Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg
1–10 of 702 posts
Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg
#2We're only going to see more of these types if incidents, right? As platforms[sic] farm editing tasks out to third parties (presumably to wash their hands of any sort of liability) there will be a problem of lowest-bidder-wins which results in sub par work.
Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg
#3Both Facebook (now Meta) and Youtube bungled their fact checking by disabling posts and videos that were counter to some narrative, but not factually incorrect. That places them in a bad position, and they need to be called out publicly, as no other mechanism so far has pushed them towards more accurate fact checking.
Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg
#4We're only going to see more of these types if incidents, right? As platforms[sic] farm editing tasks out to third parties (presumably to wash their hands of any sort of liability) there will be a problem of lowest-bidder-wins which results in sub par work.
It's not credible to assume that this is a one-off instance of incompetence on Facebook's part, it's of a piece with all their other fact checking and moderation policies around this issue.
Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg
#5We're only going to see more of these types if incidents, right? As platforms[sic] farm editing tasks out to third parties (presumably to wash their hands of any sort of liability) there will be a problem of lowest-bidder-wins which results in sub par work.
It's not credible to assume that this is a one-off instance of incompetence on Facebook's part, it's of a piece with all their other fact checking and moderation policies around this issue.
Fair enough, and if my original response made it seem that I was suggesting that this was a one-off I certainly didn't intend for it too - but I am willing to bet that the frequency of these will continue to increase and from more reputable sources.
Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg
#6Turns out fact checking is hard and costs money. What's surprising is that Meta, which has capable staff and lots of money, can't seem to be bothered to do it properly.
Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg
#7I get the amount of pressure Meta and probably youtube were going through when discussions around vaccines were rampant, but the narrative only started to change once pressure was built up into top news sites. For example, the lab leak theory. Yes, it's inconclusive and so complicated that even if Wuhan's lab would be fully transparent, I doubt you would be able to fully connect the dots. Anyways, even those discussions were getting banned until major news articles decided it was okay to talk about and only because independent journalists had built so much pressure that they finally caved. I don't know about the right trade-offs in this space, but all of this is so transparently anti free speech and obviously rigged that it just doesn't feel right.
Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg
#8I prefer to do my own fact checking.
Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg
#9We're only going to see more of these types if incidents, right? As platforms[sic] farm editing tasks out to third parties (presumably to wash their hands of any sort of liability) there will be a problem of lowest-bidder-wins which results in sub par work.
Well, as long as we tolerate it. To the extent Americans (and others) live in a democracy and can pass laws to address social harms this situation is entirely our own fault.
Re: Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg
#10We're only going to see more of these types if incidents, right? As platforms[sic] farm editing tasks out to third parties (presumably to wash their hands of any sort of liability) there will be a problem of lowest-bidder-wins which results in sub par work.
Are you not familiar with how closely Zuckerberg worked with Fauci to sway public opinion?