Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.

Fake Health News

Options
kimny72
kimny72 Posts: 16,013 Member
in Debate Club
https://www.prevention.com/health/fake-health-news-what-to-look-out-for

I don't think this is really a debate, but it's a subject that can be dicey here so I figured I might as well put it in Debate. I mainly thought it was interesting because it was from Prevention, which often has headlines screaming about organic, GMOs, alternative this and that. Maybe it's a sign of better vetting to come in the health news world? Maybe?

Replies

  • mph323
    mph323 Posts: 3,565 Member
    Options
    kimny72 wrote: »
    https://www.prevention.com/health/fake-health-news-what-to-look-out-for

    I don't think this is really a debate, but it's a subject that can be dicey here so I figured I might as well put it in Debate. I mainly thought it was interesting because it was from Prevention, which often has headlines screaming about organic, GMOs, alternative this and that. Maybe it's a sign of better vetting to come in the health news world? Maybe?

    Such an optimist :) The article is blocked for me, but it would be funny to check in over the next few months and see how many "fake health news" articles they publish according to their own guidelines.
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 34,020 Member
    Options
    So many words. Whats the tl:dr? Don't read Prevention? Don't go to YouTube for health advice? Don't open email links? Got it. :no_mouth:
  • 2baninja
    2baninja Posts: 511 Member
    Options
    I find any website that sends me to another site with a product to sell it just junk and I close it out.
  • kimny72
    kimny72 Posts: 16,013 Member
    Options
    LOL I was probably reading it with holiday induced rose colored glasses! I find Prevention one of the ones that straddles the line between science and woo, so if they are leaning slightly over to the science side, I hope it's a sign. I can hope for a Christmas miracle :drinker:
  • kimny72
    kimny72 Posts: 16,013 Member
    Options
    mph323 wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    https://www.prevention.com/health/fake-health-news-what-to-look-out-for

    I don't think this is really a debate, but it's a subject that can be dicey here so I figured I might as well put it in Debate. I mainly thought it was interesting because it was from Prevention, which often has headlines screaming about organic, GMOs, alternative this and that. Maybe it's a sign of better vetting to come in the health news world? Maybe?

    Such an optimist :) The article is blocked for me, but it would be funny to check in over the next few months and see how many "fake health news" articles they publish according to their own guidelines.

    Basically it talks about viral FB posts that lead to an article that cites dubious studies and then leads you to a sales page. Suggests noting if cited studies are old or if there's only one, suggests googling "experts" credentials, questioning a websites objectivity, and consulting snopes. A big part was calling out Infowars, which its kind of sad is necessary. Said lots of supplement blends sold by "natural health" websites are unregulated, poorly labeled, and generally overpriced.

    I've read Prevention since back in the day when I thought organic and all natural thoughts and still find it an enjoyable read if sometimes amusingly woo-ey. I hadn't noticed up to now, but like you said I'm interested to see if this is even a sign for its own future issues.
  • mph323
    mph323 Posts: 3,565 Member
    Options
    kimny72 wrote: »
    mph323 wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    https://www.prevention.com/health/fake-health-news-what-to-look-out-for

    I don't think this is really a debate, but it's a subject that can be dicey here so I figured I might as well put it in Debate. I mainly thought it was interesting because it was from Prevention, which often has headlines screaming about organic, GMOs, alternative this and that. Maybe it's a sign of better vetting to come in the health news world? Maybe?

    Such an optimist :) The article is blocked for me, but it would be funny to check in over the next few months and see how many "fake health news" articles they publish according to their own guidelines.

    Basically it talks about viral FB posts that lead to an article that cites dubious studies and then leads you to a sales page. Suggests noting if cited studies are old or if there's only one, suggests googling "experts" credentials, questioning a websites objectivity, and consulting snopes. A big part was calling out Infowars, which its kind of sad is necessary. Said lots of supplement blends sold by "natural health" websites are unregulated, poorly labeled, and generally overpriced.

