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

231–240 of 307 posts

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

#231

Post by ModernMech »

refurb wrote: post #220
ModernMech wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand what you are saying, but at the same time the claim was that she was a “convicted terrorist”, when in fact she was not convicted of terrorism. That’s just a fact. You can look at her convictions, and there is no conviction for terrorism. There’s plenty to say about her actions, which are certainly terroristic, but her being “convicted” of terrorism is straight up not true, no matter how you feel about it…

You’re playing the same fuck-fuck games that Snopes plays. The claim is “convicted terrorist”. Those are two claims: 1) she is a terrorist and 2) she was convicted. Even Snope admits she was convicted of crimes linked to terrorism, but the link is subjective. ”it is a matter of subjective determination as to whether the actions for which Rosenberg was convicted and imprisoned — possession of weapons and hundreds of p…

I’m sorry I don’t know what a fuck fuck game is, but I’m not sure you aren’t playing one with me.

You’re trying to tell me that “convicted” is not an adjective applying to the following word terrorist? Is that your argument?

Anyway, even if we accept what you say here, that there were two claims: one she was convicted of crimes. True. Two she is a terrorist: subjective. One person’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter. A verdict of “mixture” given this split seems appropriate.

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

#232

Post by seneca »

refurb wrote: post #220
ModernMech wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand what you are saying, but at the same time the claim was that she was a “convicted terrorist”, when in fact she was not convicted of terrorism. That’s just a fact. You can look at her convictions, and there is no conviction for terrorism. There’s plenty to say about her actions, which are certainly terroristic, but her being “convicted” of terrorism is straight up not true, no matter how you feel about it…

You’re playing the same fuck-fuck games that Snopes plays. The claim is “convicted terrorist”. Those are two claims: 1) she is a terrorist and 2) she was convicted. Even Snope admits she was convicted of crimes linked to terrorism, but the link is subjective. ”it is a matter of subjective determination as to whether the actions for which Rosenberg was convicted and imprisoned — possession of weapons and hundreds of p…

You're dead on. This is a "distinction without a difference" and is a classic logical fallacy. It is the heart of "weasel words".

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

#233

Post by etherael »

abecedarius wrote: post #217
etherael wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They should indeed just ignore them, free speech wasn't arrived at as an optimal path by accident. Nothing changed to make it not-optimal. People need to adapt to not believing every stupid thing they read on the internet and actually thinking critically about things. The information streams of the world should not be tailored to the critical thinking ability of complete morons. It blows my mind we went from "trying…

> What the fuck happened? I think a few broad trends reinforced each other in the U.S. But kind of prerequisite, people came to get too much of their notion of free speech as a scholastic doctrine in state schools. Mills's On Liberty argues that a doctrine elevated above criticism comes to be held in an empty way, and gets lost over time even if it's true . It seems like that happened here to the idea of free speech…

If the trend continues, we very well may.

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

#234

Post by tablespoon »

logifail wrote: post #227
tablespoon wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> "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…

>> blatant lies like Pizzagate, Q Anon, Stop the Steal, and all kinds of Anti-vax crankery

> 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.

That's certainly true, but it's also important to not let the perfect be the enemy of the good, either. It doesn't help those "dissenting opinions" if they're drowned out in a sea of lies or if the lies (collectively) do far more damage.

Social media fact checking isn't some kind of hard block that can suppress any idea from being seen by anyone (in fact, this case it was little more than a caution sign), and IMHO it's probably better for the truth if it has to pass some hurdles and gets slowed down a bit, just as long as those hurdles increase the single-to-noise ratio. There's reason process like scientific peer review are respected.

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

#235

Post by refurb »

ModernMech wrote: post #231
refurb wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re playing the same fuck-fuck games that Snopes plays. The claim is “convicted terrorist”. Those are two claims: 1) she is a terrorist and 2) she was convicted. Even Snope admits she was convicted of crimes linked to terrorism, but the link is subjective. ”it is a matter of subjective determination as to whether the actions for which Rosenberg was convicted and imprisoned — possession of weapons and hundreds of p…

I’m sorry I don’t know what a fuck fuck game is, but I’m not sure you aren’t playing one with me. You’re trying to tell me that “convicted” is not an adjective applying to the following word terrorist? Is that your argument? Anyway, even if we accept what you say here, that there were two claims: one she was convicted of crimes. True. Two she is a terrorist: subjective. One person’s terrorist is another’s freedom fig…

By this logic no claims can ever be proven because in the end everything is subjective.

To quote Bill Clinton, it depends on your definition of “is”.

Terrorism has a pretty well accepted definition - violent acts against civilians to gain political power. That’s exactly what she was doing when caught with hundreds of pounds of explosives.

But again, it’s a distinction without worth - the claim implies she is a violent radical. Whether she was convicted of terrorism, kidnapping, illegal explosives or smuggled firearms is moot - she’s a terrorist that was convicted of terrorist acts.

