Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook versus The BMJ: when fact checking goes wrong

bmj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 307 posts

Re: Facebook versus The BMJ: when fact checking goes wrong

#111

Post by Kye »

b112 wrote: post #86
bobcostas55 wrote: post #22

The entire idea of "fact checking" on social media is premised on the notion that fact checkers have some kind of superior epistemic merit compared to the checkees. When you're fact checking random people or journalists that may or may not be true, but why does Zucc think facebook's checkers are superior to the BMJ? What are the fact checker's credentials, and most importantly what is their track record? The extreme…

What really bugs me here is, everyone yells at facebook, saying it is spreading propaganda, lies, societal harm, etc. Then, fact checking is attempted, and people claim censorship, an imperfect job, and the idea that "How dare they!" I literally loath, hate, and despise facebook. But come on, they're only doing this because everyone piled on them, claiming they must fact check and validate things. If I was facebook,…

The people who want Facebook to not half-ass being a publisher and the people who want Facebook to stay neutral are different crowds.

Re: Facebook versus The BMJ: when fact checking goes wrong

#112

Post by nickelpro »

disgruntledphd2 wrote: post #99
nickelpro wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I posted exactly such a response. I don't expect everyone to shut up. The response addresses both the inaccuracies of the BMJ opinion piece and, more interestingly, explores how such a piece came to be put out by the BMJ in the first place.

That piece you linked is equally (if not more) biased as the original Thracker piece. Honestly, I've lost a lot of respect for SBM based on that post, as it's a political argument. In general, it's incredibly sad that Covid has lead to such politicisation around vaccines and trials. It seems (to me, at least) that most of what people (SBM, the FB fact-checkers) are concerned about is other people using the informatio…

If you can view the full body of evidence and believe that there are "data integrity issues in Pfizer’s vaccine trial" or support more specific accusations such as "the company... unblinded patients", then that's totally fair. I cannot find those conclusions in what's been released, and based on what's been released I think classifying such a headline as "missing context" is accurate.

If the headline was "Questions about data integrity in Ventavia-run vaccine trials" or "Allegations of misconduct at three vaccine trial sites" I might be more sympathetic; but as it stands I think classifying this as agenda-based spin is a fair assessment, as on the whole there are no concerns about about the Pfizer vaccine trial, only the three sites administered by Ventavia. The distinction being that the integrity of the Pfizer trial stands on solid ground even without the Ventavia data, which is a small fraction of the total data set.

That the agenda the BMJ is spinning for is anti-vax is deeply disturbing to me, but that's a separate discussion. I hope you can at least see the concern about such a headline, how it might be perceived as spin, even if you personally don't view it as such.

Re: Facebook versus The BMJ: when fact checking goes wrong

#113

Post by Spooky23 »

bobcostas55 wrote: post #22

The entire idea of "fact checking" on social media is premised on the notion that fact checkers have some kind of superior epistemic merit compared to the checkees. When you're fact checking random people or journalists that may or may not be true, but why does Zucc think facebook's checkers are superior to the BMJ? What are the fact checker's credentials, and most importantly what is their track record? The extreme…

It’s not fact checking… it’s a spam filter style that slaps a warning label on things that could allows Facebook to say they did something.

No different than warning labels on cigarettes or really boring commercials from the NFL urging you to not gamble too much.

Re: Facebook versus The BMJ: when fact checking goes wrong

#114

Post by CoastalCoder »

gadders wrote: post #27
bobcostas55 wrote: post #22

The entire idea of "fact checking" on social media is premised on the notion that fact checkers have some kind of superior epistemic merit compared to the checkees. When you're fact checking random people or journalists that may or may not be true, but why does Zucc think facebook's checkers are superior to the BMJ? What are the fact checker's credentials, and most importantly what is their track record? The extreme…

I think they are mostly journalists that couldn't get hired on at a major newspaper.

Why do you think that?

Re: Facebook versus The BMJ: when fact checking goes wrong

#115

Post by tagoregrtst »

GameOfFrowns wrote: post #69
amcoastal wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I will never truly understand the infatuation with Hunter Biden. Oh, the son of a candidate to be president/the president is using their position for personal gain in a corrupt fashion? That's certainly not something that has been happening for the last half decade...

The accusation is that Hunter Biden was merely the proxy to buy Joe Biden. >That's certainly not something that has been happening for the last half decade... So, then what's keeping the 'liberal' media from reporting on the Biden/Burisma connection with the same zealotry the media showed when reporting on the Trump family's dirty dealings? Instead of that, they killed the Hunter Biden story in the run up to the elec…

But to salvage whatever is left of their reputations outside a small group of true believers, they have since acknowledged that the laptop story is real.