    I've read Prevention since back in the day when I thought organic and all natural thoughts and still find it an enjoyable read if sometimes amusingly woo-ey. I hadn't noticed up to now, but like you said I'm interested to see if this is even a sign for its own future issues.

    Well, those are excellent guidelines at any rate. What I usually see of Prevention is in my flipboard news feed, and mostly consists of those "5 Foods That Will Kick Off Your Weight Loss!" kinds of things.
  • HellYeahItsKriss
    HellYeahItsKriss Posts: 906 Member
    Options
    This is probably gonna sound cold.. but..

    We are all human. We all have the ability to apply common sense and seek the truth.

    But there is always going to be people out there who pick their own truth. Even if the internet had nothing but pure fact articles.. there is going to be people out there who will always think there is other alternatives out there and put their health and life and wallet on the line.

    Companies have spent a lot of time going to great lengths putting warning labels on everything protecting themselves from other people's stupid. Maybe it's time to just let people do whatever.. I mean.. they're gonna anyway right?

    As adults.. that's our own cross to bare.. we fought for the right to freedom of choice.. so.. if someone is going to choose to believe in dandelions.. that's a choice they will have to live with..

    Facebook can make an effort to flag stuff but in the end it's just gonna be another spot where believers and non believers argue over it's validity.. no different then here where people debate things like sugar or artificial sweeteners. All kinds of pure facts get posted.. but those who believe it's bad aren't gonna listen to facts anymore then fact believes listen to woo.
  • kimny72
    kimny72 Posts: 16,013 Member
    Options
    @HellYeahItsKriss I agree except for when people are desperate and scared. I've casually known a couple of people who were terrified of chemo and decided to treat their cancer "naturally" and lost. And the fact that people prey on that fear pisses me off. I agree though there's probably no way to stop it, and people are gonna believe what they're gonna believe. I tend toward being a bleeding heart though, for better or worse :lol:
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,970 Member
    Options
    HellYeahItsKriss wrote: »
    As adults.. that's our own cross to bare.. we fought for the right to freedom of choice.. so.. if someone is going to choose to believe in dandelions.. that's a choice they will have to live with..

    One interesting thing the article pointed out, it's illegal to go on TV and say your detox tea cures cancer, but it's not illegal to say that on Facebook.
  • HellYeahItsKriss
    HellYeahItsKriss Posts: 906 Member
    Options
    Probably has something to do with the way the advertising is set up..

    like.. when the chris brown and rhianna thing happened.. when companies found out chris brown was going to be at an event not long after, they pulled from the event and did not sponsor it.. costing the event millions probably.

    So.. if something on TV or radio ran an ad about curing cancer with detox tea.. these ads aren't user specific.. everyone is hearing them.. so.. if something happened, the TV or radio station stands to lose advertisers and it would cost them millions as well..

    but with facebook.. all their ads are based on the persons usage, a user posting something about cancer curing detox tea may have a completely different set of ads then someone else.. but anyone else seeing the same ads as the person posting about the tea, may not even know anything or share anything about it.. the company is less likely to pull their ad from facebook because they would lose money, not facebook..

    If a company is really not aware of such things being shared through facebook, then they aren't going to give facebook much of a hard time about their morals around being connected with a company that allows such things to be shared.

    You will see facebook take more action on it being more like TV and radio.. if the spot light was stuck in their face about it.. like if 2-3 more people died from trying cancer curing detox tea and they made it known that the reason they did this was because of learning of it on facebook and that news went viral and public.. other companies would probably then know about it and perhaps take a moral objection with facebook and pull themselves.. loss of money is a motivator.. unfortunately loss of life or potential lives isn't.
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,970 Member
    Options
    I don't know who Chris Brown is, but I don't think it should be legal to lie to people in advertisements.
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,970 Member
    Options
    There are two forums I belong to besides MFP. One is about cycling (bikes), the other is for hiking, climbing, and skiing. I've always asked for opinions there about gear I'm interested in, and wait for personal feedback from people I recognize.

    After reading this article and the great lengths scammers go to to build fake ecosystems that seem full of happy users, I'm feeling pretty vindicated right now.

Categories