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

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#91

Post by BlueTemplar » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 6:49 PM UTC

endisneigh wrote: post #22

Is fact checking that difficult? Imagine a forum that works in the following way: 1. You post similar to here. 2. Any post that has a claim is flagged. The poster, or another commenter has 24 hours (or some time period) to link to both a page and specific text (similar to how Google highlights search text when visiting a link) that supports the claim. 3. Once a claim is attached, posters can vote and downvote how wel…

> posters can vote and downvote how well the source(s) support the claims (claims themselves are not voted/downvoted).

Great idea, however I'm not sure how to make so that the first doesn't degenerate into the second, especially about sensitive issues... Hmm, maybe this is one of the cases where prediction markets can work ?

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#92

Post by mensetmanusman » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 6:49 PM UTC

AlexTWithBeard wrote: post #65

One thing that puzzles me: why people (still?) use Facebook? What's so good about it? There are dozens of platforms where people can post their thoughts, like and be liked. I feel like something's evading me. Is it because I'm an old fart?

Facebook is the Internet for millions of people.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#93

Post by Capira » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 6:50 PM UTC

"Fact checkers" are nothing but propaganda.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#94

Post by YossarianFrPrez » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 6:50 PM UTC

Two things worth noting. First, this is dated from the November 2nd. Second, as has been pointed out by other commenters, this article is worth reading: https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2021/11/fact-check-britis...

Unfortunately, the research misconduct that the BMJ letter points to plays right into the hands of anti-vaxxers and anti-science types.

Science hard, science communication is even harder, but how is the hardest part caring enough to do the research right?

Edit: As has been pointed out, I got the date wrong! This is dated as of 12/17.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#95

Post by Capira » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 6:51 PM UTC

throwaway_2009 wrote: post #40

"Fact checking" is newspeak for censorship. If the Telegraph controlled the "fact checker" the Guardian wouldn't exist. If the Guardian controlled the "fact checker", the Telegraph wouldn't exist. If you support "fact checkers", you are not welcome in my life and I will route around you. You could, perhaps, consider yourself to have been "fact checked".

fact.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#96

Post by SpicyLemonZest » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 6:51 PM UTC

teachrdan wrote: post #55

j_m_b wrote: post #23

> We are aware that The BMJ is not the only high quality information provider to have been affected by the incompetence of Meta’s fact checking regime. It is not an acceptable tradeoff that some high quality information is censored in order that bad information is policed.

I'd normally agree with you. But in the case of Covid, some political actors are launching coordinated efforts to deliberately misinform millions of Americans in regards to a virus that has, so far, killed over 800,000 people here. How do we deal with this challenge without censoring some information that ought not be censored?

I don't agree with the premise that censorship helps in the first place. If Facebook established a new policy that nobody's allowed to say bad things about fast food, and you saw an article explaining how fast food is healthy and good for you, would you trust it?

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#97

Post by threatofrain » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 6:52 PM UTC

throwaway_2009 wrote: post #40

"Fact checking" is newspeak for censorship. If the Telegraph controlled the "fact checker" the Guardian wouldn't exist. If the Guardian controlled the "fact checker", the Telegraph wouldn't exist. If you support "fact checkers", you are not welcome in my life and I will route around you. You could, perhaps, consider yourself to have been "fact checked".

I consider my doctor a fact checker, and I certainly wouldn't route around them just because they had the extraordinary moral audacity to check facts and not report garbage to me. The BMJ also makes decisions about what is worthy for their name, and yes, that means they "censor" people from appearing on their platform.

You could say that one man's garbage is another man's treasure, but I'm not sure I would ever say that to my doctor.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#98

Post by moolcool » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 6:52 PM UTC

nradov wrote: post #33

In 2018 Facebook "fact checked" a Babylon Bee article with this headline: “CNN Purchases Industrial-Sized Washing Machine to Spin News Before Publication”. (Babylon Bee is a humor site and clearly labeled as such.) https://twitter.com/Adam4d/status/969405110324523008

It'd be easier to identify Babylon Bee content as satire if they were actually funny

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#99

Post by robomartin » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 6:52 PM UTC

endisneigh wrote: post #22

Is fact checking that difficult? Imagine a forum that works in the following way: 1. You post similar to here. 2. Any post that has a claim is flagged. The poster, or another commenter has 24 hours (or some time period) to link to both a page and specific text (similar to how Google highlights search text when visiting a link) that supports the claim. 3. Once a claim is attached, posters can vote and downvote how wel…

> Is fact checking that difficult?

Yes, it is. Years ago I went through a period of personally fact-checking stories across the board as they were being discussed by my FB contacts. It is hard to quantify just how time consuming this was.

Some stories were super easy to debunk. Others took days to weeks of research and sometimes mathematical modeling. Other stories took 10+ months to wait of legal evidence to surface. I remember one particular case where someone tried to burn down an black church and spray painted "Vote Trump" on the side of the building. The outrage and blame was immediate, massive and pretty much across the board. I looked at it from a game theory perspective. It just didn't make sense. It took some months for law enforcement to finally track down the culprit: It was one of the members of the church, black, of course, who had a problem with the pastor (or something like that) and thought he could burn down the church and deflect blame through his graffiti.

There were cases like this on both sides of the US political spectrum, of course. This is one I remember. A lot of the cases on the other side have to do with things like climate change and vaccine denial.

The point is, it takes a lot of time and effort. It's almost impossible. And, when you finally get down to facts, convincing people what they were told was wrong is pretty much impossible. They can't un-see the lie when it was carpet-bombed into their brains.

Not sure what the solution might be. Taking sides doesn't seem to be a good idea.

Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg

#100

Post by Enginerrrd » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 6:52 PM UTC

AlexTWithBeard wrote: post #65

One thing that puzzles me: why people (still?) use Facebook? What's so good about it? There are dozens of platforms where people can post their thoughts, like and be liked. I feel like something's evading me. Is it because I'm an old fart?

In my experience, Facebook is the platform which is most tied to people you actually have interacted with in real life, and that's by a large margin. I know the reddit account of like 1 person I know IRL (I don't even know my wife's account). ...but my facebook friends consist of basically everyone I know that still has a facebook. A lot of that is just the network effect and momentum, but still.