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

461–470 of 702 posts

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#461

Post by Kiro »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #442
jsdevtom wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I agree with you for the most part, their responsibility should not be fact checking. That should be left to the individual.

They made themselves the fact checkers. If they're going to take the mantle of "fact checker", it is their responsibility to do it well.

They only did it after being pressured by the same people that are now saying they should not have done it. It doesn't matter what they do at this point. They will come out as the bad guys regardless.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#462

Post by lifeisstillgood »

ford_o wrote: post #443
lifeisstillgood wrote: post #425

So I have a theory (wild conjecture actually). AI needs good training sets - that is large corpuses of data about a domain, which have been accurately labelled so the AI can learn safely. Curated content basically. Image recognition software is suffering from this as all the large corpuses are basically the same three or so. When we move into the realm of knowledge about the human world, economics, politics etc. then…

So what is your theory?

Journalism acts as a corpus labelling process for the slow AI that is society, also that most companies have an internal labelling process (we will trust these inputs from outside, and we inherently trust anything internal) - this also needs a rethink (ie that companies will need to have trust in incoming data whether internal or external and that labelling will need to become more explicit.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#463

Post by paul7986 »

What's wrong with the Pfizer vaccine data?

I mean the FDA is asking for 55 years to process and release all such public data to the public now.. https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/wait-what-fda-wants... . Which to me is concerning as well the CDC just announcing not to get the J&J shot but the other two.

Early science .. we all jumped in like guniea pigs ... some forced to like myself where Ive already been burned twice (hernia mesh implant recalled causes pain forever and a med I took damaged an organ) by early science/profits over people crap.

Also any media to research where bias (pro or not pro vaccine ... left or right) is.. is hard to believe as truth. Bias clouds the truth always! Im sure any vote on my post is biased based ... pro vaccine or anti. Im in the middle and wanted to wait to see years of data to see/find out which one was the best .. which one was the worst but i wasnt given that opportunity... get vaxed or if not lose everything.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#464

Post by philovivero »

dekhn wrote: post #3

Both Facebook (now Meta) and Youtube bungled their fact checking by disabling posts and videos that were counter to some narrative, but not factually incorrect. That places them in a bad position, and they need to be called out publicly, as no other mechanism so far has pushed them towards more accurate fact checking.

I note how your comment has been largely ignored by... the massive numbers of Facebook and Google employees reading this site.

If there was an ounce of integrity in Tech these days, this would have been called out, front-and-centre, and remedies to it would have been enacted. Instead, here we are almost two years later, and we're pretending that never happened. In some cases it's even being memory-holed. I predict within 4 years, it will be common to call someone pointing this out some sort of rabid conspiracy theorist.

You cannot trust FB. You cannot trust Google. You cannot trust mainstream newspapers. You cannot trust the CDC. They got caught lying to you. Repeatedly.

Obey at your peril.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#466

Post by mattrighetti »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #447
superflit2 wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It took a lot of work finding one that was English/scott. There is the famous Elon Musk tweet https://i.4pcdn.org/pol/1637457156799.jpg

When did he tweet that?

Looks like May 27th, 2018.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1000560049389907969?ref_...

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#467

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

Thanks to user sceutre for finding this link/commentary, which really deserves to be at the top of this entire comment page:

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/what-the-heck-happened-to-t...

It's not definitive (nothing in a case like this will be), but is provides way more context for both the particular BMJ article and also recent history at the BMJ in general.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#468

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#469

Post by a9h74j »

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.'

Late edit: 1) bold and capitalize 'allegedly' above; 2) in the response linked in a comment below, on p.2 lines 7-8, Meta claims the [fact check] labels constitute protected opinion; 3) it could easily be a libel non-case, especially as it is Stossel.

My impression is that Meta's distancing move ("third party" fact-checkers, with label/pointer linkage) is more solid than a claim, say, "I am merely the owner of the safe and the combination, your Honor, not the contents themselves." However, if someone such as Stossel wants to pierce the veil with regard to 230, so to speak, it seems a good question whether a prominently linked "fact check" has the same ontological/moral status as any uninvited third party post.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#470

Post by esyir »

tcbawo wrote: post #437
xwolfi wrote: post #211

Earlier 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…

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 t…

I share that opinion (and hope) that a minority of the population is insane. However why does it feel like said insane are running the asylum.
Post reply on HN