British Medical Journal to FB: FOAD
-
tl;dr version - "Your 'fact checkers' are full of bullshit."
https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635/rr-80
=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Rapid Response:
Open letter from The BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg
Dear Mark Zuckerberg,
We are Fiona Godlee and Kamran Abbasi, editors of The BMJ, one of the world’s oldest and most influential general medical journals. We are writing to raise serious concerns about the “fact checking” being undertaken by third party providers on behalf of Facebook/Meta.
In September, a former employee of Ventavia, a contract research company helping carry out the main Pfizer covid-19 vaccine trial, began providing The BMJ with dozens of internal company documents, photos, audio recordings, and emails. These materials revealed a host of poor clinical trial research practices occurring at Ventavia that could impact data integrity and patient safety. We also discovered that, despite receiving a direct complaint about these problems over a year ago, the FDA did not inspect Ventavia’s trial sites.
The BMJ commissioned an investigative reporter to write up the story for our journal. The article was published on 2 November, following legal review, external peer review and subject to The BMJ’s usual high level editorial oversight and review.[1]
But from November 10, readers began reporting a variety of problems when trying to share our article. Some reported being unable to share it. Many others reported having their posts flagged with a warning about “Missing context ... Independent fact-checkers say this information could mislead people.” Those trying to post the article were informed by Facebook that people who repeatedly share “false information” might have their posts moved lower in Facebook’s News Feed. Group administrators where the article was shared received messages from Facebook informing them that such posts were “partly false.”
Readers were directed to a “fact check” performed by a Facebook contractor named Lead Stories.[2]
We find the “fact check” performed by Lead Stories to be inaccurate, incompetent and irresponsible.
-- It fails to provide any assertions of fact that The BMJ article got wrong
-- It has a nonsensical title: “Fact Check: The British Medical Journal Did NOT Reveal Disqualifying And Ignored Reports Of Flaws In Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccine Trials”
-- The first paragraph inaccurately labels The BMJ a “news blog”
-- It contains a screenshot of our article with a stamp over it stating “Flaws Reviewed,” despite the Lead Stories article not identifying anything false or untrue in The BMJ article
-- It published the story on its website under a URL that contains the phrase “hoax-alert”
We have contacted Lead Stories, but they refuse to change anything about their article or actions that have led to Facebook flagging our article.
We have also contacted Facebook directly, requesting immediate removal of the “fact checking” label and any link to the Lead Stories article, thereby allowing our readers to freely share the article on your platform.
There is also a wider concern that we wish to raise. 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. To give one other example, we would highlight the treatment by Instagram (also owned by Meta) of Cochrane, the international provider of high quality systematic reviews of the medical evidence.[3] Rather than investing a proportion of Meta’s substantial profits to help ensure the accuracy of medical information shared through social media, you have apparently delegated responsibility to people incompetent in carrying out this crucial task. Fact checking has been a staple of good journalism for decades. What has happened in this instance should be of concern to anyone who values and relies on sources such as The BMJ.
We hope you will act swiftly: specifically to correct the error relating to The BMJ’s article and to review the processes that led to the error; and generally to reconsider your investment in and approach to fact checking overall.
Best wishes,
Fiona Godlee, editor in chief
Kamran Abbasi, incoming editor in chief
The BMJCompeting interests:
As current and incoming editors in chief, we are responsible for everything The BMJ contains.References:
[1] Thacker PD. Covid-19: Researcher blows the whistle on data integrity issues in Pfizer's vaccine trial. BMJ. 2021 Nov 2;375:n2635. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n2635. PMID: 34728500. https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635
[2] Miller D. Fact Check: The British Medical Journal Did NOT Reveal Disqualifying And Ignored Reports Of Flaws In Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccine Trials. Nov 10, 2021. https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2021/11/fact-check-british-medical-jo...
-
-
That’s a BFD on multiple levels.
@lufins-dad said in British Medical Journal to FB: FOAD:
That’s a BFD on multiple levels.
Agreed. BMJ has been publishing since...the 19th century. They've got some cred.
It will be interesting to see what FB's response will be, and perhaps just as interesting if there is none.
-
-
Faceypage admitted in court recently that their "fact check" was nothing but opinion. Therefore, opinion is being used to regulate the dissemination of information in their "public square".
These are the same wonderful people who plowed millions and millions of dollars in voter education and turnout efforts aimed almost solely in districts that would benefit Biden in the last election.
