61–70 of 307 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think they are mostly journalists that couldn't get hired on at a major newspaper.
So this would imply they are trustworthy and dedicated to the truth, because we know major newspapers are neither trustworthy nor have any connection with the truth these days
"Facebook versus The BMJ: when fact checking goes wrong" Where has it gone wrong? “We did not call into question the integrity of The BMJ’s story, only the comprehensiveness of it. That’s the point of a ‘Missing Context’ rating. The BMJ article is being used as evidence of Vaccine Conspiracy theories, it's not like the warning is on the Article, it's where it's shared on Facebook and the missing context label is rele…
Where does this logic end? If I screenshotted your post and put it on my blog about how FB can do no wrong, that Zuck should be president, that the government is just out to get FB for being successful, etc. does that mean your post should have included context that clarified that none of this is true?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The audience for the BMJ is clearly listed as 'intended for health professionals'. I do think that these people would take seriously evidence for opposing views or experiments and draw their own - valid professional conclusions. These people are also unlikely to get their information from social media and take action on patient care because of it. I am firmly against this lowest common denominator approach of people…
So you're in favor of Facebook's policy on this? The article can still reach its intended audience (as you say, health professionals don't get their information from social media) and surely the BMJ will be more - not less - willing to publish controversial articles if they don't need to worry about them being used to mislead the public at large by being shared out of context.
- We think the BMJ is too complicated for you to properly understand.
as opposed to
- We had some group independently check and the BMJ is objectively wrong.
The first one seems a little un-pc, so I would say that people sharing stuff online and a loud minority going off on some mad conspiracy is the [acceptable] cost of being open with science and research.
Just treat them as ideological censors, not unlike those employed by authoritarian regimes. You want to publish an article criticizing the party? Not so fast! In order to get past them you have to use euphemisms hoping they won’t catch them. Or, profusely praise the ideology hoping to appease them so they’d let your article through, hoping they would be flattered and let your one slightly controversial idea at the end through.
No, they won’t send you to a labor camp or come after your family. And, yes it’s a private company and if anyone doesn’t like it they can leave, but the mechanics of censorship are exactly the same.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then there will be response articles which expose those errors as such, a consensus will be reached and we will move on to other issues. That is the nature of scientific discourse. Expecting everyone to shut up just because you shout "ANTIVAX" is not.
We all know it this ideal of "just debunk it" doesn't work. Not just because a correction doesn't have the same reach, but because one audience will actively reject and ignore the evidence and then continue using the article on social media as "evidence" itself.
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…
Given that, "fact-checking" necessarily has to be overly broad and erring on the side of censorship.
The BMJ itself tightly controls who can say what on its platform, and that is precisely why it gained its reputation. Granted, Facebook is supposed to be more open for everyone, but it’s still their platform, their reputation, and they can decide what to filter - and people can decide to take their discussions somewhere else.
The BMJ does not claim protections as a platform, whether you call it one or not. BMJ is a publisher, and takes responsibility for the content that it publishes. The argument here is that FaceBook is now also a publisher.
Perhaps Facebook now is a publisher and needs to increase censorship even more.
Or the law can be changed to differentiate based on the scale of contributions and the corresponding complexity of moderation.
Quoted post unavailable.
I will never truly understand the infatuation with Hunter Biden. Oh, the son of a candidate to be president/the president is using their position for personal gain in a corrupt fashion? That's certainly not something that has been happening for the last half decade...
>That's certainly not something that has been happening for the last half decade...
So, then what's keeping the 'liberal' media from reporting on the Biden/Burisma connection with the same zealotry the media showed when reporting on the Trump family's dirty dealings? Instead of that, they killed the Hunter Biden story in the run up to the election.
Quoted post unavailable.
I will never truly understand the infatuation with Hunter Biden. Oh, the son of a candidate to be president/the president is using their position for personal gain in a corrupt fashion? That's certainly not something that has been happening for the last half decade...