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

591–600 of 702 posts

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#591

Post by spaniard89277 »

rg111 wrote: post #267
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…

> there is a limit to what independent fact checking can accomplish Slightly on a tangent, but it is worth mentioning. I used to be a regular part of both English and a regional language version of . There were moderators on this site. And moderation was overseen by "Community Managers" who are humanities majors and MBAs. They not only let very wrong answers on scientific, mathematical, and technical matters stay on…

You could work for the media/press if it was worth it as a side gig. But they tend to pay badly.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#593

Post by AussieWog93 »

esyir wrote: post #470
tcbawo wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Because insane (or angry, or radicalised) people are far more likely to vote or express political statements.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#594

Post by CryptoPunk »

paxys wrote: post #323

> We also discovered that, despite receiving a direct complaint about these problems over a year ago, the FDA did not inspect Ventavia’s trial sites. This is where Facebook is going to stop reading and toss out the letter. The claims BMJ is making may or may not be accurate – I personally don't have the scientific knowledge to judge. But ultimately Facebook is going to always defer to the authorities of the jurisdict…

It should not. The First Amendment exists for a reason - so we don't have to defer to authorities.

The Democrats are responsible for this state of affairs: they have repeatedly threatened the social media giants with legal action lest they combat whatever it is the Democrats deem to be disinformation, which increasingly is indistinguishable from anything that contradicts what powerful government institutions deem to be true.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#595

Post by bleuchase »

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…

Yeah yeah we get it you’re a fascist little shithead who would gladly take away everyone else’s rights to make yourself feel safe. Just like a bunch of other commenters here. Good to know.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#596

Post by Hamuko »

Flankk wrote: post #453
Hamuko wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Private industry does not have an inherent right to censorship Facebook and Twitter both enjoy the rights bestowed upon them by the First Amendment to remove content as they see fit. Requiring Facebook and Twitter to host content that they don't want would violate their First Amendment rights.

The first amendment has nothing to do with that. The first amendment protects the individual and the press from government censorship. As I said, the spirit of the law is to protect from censorship. Unfortunately social media companies are abusing their power.

Go read up on Citizens United v FEC.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#597

Post by jdthedisciple »

Ah well, with a smile on my face I remember that we just had the fact-checking discussion here on HN a few months ago.

Let me just say: This case proves that so-called "fact-checkers" themselves need to be scrutinized even more than the claims they are "fact-checking".

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#598

Post by praash »

SquibblesRedux wrote: post #285

The only fact checker I would respect is a court of law, whose purpose, in fact, is to discern and examine facts. IMHO, Meta (Facebook) should not be immune from liability with respect to its editorializing and censorship other people's communications.

Law is heavily driven by money. In many cases, certainty and facts are not reached at all. With enough resources, a large company can usually prolong lawsuits for years, if not reaching a favorable result outright.

Even if an individual had proven facts and legislations on their side, the court can still screw them up.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#599

Post by xondono »

hcrean wrote: post #526
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.'

They should sue the fact checker rather than Facebook; easier and this will likely have the same impact on the fact-checker market.

They sued both Facebook and the fact checker.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#600

Post by xondono »

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…

> Just... publish your article, let actual news sites disseminate it, and do things the old fashioned way

Have you been to a newsroom lately? If it isn’t on twitter, it’s not getting published.

Post reply on HN