jerry, 9 months ago

@cremevax its good the retracted it, but the damage is already done, though.

AGTMADCAT, 9 months ago

@jerry @cremevax The note isn't clear: Was the core of the story wrong, or just not written well enough to meet their standards?

jerry, 9 months ago

@AGTMADCAT @cremevax it isn’t based on reliable sourcing. So they are not saying it’s wrong, just that it’s not well researched. If it were a problem with prose or grammar, they would just fix it. If they knew it to be wrong, they would have said so in the retraction.

AGTMADCAT, 9 months ago

@jerry @cremevax That makes sense - so it'd be reasonable to interpret it as "too soon to tell" rather than as something that's now known to be wrong?

cremevax, 9 months ago

@jerry @AGTMADCAT upon further reflection, I think @jerry is right. If they knew it was flat out wrong they would have said so explicitly.

cremevax, 9 months ago

@jerry I know I am already primed to distrust Google, so I read that story and thought, sounds about right. Pretty hard to set the record straight afterwards when everyone (including me) is all “vibes > facts”

Thinking of all those depressing studies that show substantive corrections never get the same SM traction that the flawed original stories get. 😢