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

551–560 of 702 posts

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#551

Post by kbelder »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #59
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…

My concern is that I don't think that is the endgame. I think the endgame is a world where Facebook still seems to have a variety of news information, but it's heavily censored under the hood, and your parents/grandparents think you're talking nonsense if you bring up one of the topics Facebook fact checks don't allow.

Backwards. It'll be your kids thinking you're talking nonsense, when you try to tell them about incidents that have been purged.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#552

Post by NullPrefix »

shadowgovt wrote: post #137
throwaway_2009 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your doctor is, indeed, simply a fact checker. A real one. Much as I and you, I assume, are fact checkers; we attempt to determine the veracity of information we encounter. Your doctor is not a "fact checker" in the newspeak meaning of the term, because your doctor is not preventing other people from speaking to you.

Facebook is also not preventing anyone from speaking to me; they are refraining from giving some sources a megaphone. If I want to know what the BMJ is writing, https://bmj.com is right there. Facebook is under no obligation to center it on my wall.

Yes they are.

There are people who you cannot write personal messages to on facebook/messenger. They have to write you first, otherwise all your messages to them are marked as sent, not delivered and eventually seen, just sent.

I assume that political idelogy of aforementioned persons is obvious. And these people are not some no-names.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#553

Post by NullPrefix »

colinmhayes wrote: post #169
QuarterReptile wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who are "we", and why not?

Zuck and I. Because we live in a democracy where being uninformed doesn't mean you have less say in the government.

That is how voting works. Should dumb people have the right to vote?

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#554

Post by smsm42 »

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…

In the US, there was a brief period when real fact-checking existed. Then the political activists saw that the regular press had lost all credibility, but the fact-checking brand still retained some, so they made a hard push to take them over. Which by the time of covid has been already mostly complete, and with the push to fight "medical misinformation" (which was quickly defined as any information that contradicts the currently approved doctrine, no matter how scientifically based, factually correct or practically useful) "fact-checking" has been completely subverted to serve the preferred narrative and suppress any heretical thought.

> The reality, at least in Spain, is that fact checkers are just a side-effect of the kulturwars and don't bring any truth to the table.

I am sad to note that the situation in the US is exactly the same. Though the majority of "fact-checkers" and all major social networks are on single side of the said wars.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#555

Post by NullPrefix »

loudmax wrote: post #133

I get the feeling that much of the problem is the Facebook (also Reddit, etc) were originally set up as social networks, but they've sort of become news sites for a lot of people. This didn't matter so much when the news being shared are baby pictures and new music, but it does matter when the news is about vaccines or who actually won the election. Social networking sites aren't set up to verify facts, and it should…

Television was also supposed to solve corruption and injustice. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. It all went downhill when that box started broadcasting fart jokes.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#557

Post by HamburgerEmoji »

hedora wrote: post #226
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…

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…

You're advocating against the actual scientific process, for something akin to the Ministry of Truth.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#558

Post by smsm42 »

specialp wrote: post #293
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 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,…

Oh, they did want to get into arbitering very much, and they got into it. What they didn't want is responsibility for their actions. They wanted to ban whoever they wanted to ban, but never be questioned on either the fact or the lack of ban in any particular case, and on the random and inconsistent enforcement of any "policies" they might have. They wanted - and still want - all the power and none of the responsibility.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#559

Post by mitigating »

sjtindell wrote: post #351
DrHilarius wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The questions are all whether this one company had poor practices. If the FDA did not follow up on the whistleblower report it raises far broader questions about oversight of the trials as a whole.

There are so many foaming at the mouth morons desperate to “prove” that the whole thing was a sham that it will take extraordinary evidence to convince me anything improper was done.

I want to second this. Because of how badly the right wants the vaccine to be dangerous/fake/whatever I'm so sensitive to anything negative that I basically brush off articles like this. In my mind I just lump it in with people saying the vaccine will make you impotent.

Probably the wrong way to think about things but that's how my mind works.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#560

Post by mitigating »

hammock wrote: post #457
colinmhayes wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>life and death questions such as "is the vaccine safe" Is that not a misleading thing to say yourself? Plenty of vaccinated have died. And for those unjabbed but with permanent acquired immunity, the jab may be safe yet at the same time have no material effect to save their life.

What's plenty? The number matters because it may be insignificant.
Post reply on HN