After the election, of course ;)

The most annoying part of where we are is that I no longer know where to get fair reporting. I guess its always been like that, especially for foreign reporting, but its so laughably bad now :(

Re: Facebook versus The BMJ: when fact checking goes wrong

#116

Post by peteradio »

nickelpro wrote: post #60
undecisive wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you actually read that article? It's expecting a whole lot of detailed evidence from an article. And maybe they're right? Maybe the article should have provided more excruciating details. But the details it does provide - just from the bits quoted here - seem enough to justify a stance of "We need to do better than this", at least. It smacks of "Yes, some sloppy science was done here, but you can't prove it chan…

I've read the article, Facebook's "fact checker" page, the BMJ's response, and the fact checker's response, as well as the posted response from Science Based Medicine. None of it "smacks of" anything, the series of events is clearly laid out. A former Ventavia regional director provided internal company documents to Thacker that laid out potential flaws in clinical trials run by the company for Pfizer's vaccine candi…

Inadvertent is no excuse and adding that "context" to the statement would tend to be misinformation as its not a valid excuse in the context of clinical trials governed by strict policy. Its "we followed policy" or "we failed to follow policy", FDA is not equipped to audit the entirety of all locations and there is a hell of a lot of trust involved. Pfizer getting their bell rung over these infractions should be expected and appreciated not refuted.

Re: Facebook versus The BMJ: when fact checking goes wrong

#117

Post by tagoregrtst »

gadders wrote: post #70
amcoastal wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I will never truly understand the infatuation with Hunter Biden. Oh, the son of a candidate to be president/the president is using their position for personal gain in a corrupt fashion? That's certainly not something that has been happening for the last half decade...

I think the implication (and no idea if true or not) is that he is also helping his Dad enrich himself. Plus there are some weird sexual family dynamics hinted at as well.

“ and no idea if true or not”

Well I think traditional media have acknowledged that the laptop is real. Of course that doesn't mean there was anything salacious on it and the excerpts arent in fact fake

Re: Facebook versus The BMJ: when fact checking goes wrong

#118

Post by pessimizer »

I'm an absolute enemy of both "fact checking" and corporate regulation of speech, in coordination with government, on forums as large and general as Facebook. That being said, this supporter of the Facebook action, who is well qualified to speak, offers very good arguments that this was not science but instead guest editorial by a regular woo/conspiracy pitcher, and another specific indictment of recent BMJ editorial decisions.

Didn't convince me that "fact checking" isn't vile, but it convinced me that in this specific case, the content was shit:

https://respectfulinsolence.com/2021/12/22/the-bmj-editors-s...

EDIT - actual link: https://respectfulinsolence.com/2021/11/15/wtf-happened-to-t...

Re: Facebook versus The BMJ: when fact checking goes wrong

#119

Post by fer »

alignItems wrote: post #68
largbae wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The BMJ does not claim protections as a platform, whether you call it one or not. BMJ is a publisher, and takes responsibility for the content that it publishes. The argument here is that FaceBook is now also a publisher.

This is political/legal distinction. Perhaps Facebook now is a publisher and needs to increase censorship even more. Or the law can be changed to differentiate based on the scale of contributions and the corresponding complexity of moderation.

The distinction needs to be there, from the moment FB (or Twitter) has a conflict of interest: their revenue depends on the content being engaging, regardless its factuality.

In my head, if they do any filtering or ordering of content, they have to be accountable such content, since they are exerting a de facto editorial line.

I don't really understand how a newspaper publishing an incendiary op-ed can accountable for it, whereas the same thing as a viral FB post won't hold FB accountable. The only difference is that an editor picks the former, and an algorithm picks the latter.

Is that it? Does delegating responsibilities to a computer make us any less responsible of the results?

Re: Facebook versus The BMJ: when fact checking goes wrong

#120

Post by mandmandam »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #105
mandmandam wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We know for a fact that FB leadership regularly discussed ripping off smaller companies business ideas (ie, Snapchat [0]. Not a sign of moral people. https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/08/17/theftovation-facebook-...

Ripping off business ideas is an aspect of competition (BK versus McDonalds), not sure it is related to morals…

Sorry, what?

If I share an mp3 the record industry demands ridiculous compensation.

If I steal a paragraph in a college exam and get caught, I'm sent home without credit or refund.

If I sell a drawing of a certain cartoon mouse, or draw a red shirt on Pooh, I can literally go to jail.

... But if I invest my life savings to start a company based on an insightful idea and read of the market, a trillion dollar company can rip me off wholesale and people will call it "business" and "not related to morals"?

Please tell me that sounds as batshit insane to you as it does to me.

Post reply on HN