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

#236

Post by nailer »

ModernMech wrote: post #231
refurb wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re playing the same fuck-fuck games that Snopes plays. The claim is “convicted terrorist”. Those are two claims: 1) she is a terrorist and 2) she was convicted. Even Snope admits she was convicted of crimes linked to terrorism, but the link is subjective. ”it is a matter of subjective determination as to whether the actions for which Rosenberg was convicted and imprisoned — possession of weapons and hundreds of p…

I’m sorry I don’t know what a fuck fuck game is, but I’m not sure you aren’t playing one with me. You’re trying to tell me that “convicted” is not an adjective applying to the following word terrorist? Is that your argument? Anyway, even if we accept what you say here, that there were two claims: one she was convicted of crimes. True. Two she is a terrorist: subjective. One person’s terrorist is another’s freedom fig…

As the other commenter asks - do you think Mohammed Atta was a terrorist?

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

#237

Post by ModernMech »

seneca wrote: post #232
refurb wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re playing the same fuck-fuck games that Snopes plays. The claim is “convicted terrorist”. Those are two claims: 1) she is a terrorist and 2) she was convicted. Even Snope admits she was convicted of crimes linked to terrorism, but the link is subjective. ”it is a matter of subjective determination as to whether the actions for which Rosenberg was convicted and imprisoned — possession of weapons and hundreds of p…

You're dead on. This is a "distinction without a difference" and is a classic logical fallacy. It is the heart of "weasel words".

I’m sorry but don’t you see the irony here?

This Snopes fact check goes into a measured analysis of the claim. It presents all sides fairly. It arrives at a conclusion that one aspect of the claim is subjective, and they aren’t wrong about that. Therefore they give split rating with caveats and context.

You and others are arguing an absolutist position that removes all the nuance, and blurs technical crimes with subjective interpretations of those crimes. Moreover, you claim those who engage with the nuance are weasels playing fuck fuck games (I know you didn’t say that but you endorsed the comment that did).

For example, I could say that the people who invaded the Capitol on Jan 6 were terrorists. Hundreds have been charged, some convictions are coming down, none of which are terrorism. Would it be fair for me to say they are convicted terrorists? No, there is a lot of nuance here that is lost if I do that.

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

#238

Post by BitwiseFool »

ModernMech wrote: post #231
refurb wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re playing the same fuck-fuck games that Snopes plays. The claim is “convicted terrorist”. Those are two claims: 1) she is a terrorist and 2) she was convicted. Even Snope admits she was convicted of crimes linked to terrorism, but the link is subjective. ”it is a matter of subjective determination as to whether the actions for which Rosenberg was convicted and imprisoned — possession of weapons and hundreds of p…

I’m sorry I don’t know what a fuck fuck game is, but I’m not sure you aren’t playing one with me. You’re trying to tell me that “convicted” is not an adjective applying to the following word terrorist? Is that your argument? Anyway, even if we accept what you say here, that there were two claims: one she was convicted of crimes. True. Two she is a terrorist: subjective. One person’s terrorist is another’s freedom fig…

I don't know how to clearly capture my sentiment. Is there a logical fallacy for completely missing the intent of the argument because one aspect of it can be legalistically interpreted as completely invalid?

I am reminded of how Orthodox religious folks manage to get around scripture by fixating on a few qualifying words and weaseling (for lack of a better term) out of what seems to be intent of the law.

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

#239

Post by mc32 »

refurb wrote: post #235
ModernMech wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m sorry I don’t know what a fuck fuck game is, but I’m not sure you aren’t playing one with me. You’re trying to tell me that “convicted” is not an adjective applying to the following word terrorist? Is that your argument? Anyway, even if we accept what you say here, that there were two claims: one she was convicted of crimes. True. Two she is a terrorist: subjective. One person’s terrorist is another’s freedom fig…

By this logic no claims can ever be proven because in the end everything is subjective. To quote Bill Clinton, it depends on your definition of “is”. Terrorism has a pretty well accepted definition - violent acts against civilians to gain political power. That’s exactly what she was doing when caught with hundreds of pounds of explosives. But again, it’s a distinction without worth - the claim implies she is a violen…

Critically, lots of these things are viewed through a political lens. So the same exact acts can be interpreted differently depending on how the politics or motives of the actor are interpreted.

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

#240

Post by logifail »

tablespoon wrote: post #234
logifail wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

>> blatant lies like Pizzagate, Q Anon, Stop the Steal, and all kinds of Anti-vax crankery > 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 be…

> It doesn't help those "dissenting opinions" if they're drowned out in a sea of lies or if the lies (collectively) do far more damage.

It's a fairly central part of the scientific method to be able to construct falsifiable hypotheses and then to attempt to test them.

> Social media fact checking isn't some kind of hard block that can suppress any idea from being seen [..]

Except it just did: discussion on the origins of Covid was almost completely shut down for well over a year by the actions of one or more bad actors, hugely amplified by well-meaning but weak-minded media and social media outlets?

Post reply on HN