsafe all along." You literally just made this up.

It’s true. Spend a few minutes reading comments on major news sites’ articles and they’re always full of people making up theories that the article directly contradicts.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#436

Post by mike00632 »

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…

Facebook Marketplace is also really convenient.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#437

Post by tcbawo »

xwolfi wrote: post #211
spaniard89277 wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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…

Being aware of biases is difficult in an attention-starved society, where specific opinions and confirmation biased news reports are pumped to social media with a Denial-of-Service-like frequency. Tribes have formed. We've gotten to a highly polarized society where every answer begins with "But they...". The most hardcore partisans I know follow and share news to essentially keep up with and mock what "They" are up to. I particularly avoid discussing politics with family and friends. I've started to tell my family and friends that there is no "They". There are only individuals. I'm also fairly convinced that roughly 5% of the population is insane, although the more political you become, you start to believe that number is closer to 50%.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#438

Post by clusterfish »

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…

You don't give a shit because you're happy to see Facebook silence opinions you don't want to hear.

What, you think a tech monopoly will always be on your side? Or that someone will care when news that YOU care about will be censored / defeated / fake fact checked?

You're just a propaganda cog with such an attitude, no better than dumb antivaxers who don't care about facts either.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#439

Post by lloydgrossman »

otterley wrote: post #416
specialist wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don’t know exactly what you mean, but from a legal perspective, Facebook most certainly does not “own” anyone’s content by virtue merely of putting it in someone’s News Feed.

You didn't really give any legal perspective. Either Facebook owns the content and the liability as a publisher, or it's a platform and shouldn't fixing content towards what they want to show.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#440

Post by nradov »

endisneigh wrote: post #431
nradov wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No that would never work. The flat earthers will all upvote each other's bullshit. And you are missing a fundamental concept in that for most fields of science there are very few objective facts or proven truths. If I write a post on Newtonian physics should I be "fact checked" for misinformation if I fail to state that it's only an approximation and doesn't always give correct answers? It used to be an accepted "fac…

your example makes no sense - flat earthers are a minority, the cited claims would ultimately receive more down than upvotes. also, the point of the votes is to help readers understand things themselves.

No that makes no sense. Other people just ignore the flat earth bullshit, they don't even vote. There's no point to what you're proposing.
Post reply on HN