Meta Mark Gets an F from the British Medical Journal
December 20, 2021
I don’t know anything about Covid, medical data, or Facebook. I do recognize a failing “mark” when I see one. I noted “Researcher Blows the Whistle on Data Integrity Issues…” [Note: the editor has trimmed certain stop words because trigger warning software is a fascinating part of life these days.’’]
The Harvard drop out who has garnered a few dollars via a “friend”, “like”, and “social online” service is unlikely to be personally affected by the big red F.
The write up states:
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.
I was disappointed to see the letter’s close; that is, “best wishes.” A more British expression could have been “Excuse me.” But excusing a stupid “mark” is impolite.
Stephen E Arnold, December 20, 2021
Comments
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
