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

251–260 of 307 posts

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

#251

Post by nailer »

ModernMech wrote: post #237
seneca wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 subj…

> 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?

If they're convicted of planning an attack on civilians then yes. How many instances of this happening do you know of?

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

#252

Post by gadders »

tagoregrtst wrote: post #209
gadders wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The laptop is definitely real and his. I think there are salacious items on it (but I'm not sure if all the items I've seen claimed were on his laptop really were). I'm not sure if the stolen diary is really his sister's. FBI raiding Project Veritas might suggest it is?e Unfortunately what is lacking is some large news organisation with lots of resources tracking down and corroborating all the information. But that w…

The diary is real, that much has been eluded to. But, again, are the excerpts that have trickled out real? For what its worth, I believe [1] PV didn't publish anything from the diary deeming its contents irrelevant to the public. But the stuff on laptop? I think its probably genuine. Too much corroborating material. Too many sweet board positions. Too much success in the art world (btw, the art is not bad. Just… unor…

PV declined to publish the diary because they couldn't be certain it was genuine and handed it over to the authorities. But still got raided by the FBI.

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

#253

Post by twic »

nickelpro wrote: post #136
twic wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Science Based Medicine isn't exactly squeaky clean either: https://jessesingal.substack.com/p/science-based-medicines-c... Now, someone post a takedown of Singal so we can keep the chain going ...

If the BMJ issued a retraction and explanation in the same way that SBM did over that review we wouldn't be having this discussion. Hell if the BMJ didn't actively protest the fact checker's representation of the article as "missing context" we wouldn't be having this discussion. Publishing missteps are inevitable. The BMJ is claiming authorial supremacy above its critics, that's the root of the controversy.

The retraction was the misstep.

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

#254

Post by dogleash »

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…

>Given how many of the social media audience would read just the title, perhaps the missing context label is accurate.

If that's the standard we're going with, 95% of content and 100% of ads on social media should also have big factcheck warnings on them.

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

#255

Post by ModernMech »

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…

> no claims can ever be proven because in the end everything is subjective.

That's not true, because Rosenberg was convicted of crimes. It's a fact to state what those convictions were. There's no arguing with that.

- Rosenberg was convicted of weapons and explosive possession: 100% true statement

- Rosenberg was convicted of fraudulent document possession: 100% true statement

- Rosenberg was convicted of terrorism: not 100% true, there are multiple, valid, although subjective interpretations of the facts that relate to terrorism.

> Terrorism has a pretty well accepted definition - violent acts against civilians to gain political power.

If we go by this well accepted definition, then almost every government on the planet fits, particularly the US government. I'm sure you will now argue a caveat and qualifications to the well accepted definition you presented above, but that would undermine your point that the definition is well accepted. We can go back and forth for a while about what the definition of terrorism is, but that would just further prove the Snopes article right - that the definition of terrorism and how that applies to the facts is subjective, and would need to be determined by a court of law.

> 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.

Then why not just say that? You believe she was a terrorist because she was convicted of illegal weapons and explosives possession. That's a fine statement to make, and the Snopes article agrees. But it's different from "convicted terrorist".

You believe there is no distinction, but others disagree. Notably, the Snopes article covers this nuance, includes sources, and makes clear that your viewpoint is valid. It also makes room for other valid viewpoints here, which you refuse to do. Nevertheless, I disagree that words are meaningless, especially highly politically charged words like "terrorist".

I'm advocating for nuance here, and your continued replies seem very absolutist to me. You're instructing me to ignore the nuance in the Snopes article, and replace it with a black-and-white view of the world that aligns with your own. What's astounding to me is that you say the Snopes article is playing games with words and definitions, when in reality it provides a well-sourced and nuanced point of view on this issue. Meanwhile you're trying to tell me that "convicted terrorist" means "someone who was convicted of unstated crimes and is also separately a terrorist". I mean, come on. That's not a fuck-fuck game?

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

#256

Post by tynpeddler »

If this is BMJ's best argument, then I'm going to have to side with Facebook on this one. This quote right here basically sums up the silliness of the BMJ's argument:

>Alan Duke, editor in chief of Lead Stories, told The BMJ that the “Missing Context” label was created by Facebook specifically “to deal with content that could mislead without additional context but which was otherwise true or real.”

This whole episode is one more piece highlighting the difficulties caused by casual readers attempting to read technical literature. Technical literature covers topics that average readers have little to no experience with and as such non-technical readers are prone to drawing unsupportable conclusions from them. Honestly, any technical article can be slapped with the "Missing Context" flag by default.

The positions in this article are pretty simple. BMJ publishes a report showing that one of the contractors performing studies for Pfizer's covid vaccine had practices that were flawed but did not render the data unusable. As far as I can tell, everyone agrees on these facts. This article was widely shared on Facebook, primarily by anti-vaccine groups. Lead Stories is asked by Facebook to fact check the article and Lead Stories assigns the "Missing Context" flag

Extrapolating from context, I'm going to assume that anti-vaxxers were arguing that this was proof that the vaccine is entirely unreliable and should not be used (this seems like a safe assumption because it's the conclusion that anti-vaxxers always come to no matter the evidence). It's important to note that BMJ and Lead Stories both agree that this conclusion is entirely unsupportable by the article.

