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

231–240 of 702 posts

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#231

Post by mitchdoogle »

bjt2n3904 wrote: post #128
OldManAndTheCpp wrote: post #12

"Fact checking" serves only to ossify the current view on any emerging discussion. Vatican "fact checkers" kept Galileo under house arrest for spreading "fake news", in a sense. This is an unwinnable fight, the only reasonable response is to abandon the pretense that opinions are facts, and that most people can't distinguish truth from falsehood.

Still waiting for the apology from all the people who said that this was all very necessary to combat misinformation and save democracy, and that any suggestions that this could possibly have bad outcomes was relying on a slippery slope fallacy, and not to be regarded.

This story is literally about a single instance. By that logic, a single instance where fact checkers proved something was false is enough to justify their existence.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#232

Post by tomohawk »

threatofrain wrote: post #97
throwaway_2009 wrote: post #40

"Fact checking" is newspeak for censorship. If the Telegraph controlled the "fact checker" the Guardian wouldn't exist. If the Guardian controlled the "fact checker", the Telegraph wouldn't exist. If you support "fact checkers", you are not welcome in my life and I will route around you. You could, perhaps, consider yourself to have been "fact checked".

I consider my doctor a fact checker, and I certainly wouldn't route around them just because they had the extraordinary moral audacity to check facts and not report garbage to me. The BMJ also makes decisions about what is worthy for their name, and yes, that means they "censor" people from appearing on their platform. You could say that one man's garbage is another man's treasure, but I'm not sure I would ever say t…

Does your doctor have a monopoly on speech? Does your doctor go around and tell people what to say and not say? Does your doctor have the authority to disallow other doctors from practicing? Is your doctor the only doctor you're allowed to go to, or can you just go to another one if you're not satisfied about their competence?

This reasoning by analogy doesn't really go anywhere.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#233

Post by najqh »

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…

https://media.giphy.com/media/lMgKrkuwr1xB1OaEqA/giphy.gif

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#234

Post by Hamuko »

caddemon wrote: post #213
MattGaiser wrote: post #121

Facebook does fact checking because people decided to blame them for misinformation rather than the people actually doing it. Their customers demanded that they take action, so whether or not the action is useful, they were required to do so.

The algorithmic news feed incentivizes misinformation in a way that the old chronological feed did not. Facebook absolutely helped to create this situation in the first place.

This is basically them trying to fix the money printer in a way that doesn't involve turning off the money printer.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#235

Post by mensetmanusman »

FalcorTheDog wrote: post #185
mensetmanusman wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That made me laugh. I don’t know anyone who would think that is a serious article.

A quick glance at: https://www.reddit.com/r/AteTheOnion may be enlightening/horrifying.

Laughing over these examples I had an epiphany: we need more of this, all the time.

If half the articles someone looked at were clear satire, people would have to think about what they are reading and who the source is. (Analogous to how we are being trained to recognize phishing)

For those that can’t figure out what satire is, A/B test content until we discover empirically how stupid something has to be before even they realize it is satire.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#236

Post by askin4it »

bjt2n3904 wrote: post #128
OldManAndTheCpp wrote: post #12

"Fact checking" serves only to ossify the current view on any emerging discussion. Vatican "fact checkers" kept Galileo under house arrest for spreading "fake news", in a sense. This is an unwinnable fight, the only reasonable response is to abandon the pretense that opinions are facts, and that most people can't distinguish truth from falsehood.

Still waiting for the apology from all the people who said that this was all very necessary to combat misinformation and save democracy, and that any suggestions that this could possibly have bad outcomes was relying on a slippery slope fallacy, and not to be regarded.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSc6RTDfqtk&ab_channel=Rando...

the truth hurts...if you care about the truth...

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#237

Post by killjoywashere »

xwolfi wrote: post #211
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…

I'm French, live in China, so familiar from both countries with what you say. But I think I disagree a bit with your annoyance with agenda setting and journalist incestuous relationship with ideology or politics. Look I dont know how you're taught in Spain but in France we gave up neutral journalism centuries ago. Each newspaper is clearly categorized and we learn as children, around 7 IIRC all the links (le monde so…

> even a genius in his lab building a life saving cure will forget to listen to the victims of the sacrifices he requires for the greater good

As a nerd in a building trying to build things to save lives from disease (“cure” is too strong a word), there are explicit ethics reviews my work has to go through, with an almost bizarre frequency, so I disagree with this statement specifically. Otherwise, I enjoyed your comment.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#238

Post by SantalBlush »

deft wrote: post #168
loldk wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because someone can use something to destroy and hurt humanity or smaller or larger groups of people or living things... doesn't mean we should let those bad actors have their way by not using them for good, which is the whole point. Listen to yourself. You are allowing MSM to manipulate the meaning of things in your mind. You literally just suggested that fact checking in general is bad and should go away. I kn…

"fact checking" is bad. I'm not sure what the good version of it you imagine. By "fact checking in general" do you mean pointing out when someone is wrong? The parent comment sees fact checking as one thing: propaganda used to shut down heterodoxy. It has nothing to do with facts or truth.

If fact checking is bad, why are you wrapping it in quotation marks? Is there a difference between fact checking and "fact checking" implied here, and if so, what is that difference? Please elaborate.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#239

Post by spoonjim »

“Fact checking” makes sense when “whitelisting” content, i.e. the New Yorker deciding that only verifiable facts are publishable. It makes no sense for “blacklisting” content where everything is presumed OK. It inherently assumes that Facebook can ascertain the factual truth of something which is just not true.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#240

Post by emtel »

AlexTWithBeard wrote: post #65

One thing that puzzles me: why people (still?) use Facebook? What's so good about it? There are dozens of platforms where people can post their thoughts, like and be liked. I feel like something's evading me. Is it because I'm an old fart?

For most people, Facebook is the only place where they can stay in touch with their family and friends. My friends and family are not and never will be on mastodon or diaspora or anything like that.

Also, private special interest groups on Facebook are really excellent. There's nothing else like it. Sub Reddits are good for anonymous/psuedonymous general discussion, but for actually meeting and interacting with people who share your interests, and especially for sharing pictures/videos, I haven't seen anything better than Facebook. I'm a member of several music related Facebook groups - they get far more high quality participation (and fewer flame-wars) than comparable old-school web forums.

Post reply on HN