Where's Teddy Roosevelt when you need him?
-
I doubt Facebook pays enough to contract/hire content reviewers with sufficient education or professional training to accurately fact-check many medical research work products.
The BMJ, or any other serious medical establishments, really cannot expect Facebook (or any social media platform) to get things right all the time. As much as they want to, it is not a realistic expectation.
-
Then perhaps they should stop altogether. They're disseminating the misinformation they are supposed to stop.
@mik said in British Medical Journal to FB: FOAD:
Then perhaps they should stop altogether. They're disseminating the misinformation they are supposed to stop.
That’s like saying the police should stop altogether because they sometimes fail to prevent or fail to stop certain crimes. Or that doctors should stop altogether because sometimes they misdiagnose or prescribe the wrong treatments. That’s nonsense.
-
@mik said in British Medical Journal to FB: FOAD:
No. No it's not comparable to those things at all. It's not even close.
Am I the only one who is pretty darn relieved that, as bad as these problems are, Ax is nowhere near a position of decision-making for them?
-
That is a big deal. I do understand that Facebook gets millions of articles a day and there is no human way possible that they can read/edit/review everyone of them.
However, since alot of people relay on facebook as their source of information, it is their duty to be more accurate.
-
That is a big deal. I do understand that Facebook gets millions of articles a day and there is no human way possible that they can read/edit/review everyone of them.
However, since alot of people relay on facebook as their source of information, it is their duty to be more accurate.
@taiwan_girl said in British Medical Journal to FB: FOAD:
However, since alot of people relay on facebook as their source of information, it is their duty to be more accurate.
The problem is "a lot of people rely on Facebook as their source of information." The proper solution is for these people to stop relying on Facebook as their source of information.
-
@taiwan_girl said in British Medical Journal to FB: FOAD:
However, since alot of people relay on facebook as their source of information, it is their duty to be more accurate.
The problem is "a lot of people rely on Facebook as their source of information." The proper solution is for these people to stop relying on Facebook as their source of information.
@axtremus said in British Medical Journal to FB: FOAD:
@taiwan_girl said in British Medical Journal to FB: FOAD:
However, since alot of people relay on facebook as their source of information, it is their duty to be more accurate.
The problem is "a lot of people rely on Facebook as their source of information." The proper solution is for these people to stop relying on Facebook as their source of information.
People take the "path of least resistance", and in this case being on Facebook to check up on friends and seeing the news is the "easy" way.
(Thought I have to admit that I do not have a Facebook account. When Facebook was becoming big, I was in a location that did not allow it, and even after that, never got an account).
-
Facebook isn’t a source of information. It’s a place where links to sources of information are disseminated, and that is an important role in today’s world.
I would think, however, that their algorithms and bots would have certain overriding directives to NOT tag links to trusted sites. I would like to think the BMJ would be one of those.
But still, I can see that sliding past the bots… But the follow up explanation article? That’s ridiculous.
As is the story of the sloppy trials.
-
I used to get mildly irritated by the inanity of people posting photos of their dinner on FB, along with stuff like 'look at me, I'm at the airport!', as though nobody else knows what one looks like.
These are now the best bits.
-
I used to get mildly irritated by the inanity of people posting photos of their dinner on FB, along with stuff like 'look at me, I'm at the airport!', as though nobody else knows what one looks like.
These are now the best bits.
@doctor-phibes said in British Medical Journal to FB: FOAD:
I used to get mildly irritated by the inanity of people posting photos of their dinner on FB, along with stuff like 'look at me, I'm at the airport!', as though nobody else knows what one looks like.
These are now the best bits.
Your perspective changes as you age, eh?
-
@doctor-phibes said in British Medical Journal to FB: FOAD:
I used to get mildly irritated by the inanity of people posting photos of their dinner on FB, along with stuff like 'look at me, I'm at the airport!', as though nobody else knows what one looks like.
These are now the best bits.
Your perspective changes as you age, eh?
@axtremus said in British Medical Journal to FB: FOAD:
@doctor-phibes said in British Medical Journal to FB: FOAD:
I used to get mildly irritated by the inanity of people posting photos of their dinner on FB, along with stuff like 'look at me, I'm at the airport!', as though nobody else knows what one looks like.
These are now the best bits.
Your perspective changes as you age, eh?
It's not me that's changed, it's the imbeciles posting on FB.
