Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg • Hacker News Board

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#451

Post by r-w » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 11:48 PM UTC

tzs wrote: post #140

dionian wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do we know the misinformation from the authorities is not similarly a problem? CDC and FDA flip flopped so many times over the last few years. WHO and CDC were telling us not to worry about pandemics, and instead worry about "stigma" instead as late as March 2020. https://twitter.com/DrTedros/status/1229137314074505216?s=20 https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1224734993966096387?s=20 Censorship is not the answer. It a…

> Censorship is not the answer. It actually gives more credence to the persecuted/wrong and lets them gain more supporters. Just like we dont ban KKK or Nazi stuff, we openly destroy their arguments with facts, not fascism. Destroying their arguments with facts doesn't work, because they just replace them with new arguments. Since it takes much less effort to generate new but plausible sounding incorrect arguments th…

They also don't listen anymore, thanks to echo chambers.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#452

Post by nradov » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 11:50 PM UTC

AlexTWithBeard wrote: post #155

rightisleft wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you just reinvented the news journalist...

Well, with the decline of newspapers there should be plenty of unemployed journalists who'll be happy to spread some knowledge around FB for a moderate fee? Or - this thought scares me the most - FB actually doesn't care about facts?

Facebook cares about advertising revenue. They only care about "facts" when content posted by users causes advertiser boycotts, or attracts unwanted attention from powerful politicians.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#453

Post by Flankk » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 11:51 PM UTC

Hamuko wrote: post #378

Flankk wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The private business argument is weak as you're really pointing to the freedom that businesses employ. Quite obviously censorship runs contrary to the idea of freedom and the spirit of the law. Private industry does not have an inherent right to censorship, it is only legal currently because social media is a relatively new form of communication. This censorship has clearly been disruptive and since social media is e…

> Private industry does not have an inherent right to censorship Facebook and Twitter both enjoy the rights bestowed upon them by the First Amendment to remove content as they see fit. Requiring Facebook and Twitter to host content that they don't want would violate their First Amendment rights.

The first amendment has nothing to do with that. The first amendment protects the individual and the press from government censorship. As I said, the spirit of the law is to protect from censorship. Unfortunately social media companies are abusing their power.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#454

Post by bagacrap » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 11:52 PM UTC

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #442

jsdevtom wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I agree with you for the most part, their responsibility should not be fact checking. That should be left to the individual.

They made themselves the fact checkers. If they're going to take the mantle of "fact checker", it is their responsibility to do it well.

On the contrary, it's politicians and old media who came up with the "fake news" slogan and demanded FB and others start censoring opposing viewpoints. FB is all too happy to help spread falsehoods and inflammatory articles since they both drive engagement.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#455

Post by ncr100 » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 11:54 PM UTC

Facebook's relationship to accuracy is deeply poor.

At the fundamental "entity" level, Facebook continues to glaringly miscategorize the recording of social relationships between people as "friendships". Clicking a "Friend" button for a family member is an insult, and doing the same for a casual acquaintance can incorrectly suggest mutual admiration.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#456

Post by r-w » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 11:55 PM UTC

henrikschroder wrote: post #352

SantalBlush wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In 2020, talking about the lab-leak theory was labelled "misinformation" and brutally purged from social media by "fact-checkers". In 2021, major news outlets started talking about it, and then it suddenly became ok to talk about it on social media again, and the "fact-checkers" did a complete 180 on the issue. They're not checking facts, they're just enforcing the mainstream view. The mainstream view is often correc…

I think people kept it taboo for as long as they could because: people were literally dying due to low vaccination rates, which were caused in large part by such specious conspiracy theories. Fact checkers did not do a 180, it is still widely considered a conspiracy theory, and its very existence harms public health even if there's a remote possibility it's true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_lab_leak_theory

“Some scientists agree that the possibility of a lab leak should be examined as part of the ongoing investigations into the origin of COVID-19, though they have expressed concerns about the risks of politicization.”

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#457

Post by hammock » Sat, Dec 18, 2021, 12:01 AM UTC

colinmhayes wrote: post #365

concinds wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "potential to mislead" I can't find that expression anywhere in the Lead Stories article. Facebook outright labelled the BMJ article "false" and containing "false information". Beyond that, should fact-checkers really become an "optics police"? For every single news story, you will have (wild) misinterpretations on social media. It becomes too convenient if a fact-checker can point to those, and then have Facebook…

My bad, the actual quote is "Missing context ... Independent fact-checkers say this information could mislead people" As far as whether Facebook should become "optics police" I think it's obviously a difficult decision, but with life and death questions such as "is the vaccine safe" I have to go with yes, facebook shouldn't let itself propagandize people who decide to read headlines instead of articles.

>life and death questions such as "is the vaccine safe"

Is that not a misleading thing to say yourself? Plenty of vaccinated have died. And for those unjabbed but with permanent acquired immunity, the jab may be safe yet at the same time have no material effect to save their life.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#458

Post by specialist » Sat, Dec 18, 2021, 12:01 AM UTC

postingawayonhn wrote: post #409

specialist wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Facebook doesn't want to be arbiter, they should stop arbitrating. The moment Facebook chooses what to display, they own the content. And it just so happens that what Facebook chooses to display, chooses to recommend, are the lies, more often than not.

The moment Facebook stops trying to be the arbiter is the moment the government steps in and places heavy regulations on them.

Facebook's algorithmic outrage amplification is necessary to prevent an overbearing government from forcibly reverting parasocial norms to a simple chronologically sorted inbox?

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#459

Post by atlgator » Sat, Dec 18, 2021, 12:01 AM UTC

The biggest problem with fact checking sites is that they equate having insufficient evidence with being false. It’s like a claim in the ‘00s that the Government was spying on Americans. A fact checker would say false but we just had insufficient evidence to prove it… until Snowden came along.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#460

Post by chrisseaton » Sat, Dec 18, 2021, 12:02 AM UTC

lp0_on_fire wrote: post #358

chrisseaton wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Only a true moron At Facebook's scale there are very many 'morons' out there who might see it. And this article demonstrably confused at least one person... as it got fact checked didn't it?

Does that not say more about the fact checker than it does the Babylon Bee? It's clearly a satirical site. It takes all of seconds to recognize it if you look at the site.

Maybe? Not sure it matters either way? I think the conclusion in both ways is: satire confuses people and it'd be good to mark it.