Facebook can do what it likes - but it needs to be honest and say something like:
- We think the BMJ is too complicated for you to properly understand.
as opposed to
- We had some group independently check and the BMJ is objectively wrong.
The first one seems a little un-pc, so I would say that people sharing stuff online and a loud minority going off on some mad conspiracy is the [acceptable] cost of being open with science and research.
False binary. The BMJ article might not be wrong on pure facts, but it omits critical context. That is not the same as "too complicated to properly understand". Just because we have sort of supposed that medical professionals likely bring enough context on their own doesn't mean the publishing of that article is still not reckless.
I’m afraid I disagree. I haven’t ‘sort of supposed’ - I’ve fully expected medical professionals to bring their own context. It’s a medical journal, one of the most historical and leading ones in the world. There is nothing reckless in what they’ve done.
- We think the BMJ is too complicated for you to properly understand.
as opposed to
- We had some group independently check and the BMJ is objectively wrong.
The first one seems a little un-pc, so I would say that people sharing stuff online and a loud minority going off on some mad conspiracy is the [acceptable] cost of being open with science and research.