Facebook plans to crack down on content that peddles fake health news and other snake oil. While this is a great idea in theory if done properly, FB's track record of policing the content of its social media platform is poor. Their officials should seek outside help. May we suggest the American Council on Science and Health?
From hospital inpatient “wealth screenings” for potential donors, to digital "geofencing" cell phones in emergency rooms, the erosion of patient privacy is real. Guess who's the latest to have access to your intimate data (e.g. pregnancy status, ovulation cycle, blood pressure) without your consent?
With the proposed consumer privacy initiative in California a reaction to internet data abuse, it's time, long overdue, to discuss the murky territory once-presumed-protected health information has entered.
In the early days of microbiology experiments, when researchers needed test subjects they frequently went to those closest nearby which included their family or themselves. Now, we have animals to use for experimentation or humans, if the right permission is granted and protocols obtained. That said, some modern biohackers, or people who take a do it yourself (DIY) mentality to science experiments, are going old school and using their own bodies as the first test subject. Recently, Aaron Traywick, CEO of Ascendance Biomedical, did just that. He injected himself on stage at the conference BodyHacking Con with a homemade herpes treatment.
A 1% increase in suicide-related search terms resulted in 54 additional suicides in the United States. Do search engines like Google or social media outlets like Facebook have any responsibility to monitor the mental health of their users?
Facebook, a site from which a substantial number of people acquire their daily news, has decided that pages that post fake stories will be banned from advertising. That's a perfectly fine decision, but it raises a bigger and more profound question: Who decides which news is fake? Mark Zuckerberg?