>The BMJ article is being used as evidence of Vaccine Conspiracy theories
Where does this logic end? If I screenshotted your post and put it on my blog about how FB can do no wrong, that Zuck should be president, that the government is just out to get FB for being successful, etc. does that mean your post should have included context that clarified that none of this is true?
A warning alongside links on Social Media for 'missing context', where the Article is being used as evidence if something it's not seems like a good logical end.
So, suppose you take a picture of the sea and some flat earther reposts it as proof that the earth is flat. You're ok with FB putting a note on your picture, if anyone wants to like or share it they get a little nag beforehand, further posts you make are placed under additional scrutiny and not shown on the feed? That's giving a lot of power to the wingnuts.
No, and you're stretching... I'm not a scientific journal for one thing..
But if I was, and if I posted a picture of the sea, saying I was performing an experiment to measure the circumference of the earth.. Then yes, missing context label would be relevant. I wouldn't claiming that the Earth is flat, and context outside the picture would account for why 1 data point my suggest otherwise.
> placed under additional scrutiny and not shown on the feed
I'm not sure the 'missing context' label affects visibility like others do.
Where does this logic end? If I screenshotted your post and put it on my blog about how FB can do no wrong, that Zuck should be president, that the government is just out to get FB for being successful, etc. does that mean your post should have included context that clarified that none of this is true?