3 ms·
>Prove it, and prove that the underpaid non-specialist moderator who labelled it as such was justified even if they were right. >Facebook is not and can not be
by SilasX 5y ago
>Prove it, and prove that the underpaid non-specialist moderator who labelled it as such was justified even if they were right.
>Facebook is not and can not be an arbiter of truth in the abstract,
I'm not sure you're replying to the right comment, because I wasn't claiming that the BMJ story was demonstrably false[1], and I wasn't defending any action that labeled it as such. The action was to label it as "needs context", a category which specifically exists not to claim that the story is false.
So what are you replying to?
And are you really disputing that social media spreads a lot of clearly false stuff that isn't a mere matter of interpretation? Why do you consider that so implausible?
Edit: As exhibit A, I could probably cite your attribution of claims to me that I didn't make. Now, imagine all the people on social media without your exacting standards of integrity!
[1] Just the opposite -- I accepted that they found legit problems!
- kryogen1c 5y ago> I wasn't claiming that the BMJ story was demonstrably false[1], and I wasn't defending any action that labeled it as such. The action was to label it as "needs context", a category which specifically exists not to claim that the story is false. which stories on facebook dont need context? this is not snark and the question is not trivial. nothing - NOTHING - means the same in isolation as contextually. facebook isnt applying this label equally. theyre selectively moderating and claiming impartiality.
- tablespoon 5y ago> which stories on facebook dont need context? Probably not many, but the label is like a "watch your step" sign. People should be careful all the time, but sometimes it's best to remind them. You don't put those signs on everything and you don't put them on nothing, you put them in situations where there's a reason to think it's necessary.