"Millions of users have suffered, many in silence, for this hasty, rush-to-flag-down practice of the tech giant Facebook."
"Millions of users have suffered, many in silence, for this hasty, rush-to-flag-down practice of the tech giant Facebook."
(Part I)
‘Fact-Checking Facebook’s Fact Checkers’ is the heading of an opinion piece by the editorial board of the world-renowned business paper Wall Street Journal in its March 5 edition. In a stinging rebuke of the much-criticized and highly problematic practice of tech giant Facebook in deleting or throttling with impunity what it tags as “misleading or misinformed pieces” in a user’s account or, worse, suspending or completely banning such account without even a by-your-leave advise.
The editorial noted that such practice, which Facebook conveniently attributes to its army of so-called fact checkers, is tantamount to silencing views contrary to their views and decidedly violates the constitutionally guaranteed rights of free speech. Obviously miffed by Facebook’s labelling of an earlier opinion piece entitled “We’ll Have Herd Immunity by April” written by Johns Hopkins surgeon Marty Makary, as “missing context….which could mislead people,” the well-respected paper denounced the tech giant’s unacceptable tagging attributing the same to Facebook’s employment of “..left wing vetters to shut down scientific debate.”
Well, even before the Wall Street Journal denounced this conceited Facebook practice, millions of users have suffered, many in silence, for this hasty, rush-to-flag-down practice. They have complained about this unwarranted censorship which, in truth, amounts to breaching the user’s contract with Facebook. Such intervention by so-called, mainly anonymous, “fact checkers” puts into question the tech giant’s commitment not only to free speech but to its contractual obligation to provide as much leeway in the use of its platform in exchange for harvesting a user’s personal data and all related information giving it the means to ramp up its revenues and propel it to heights of power and influence.
Well, as the Wall Street Journal experience so correctly demonstrates, Facebook’s practices have become noxious. And we are talking here about a scientific debate — not political or economic or security concerns. Wait until its intervention morphs into such more foreboding realms as what happened to former US President Trump in the use of both his Facebook and Twitter accounts in the run up to the 2020 US elections. Or its injection into the political fray in Australia and Poland, to name the latest breaches.
In a bid to further enlighten us on the malignant and wayward ways of Facebook and the other tech giants, I have decided to give space to an abridged version of the Wall Street Journal piece.
“China last winter censored doctors who shared “dangerous” misinformation about the novel coronavirus on social media. Now America’s self-anointed virus experts and social-media giants are also silencing doctors with contrarian views in an apparent effort to shut down scientific debate. “We’re seeing this up close and personal.
“Facebook this week appended a Wall Street Journal op-ed ‘We’ll Have Herd Immunity by April’ by Johns Hopkins surgeon Marty Makary (Feb. 19) with the label “Missing Context. Independent fact-checkers say this information could mislead people.” According to Facebook, ‘Once we have a rating from a fact-checking partner, we take action by ensuring that fewer people see that misinformation.’
“The Facebook label links to the third-party site Health Feedback, a member of a World Health Organization-led vaccine project and an affiliate of the nonprofit Science Feedback that verifies scientific claims in the media. Another Science Feedback affiliate fact-checks climate-related articles in predominantly conservative media.
“’Misleading Wall Street Journal opinion piece makes the unsubstantiated claim that the U.S. will have herd immunity by April 2021,’” Health Feedback’s “fact-check” says. ‘Three scientists analysed the article and estimate its overall scientific credibility to be very low.’ This is counter-opinion masquerading as fact checking.
“Dr. Makary didn’t present his opinion as a factual claim. He argued, based on studies and other evidence, that Americans would have enough immunity from vaccination and natural infection by early spring to sharply reduce the virus spread. He essentially made a projection, much like the epidemiologists at Imperial College and University of Washington do.
“But the progressive health clerisy don’t like his projection because they worry it could lead to fewer virus restrictions. The horror! Health Feedback’s fact checkers disagree with the evidence Dr. Makary cites as well as how he interprets it. Fine. Scientists disagree all the time. Much of conventional health wisdom about red meat, sodium and cardiovascular risk is still fiercely debated.
“The same goes for Covid-19. There’s still much we don’t understand about the virus and its transmission and immunity. Yet Facebook’s fact-checkers “cherry-pick,” to borrow their word, studies to support their own opinions, which they present as fact. So let’s fact-check Facebook’s fact checkers.
“A Kent State epidemiologist quibbles with Dr. Makary’s claim that “when [reinfections] do occur, the cases are mild.” Her evidence? A single case report in the Rhode Island Medical Journal that cited a handful of severe reinfections globally since April. Yet that same study noted that ‘there have only been a few reports of reinfections in COVID-19 patients.’
“A New England Journal of Medicine study last month identified only two asymptomatic possible reinfections among more than a thousand U.K. health-care workers with anti-spike antibodies from prior infections. Another study last week in the Journal of the American Medical Association found antibodies from prior infection conferred a degree of protection that ‘appears to be comparable’ to mRNA vaccines in clinical trials.”
To be continued