News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Facebook versus The BMJ: when fact checking goes wrong. Parent comment

Re:Facebook versus The BMJ: when fact checking goes wrong by logifail on Thursday January 20, 2022 @07:14AM (#30007918)
When Peter Daszak drafted the Lancet letter which was published in February 2020 it pretty much shut down any open discussion of origins. "It's of natural origin, or you're a conspiracy theorist".

It took the Lancet 16 months(!) to publish a conflict of interest statement revealing that Daszak was linked to the Wuhan Institute of Virology via EcoHealth Alliance.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Facebook versus The BMJ: when fact checking goes wrong by ErrolMusk on Thursday January 20, 2022 @08:27AM (#30008569)
Facebook HIRED Peter Daszak as a 'factchecker' and allowed him to REMOVE anything that suggested the virus came from a lab.

As somebody who probably incited/funded/created covid19, he was heavily incentivized to hide this crime.

Facebook ENABLED this coverup

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Facebook versus The BMJ: when fact checking goes wrong by logifail on Thursday January 20, 2022 @09:12AM (#30009116)
> Facebook HIRED Peter Daszak as a 'factchecker' [..]

Worse, Daszak was also part of WHO-led international mission[0] to investigate the origins of the pandemic(!!) in early 2021, though he eventually recused himself in June 2021[1]

[0] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...

[1] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-diseas...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Facebook versus The BMJ: when fact checking goes wrong by nradov on Thursday January 20, 2022 @09:22AM (#30009239)
Did Facebook ever actually hire Peter Daszak? My understanding is that Facebook censored posts which contradicted his infamous Lancet letter (and that's bad enough) but I haven't seen evidence of Facebook paying him or giving him editorial control.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9655057/Facebook-fa...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Facebook versus The BMJ: when fact checking goes wrong by bipson on Thursday January 20, 2022 @08:45AM (#30008786)
> As somebody who probably incited/funded/created covid19, he was heavily incentivized to hide this crime.

> Facebook ENABLED this coverup.

Wat? How is this not considered a conspiracy theory? 5 comments down an article that discusses fact checking...

Hm, maybe my sarcasm-meter is off by a notch again. dunno.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Facebook versus The BMJ: when fact checking goes wrong by cheaprentalyeti on Thursday January 20, 2022 @10:07AM (#30009772)
It hasn't been considered a conspiracy theory since the CSPAN video from 2016 surfaced showing him talking about paying someone in China to make killer viruses.

It's at the following link, at about the 1 hour 17 minute mark.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AksKoMZon6Y

[ Parent | on HN ]