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

81–90 of 307 posts

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

#81

Post by axiosgunnar »

jakobnissen wrote: post #75
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…

Did Facebook really censor the lab leak idea? Last I checked, Facebook only censored the idea that the virus was manufactured, not that it merely leaked - and that theory is still fringe.

They not only censored in individual instances, it was literally part of a written policy of Facebook (that was even public) that asking if Covid was man-made was an illegal thought and to be censored and it got some press coverage when they finally got rid of it: https://techcrunch.com/2021/05/28/facebook-covid-man-made-la...

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

#82

Post by InsomniacL »

cool_dude85 wrote: post #62
InsomniacL wrote: post #39

"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…

>The BMJ article is being used as evidence of Vaccine Conspiracy theories 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?

A warning alongside links on Social Media for 'missing context', where the Article is being used as evidence if something it's not seems like a good logical end.

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

#83

Post by throwaway2474 »

locuscoeruleus wrote: post #58
throwaway2474 wrote: post #31

I hope that at some point we get to see an in-depth business case study of Pfizer and how they’ve been so successful out of the pandemic. They seem to have an unbelievable grasp of the science-marketing game and how to navigate it successfully at scale. Without getting too far into controversial territory, I’ve observed that - Out of many competing vaccines, Pfizer was always the “cool” one, in both scientific and la…

> - It’s failed to stop the pandemic in any meaningful way One of the nordic countries has 10x more infections than the first wave and 0.5x people in intensive care. While the vaccines have failed to stop the pandemic, I disagree that the contribution is not meaningful.

I think that’s largely because omicron is less serious. I think the vaccine helped against past strains, and maybe a bit against omicron, but it was vastly oversold.

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

#84

Post by cool_dude85 »

InsomniacL wrote: post #82
cool_dude85 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The BMJ article is being used as evidence of Vaccine Conspiracy theories 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?

A warning alongside links on Social Media for 'missing context', where the Article is being used as evidence if something it's not seems like a good logical end.

So, suppose you take a picture of the sea and some flat earther reposts it as proof that the earth is flat. You're ok with FB putting a note on your picture, if anyone wants to like or share it they get a little nag beforehand, further posts you make are placed under additional scrutiny and not shown on the feed? That's giving a lot of power to the wingnuts.

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

#85

Post by emmelaich »

bobcostas55 wrote: post #22

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…

This what gets me. Zuck is a well educated fella. He must know this is wrong. Why is this happening? Has he lost control of Facebook? Is he not interested?

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

#86

Post by b112 »

bobcostas55 wrote: post #22

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…

What really bugs me here is, everyone yells at facebook, saying it is spreading propaganda, lies, societal harm, etc.

Then, fact checking is attempted, and people claim censorship, an imperfect job, and the idea that "How dare they!"

I literally loath, hate, and despise facebook. But come on, they're only doing this because everyone piled on them, claiming they must fact check and validate things.

If I was facebook, twitter, or google seeking this, I'd rightly think that listening to people is dumb, and they should just ignore them.

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

#87

Post by [deleted] »

emmelaich wrote: post #85
bobcostas55 wrote: post #22

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…

This what gets me. Zuck is a well educated fella. He must know this is wrong. Why is this happening? Has he lost control of Facebook? Is he not interested?

[deleted]

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

#88

Post by pdpi »

syshum wrote: post #57
gadders wrote: post #27

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

You could just as easily say “wow, if not even those untrustworthy major newspapers will hire them, they really must play fast and loose with the truth”.

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

#90

Post by throwaway2474 »

fabian2k wrote: post #40
throwaway2474 wrote: post #31

I hope that at some point we get to see an in-depth business case study of Pfizer and how they’ve been so successful out of the pandemic. They seem to have an unbelievable grasp of the science-marketing game and how to navigate it successfully at scale. Without getting too far into controversial territory, I’ve observed that - Out of many competing vaccines, Pfizer was always the “cool” one, in both scientific and la…

Myocarditis is a very rare side effect, you generally can't see those in phase 3 trials. You need a lot of people for these to show up, simply because they are so rare. That's nothing new here, this applies to every new drug or vaccine. And Biontech/Pfizer doesn't have the highest myocarditis rate, that is for Moderna. The vaccines also simply work. They worked very well against the wild type where they also prevente…

As a disclaimer, I have ongoing cardiac side effects. Several doctors from general practice and in cardiology have separately told me that they all generally accept the published numbers much lower than what they see first hand. In a previous comment I hypothesised this is because the reporting systems are not good.
Post reply on HN