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

221–230 of 307 posts

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

#221

Post by cplusplusfellow »

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 have some small trouble believing that the fact checking is in fact, checking facts. They are checking narrative.

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

#222

Post by alexvoda »

rajin444 wrote: post #182
SilasX wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Be careful not to jump the gun here. The vast majority of fact checking exists to call out stuff that's demonstrably false, and it's to their credit that social media platforms link a refutation. But when you have a huge number of stories, there are going to be edge cases, and BMJ got snared by one here. As I understand it: BMJ found legit problems with one vaccine's clinical trial. But this kind of thing gets seized…

> But then they apply that label to all postings of the story, even ones who were sharing it with the subtext of "Pfizer is corrupt" rather than "don't get vaxxed". Not getting a vaccine because the producer is corrupt seems logical to me. What am I missing? The average person has almost no power in evaluating these vaccines and relies almost entirely on trust.

It is only logical if you assume that the producer is the only source of information that can or can not be trusted.

That is not reality. There are many sources of information supporting the same claim even if an important one of them (the manufacturer) can not be trusted. An untrustworthy manufacturer can still make a good product.

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

#223

Post by philistine »

aiilns wrote: post #205
SilasX wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Be careful not to jump the gun here. The vast majority of fact checking exists to call out stuff that's demonstrably false, and it's to their credit that social media platforms link a refutation. But when you have a huge number of stories, there are going to be edge cases, and BMJ got snared by one here. As I understand it: BMJ found legit problems with one vaccine's clinical trial. But this kind of thing gets seized…

How is _BMJ_ an "edge case"? And why should Facebook and its partners decide on what the conclusions to be drawn from this story should be? I'm sorry, but to me your attitude seems arrogant and condescending: the masses cannot tell truth from lie and cannot be trusted to reach the correct conclusions. And I suppose that, if asked, you would advocate for education with emphasis put on critical thinking. But you can't…

Such a large part of social media is nothing but newspaper websites with the numbers filed off. With those fact-checking doodads, Facebook is getting one step closer to being a full on content producer itself.

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

#224

Post by formerly_proven »

cplusplusfellow wrote: post #221
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 have some small trouble believing that the fact checking is in fact, checking facts. They are checking narrative.

Narrative Enforcement

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

#225

Post by [deleted] »

aa-jv wrote: post #128
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…

Fact checking is better referred to as "authority enforcement" or "mainstream validation". Here's how you know the fact checkers are actually propagandists: you can't find their name or their credentials, or who they work for/paid them.

[deleted]

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

#226

Post by d23 »

alignItems wrote: post #53

From Lead Stories' Response [1]: > The "Missing Context" label applies to content that (while true or real) might still be misleading because crucial information is missing. Given the enormous engagement the article received and the kinds of reactions it elicited that certainly seems to have been the case here. “Covid-19: Researcher blows the whistle on data integrity issues in Pfizer’s vaccine trial” > The BMJ.com h…

I'm coming to the same conclusion. Judging by just how far down I had to come to find this comment even on a site like HN, it's pretty clear people are uninterested or unable to read, put things into context, and think critically.

I'm surprised people can't even recognize the smell of something wrong, even when it's out in the open:

> The BMJ has locked horns with Facebook and the gatekeepers of international fact checking after one of its investigations was wrongly labelled with “missing context” and censored on the world’s largest social network.

The tone of the very first sentence is off. This is the publication describing itself.

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

#227

Post by logifail »

tablespoon wrote: post #219
jerf wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The vast majority of fact checking exists to call out stuff that's demonstrably false," Prove it, and prove that the underpaid non-specialist moderator who labelled it as such was justified even if they were right. Facebook is not and can not be an arbiter of truth in the abstract, and in the concrete the specific people doing the work certainly are not. Where are Facebook getting these experts who know so much abou…

>> "The vast majority of fact checking exists to call out stuff that's demonstrably false," > Prove it, I mean, isn't it obvious from recent history that social media fact checking emerged as a band aid , because of demonstrably false blatant lies like Pizzagate, Q Anon, Stop the Steal, and all kinds of Anti-vax crankery were spreading like wildfire on social media? And at every step of the way the social media compa…

> blatant lies

Not the specific issues you mention, but the problem with this approach is that just occasionally "blatant lies" turn out to be true.

Powerful people have acted to suppress dissenting opinions; whether it's whether Covid leaked from a lab or Galileo Galilei's 'Eppur si muove' way back in 1633[0], and most likely this has been going on long before that.

When I look at social media I can't help thinking of that line: "It's not what we don't know that gets us in trouble. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so'?"

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_yet_it_moves

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

#229

Post by tablespoon »

kryogen1c wrote: post #201
SilasX wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Prove it, and prove that the underpaid non-specialist moderator who labelled it as such was justified even if they were right. >Facebook is not and can not be an arbiter of truth in the abstract, I'm not sure you're replying to the right comment, because I wasn't claiming that the BMJ story was demonstrably false[1], and I wasn't defending any action that labeled it as such. The action was to label it as "needs cont…

> I wasn't claiming that the BMJ story was demonstrably false[1], and I wasn't defending any action that labeled it as such. The action was to label it as "needs context", a category which specifically exists not to claim that the story is false. which stories on facebook dont need context? this is not snark and the question is not trivial. nothing - NOTHING - means the same in isolation as contextually. facebook isn…

> which stories on facebook dont need context?

Probably not many, but the label is like a "watch your step" sign. People should be careful all the time, but sometimes it's best to remind them. You don't put those signs on everything and you don't put them on nothing, you put them in situations where there's a reason to think it's necessary.

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

#230

Post by steelstraw »

aa-jv wrote: post #128
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…

Fact checking is better referred to as "authority enforcement" or "mainstream validation". Here's how you know the fact checkers are actually propagandists: you can't find their name or their credentials, or who they work for/paid them.

The year is 1633.

Galileo: "Earth and all other planets revolve around the Sun."

Fact Check: Experts say Earth is the center of the universe. Galileo's claim is false and harmful.

Post reply on HN