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

661–670 of 702 posts

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#661

Post by shadowgovt »

NullPrefix wrote: post #649
shadowgovt wrote: post #626

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It should not be legal to advertise the possibility of messaging someone, if that someone will not be able to receive the message. Unless I'm misinterpreting what you're saying, you seem to be saying that shadowbans should be illegal. Or at least, I don't see how any law that would prevent shadow delivery wouldn't prevent shadowbans. So I think we'll have to agree to disagree.

Would fedex shadowban be ok too? They take parcels, give tracking numbers, but those specific persons never receive anything. Tracking is always stuck on "parcel enroute". edit: clarified wording, to make it clear that fedex shadowban is a hypothetical situation

If they take my package, never deliver it, and claim they delivered it, that's theft of tangible property, punishable by state law (and federal, if they messed with interstate commerce).

There is no such "theft of information" for failing to route a data packet, nor should there be for obvious reasons.

Better analogy would be if a newspaper took money to run my ad but never ran it. Also theft, or at least try-able in civil court for failure to render service.

... But if they take a message from me, for free, on the understanding they'll route it and never route it? Much, much grayer legally. I have to prove harm and that they had a legal duty they abrogated. Neither are obvious regarding Facebook DMs.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#662

Post by dieortin »

spaniard89277 wrote: post #476
a9h74j wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This will be some snark in this comment, but against my own country and not you and yours. I invite a cross-cultural comment on competence. Are the partisan fact-checkers in Spain at least competent enough to write grammatical, parsable sentences and titles? From the BMJ OP: > It has a nonsensical title: “Fact Check: The British Medical Journal Did NOT Reveal Disqualifying And Ignored Reports Of Flaws In Pfizer COVID…

In Spain journalism is lazy, but instances of poor writing are much less common than in the anglosphere. They do clickbait, but maybe it's because the spanish language is more formal than english, you can't really bee too creative without writing something meaningless.

How is spanish more formal than english? You can write in a formal way or in a less formal one, like in most languages.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#663

Post by dieortin »

andrepd wrote: post #616
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…

Not exactly doubting you, but is this really accurate? I hear a lot of "fact checkers are biased marxist commies" coming from people who just don't like it when "their side" is criticised. Which is silly. At least I can talk about fact checkers in my country: they give you a write-up of all the sources and reasoning they pursued to ascertain the truth of some thing, then add their own evaluation in a scale of true, m…

I would disagree with fact checkers being “biased and bad” in Spain. Some political parties have copied the misinformation spreading style, and they probably don’t like being called out.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#664

Post by otterley »

lloydgrossman wrote: post #439
otterley wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You are mixing up two legal concepts: one is intellectual property ownership; the other is liability for republishing what others say. They are two different bodies of law: IP law (copyright/trademark) and tort law (libel etc.). They are analyzed under separate legal lenses.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#666

Post by JakeAl »

I didn't see this mentioned as I scanned the comments, "Facebook Quietly Admits In Court Its Third-Party 'Fact-Checks' Are 'Opinions'" https://brjm.org/2021/12/facebook-admits-its-fact-checks-are...

For anyone who has not read Neil Postman's works, look him up. I'd start with Amusing Ourselves to Death but How to Watch TV News is particularly relevant. All his books are fantastic. https://www.amazon.com/How-Watch-News-Neil-Postman/dp/078611...

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#667

Post by dang »

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…

Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar. You can make your substantive points without breaking the site guidelines like this.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#668

Post by dang »

bleuchase wrote: post #595
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.

Please don't post like this to HN, regardless of how provocative or wrong another comment is, or you feel it is.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#669

Post by dang »

clusterfish wrote: post #438
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.

Please don't post like this to HN, regardless of how provocative or wrong another comment is, or you feel it is.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#670

Post by garethrowlands »

deltree7 wrote: post #641
cycomanic wrote: post #608

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for proving my argument

Extraordinary claims need extra-ordinary proof. Humans have survived for hundreds of thousands of years, You are making the claim of their extinct in the next 50 years. The burden of proof is on you to prove that. If you make the claim that Earth will stop spinning tomorrow, you have to produce the proof, not me

OP is not making the claim that Earth will stop spinning tomorrow though. Nor did OP mention 50 years. Nor does OP need to prove global warning, since many others have done that. Not that you'd read it but here's a readable summary of the evidence, https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-chan...
Post reply on HN