In that time, public opinion shifted. People began to feel that tech companies were not just neutral hosts; they bore some responsibility for what their algorithms circulated.
The world is always looking for someone to blame. In doing so with misinformation, we look at those platforms in which it originates from. Social media platforms are where misinformation and disinformation thrives. And so now we want those companies and online platforms to do something about it.
BOO, which “can be taken by anyone at any age, as well as animals,” according to the company, claims many benefits and uses, including improved brain function and heart health, and ridding the body of so-called toxins that include heavy metals, pesticides and parasites.
At this point in the article the information that the audience has been met with the introduction that the black liquid being referenced can be used for faces and feet, overhyping jargon, and $110 price tag for what is essentially dirt.
What kind of proof is available about not only the improved brain function, heart health, and toxin eliminator, but also that it can simply work for both all-ages humans and animals?
Survey data can’t prove conclusively whether using Facebook affects vaccine acceptance and resistance. However, the data can indicate whether people who get their news from Facebook have higher or lower vaccination rates than those who don’t.
I think that this statement is simpler than it presents itself, but ultimately one that has great value in truth. Ultimately with the information at hand, Facebook cannot speak on the vaccination rates to the entirety of America. But they can say whether those surveyed have been vaccinated or not. The survey should be met with scepticism.