The BMJ is intended for a technical audience, so from a technical reader's standpoint, the article is complete as it is. Lead Stories is reading from the viewpoint of a non-technical reader; someone who lacks the skills and experience necessary to understand the article. So Lead Stories points out that readers need more information than is in the article in order to understand it. This is trivially non-controversial from the plain english definition of "technical literature". It's even more true in light of the fact that anti-vaxxers are using the article to build flawed arguments that are resulting in the deaths of thousands. BMJ's response to the situation is unsupportable and, perhaps intentionally, is arguing something completely differently than Lead Stories.

That's not to say BMJ doesn't have a real grievance. They should push back on the wording Facebook provided in their notice. Facebook states that the article is partly false, which Lead Stories does not agree with. Facebook also, ironically, does not provide sufficient context on the meaning of the "Missing Context" label. But none of these problems with Facebook refute the appropriateness of the "Missing Context" label.

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

#257

Post by robmccoll »

madeofpalk wrote: post #188
robmccoll wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neither. Change the law to make platforms like Facebook accountable for the content published on them. Here's how you do that without damaging speech or making platform companies impossible: make platform protections dependent on revenue stream. If you are paid by the author to publish their work, you are a protected platform and it isn't your content. If you make money by selling advertising alongside the content or…

Wait... > If you make money by selling advertising alongside the content [...] you are exposed to libel lawsuits [...] The rest will sort itself out. By "sort itself out" you mean Facebook would moderate and remove 100x more content? I cannot see how that is not the only outcome if you make platforms liable for the content its users post.

That or they would turn to a model where they charge their users to post which would result in a reduction in content on its own without Facebook having to intervene or be held responsible for it. Only those who are really willing to stand by their content would be willing to pay (even if the fee is comparatively small). Networks of utter nonsense being posted and mindlessly reshared by large networks of bots and people who plainly don't care to fact check anything themselves would likely dry up.

Largely, there is a lot of misinformation spreading on Facebook that has harmful effects. Freedom of speech is tremendously important, but typically the tradeoff is that it comes with some personal responsibility / liability depending on who the speaker, the audience, the intentions of the speaker, and the effects of the speech on the audience. The current platform setup manages to shift that responsibility away from anyone. I think most reasonable people would agree with this, but perhaps many more people than I would think believe in limitless speech without consequences.

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

#258

Post by nailer »

ModernMech wrote: post #255
refurb wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> no claims can ever be proven because in the end everything is subjective. That's not true, because Rosenberg was convicted of crimes. It's a fact to state what those convictions were. There's no arguing with that. - Rosenberg was convicted of weapons and explosive possession: 100% true statement - Rosenberg was convicted of fraudulent document possession: 100% true statement - Rosenberg was convicted of terrorism:…

>> Terrorism has a pretty well accepted definition - violent acts against civilians to gain political power.

>If we go by this well accepted definition, then almost every government on the planet fits, particularly the US government.

Violent acts specifically targeted against civilians to gain political power.

> I'm sure you will now argue a caveat and qualifications to the well accepted definition you presented above, but that would undermine your point that the definition is well accepted.

I think it's rather than the person you're replying to assumed their audience was acting in good faith. I believe that you are an intelligent person and likely already aware that in the common definition of terrorism, acts have to be specifically targeted towards civilians. I think you're just supporting for football team rather than trying to seek the truth and I feel bad for the parent they're engaging with you.

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

#260

Post by EricE »

ryandrake wrote: post #213
wolframhempel wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's true, there are fundamental problems with the concept of "fact-checking". Often the "fact" is just the majority consent, as e.g., demonstrated by the banning of the Wuhan lab leak theory prior to it becoming mainstream. But more broadly, there is a stark imbalance between the resources of the fact-checker (a few minutes or hours to decide) and the author who (e.g. in this case) conducted a month-long, in-depth i…

I’m really uncomfortable with Fact Checking on the Internet, particularly because we don’t know who we are anointing as the checkers. But I have yet to see a better alternative. The status quo of just giving everyone in the world a megaphone is clearly worse and not working. It would be better if, instead of trying to claim that they were some kind of authority on what is a fact and what isn’t, they just said “this c…

"But I have yet to see a better alternative."

Sure you have - openness! Sunlight is the best disinfectant. I'd much rather not see ANY censorship and instead have the tools to make my own decision and filter out content I don't want to see. The downside is that takes work; many people seem content to be spoon fed as to what to believe/not believe or can't be bothered to get informed on their own so I get why some people seem to think the solution is "better" fact checkers - when that will NEVER be a solution since everyone has biases. Especially the people screeching the loudest that they don't - ha! They are the worst of all. If they can't even be honest with themselves why should I expect them to be honest with me?

The most valuable service these "fact checkers" provide is plausible deniability for their pet censorship decisions. If you think these fact checkers have your interests at heart - I have a really nice bridge in the desert I'll let go for cheap too!

Post reply on HN