British Medical Journal to FB: FOAD
-
-
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.
