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

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#511

Post by boppo1 » Sat, Dec 18, 2021, 3:15 AM UTC

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…

I think this is a pretty good summary for the US as well.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#512

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Dec 18, 2021, 3:16 AM UTC

linuxhansl wrote: post #322

Let's please not throw out the baby with the bathwater and dismiss all fact checking as political, biases, or agenda-driven. Not agreeing on basic facts in the prime problem in our current political discourse. Disagreement is usually a good problem to have and leads to testing the complete problem space. What we are seeing now, though, is the absence of the problem space exploration. Instead any discussion is just di…

[deleted]

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#513

Post by csee » Sat, Dec 18, 2021, 3:18 AM UTC

tlogan wrote: post #301

I wonder what is BMJ’s agenda? Why do they want that their articles explaining how one contractor botched trial shared on Facebook? Are they saying that it is not true that their article “could mislead people”? And article is like Fox News: “ 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 ove…

Maybe it's not about whether the article can or can't be shared, it's just that they don't want lies to be explicitly told about their article, because that negatively impacts their reputation? For example, the claim of the fact-checkers that the article contains "flaws".

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#514

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Dec 18, 2021, 3:19 AM UTC

colejohnson66 wrote: post #435

isoskeles wrote: post #433

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." 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.

[deleted]

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#515

Post by ekianjo » Sat, Dec 18, 2021, 3:22 AM UTC

Fact checking is basically a short name for "we pretend to be objective but we have a narrative to enforce"

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#516

Post by boppo1 » Sat, Dec 18, 2021, 3:23 AM UTC

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…

I actually like this idea of a status quo; but it depends on teaching children this from birth. In the US, I was taught that NYT and CNN are reputable and reliable sources of the truth. As an adult, I find them "pretty good" at best.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#517

Post by BbzzbB » Sat, Dec 18, 2021, 3:45 AM UTC

mmaunder wrote: post #507

Fascinating that everyone is debating the efficacy of Meta’s fact checking and not even questioning that a single major corporation has supplanted the judiciary as arbiter of free speech and is being appealed to directly by the aggrieved. As RATM said: Wake Up.

The last controversial era where they allowed free reign of misinformation, they were criticized for being a spreader of misinformation. Turns out if you have a platform where billions or hundreds of millions interact, you'll be damned either way.

I'm unclear what the solution is but I'm quite sure no one will be please with either direction.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#518

Post by tlear » Sat, Dec 18, 2021, 3:52 AM UTC

linuxhansl wrote: post #322

Let's please not throw out the baby with the bathwater and dismiss all fact checking as political, biases, or agenda-driven. Not agreeing on basic facts in the prime problem in our current political discourse. Disagreement is usually a good problem to have and leads to testing the complete problem space. What we are seeing now, though, is the absence of the problem space exploration. Instead any discussion is just di…

It is not a bug it is a feature. Fact checkers are just propagandists/censors under a different name, contracted out to deny direct responsibility.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#519

Post by prostoalex » Sat, Dec 18, 2021, 3:56 AM UTC

labster wrote: post #508

specialist wrote: post #458

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook's algorithmic outrage amplification is necessary to prevent an overbearing government from forcibly reverting parasocial norms to a simple chronologically sorted inbox?

A chronologically sorted inbox is the worst possible world for The Facebook. How can you boost user engagement with advertisers if you don’t use algorithms that repost years old stories of that time your dog died?

> A chronologically sorted inbox is the worst possible world for The Facebook.

As an aside, chronological sort key has been available in the previous designs, and the URL still works

www.facebook.com/?sk=h_chr

It has its limits of usefulness, though - some group admins moderate new posts in bulk once a day (if that), so depending on the time of visit you might be swamped with dozens of posts from the same group.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#520

Post by dtrain2017 » Sat, Dec 18, 2021, 4:02 AM UTC

I cannot believe that this guy was fired on the same day he leaked to the FDA. This means the FDA reported him to Pfizer??

He blew the whistle on the following: some staff were not blinded, potentially unblind recipients, quality control on the paperwork, the patients weren't followed up with.

It just adds to my nihilism, tbh.