---

@icyfroth wrote:

AMA calls for social media campaign to counter COVID conspiracy theories

 

In a statement on Tuesday, AMA president Dr Omar Khorshid said people are increasingly turning to social media to learn about healthy choices, but the internet has the potential to "significantly magnify health misinformation campaigns".

 

"The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) does its best to crack down on fraudulent claims about items of clothing or glorified lava lamps being able to repel COVID-19, but more action is needed.

 

"We need an Australian government-funded campaign to counter this misinformation and promote healthy choices, including information about vaccine safety."

The call comes as Liberal politician Craig Kelly was criticised for claiming on social media that mask mandates for COVID-19 "can only be defined as child abuse".

 

In an ABC interview on Tuesday, Acting Prime Minister Michael McCormack was asked if members of the Liberal Party such as Mr Kelly should be censured for spreading misinformation.

"Facts sometimes are contentious, aren't they?" Mr McCormack responded. "And what you may think is right, somebody else might think is completely untrue. And that's part of living in a democratic country."

Mr McCormack earlier said he wouldn't want to be on a jury that decides what gets taken down from social media.

"I don't think we should have that sort of censorship in our society," he said. "But people also need to think very much about what they put up on Twitter and what they put up on social media."

 

AMA calls for social media campaign to counter COVID conspiracy theories (msn.com)

 

Well said, Mr McCormack!

 

---

Ummm NO Mr McCormack,  facts are not contentious.  Not even 'sometimes'.  I know Mr Trump thinks he invented alternative facts but he really just tried to justify lies.

The definition of a fact is something that is true or something that has occurred or has been proven correct.

How then can a fact be contentious?

---

@ambercat16 wrote:

---

@icyfroth wrote:

AMA calls for social media campaign to counter COVID conspiracy theories

 

In a statement on Tuesday, AMA president Dr Omar Khorshid said people are increasingly turning to social media to learn about healthy choices, but the internet has the potential to "significantly magnify health misinformation campaigns".

 

"The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) does its best to crack down on fraudulent claims about items of clothing or glorified lava lamps being able to repel COVID-19, but more action is needed.

 

"We need an Australian government-funded campaign to counter this misinformation and promote healthy choices, including information about vaccine safety."

The call comes as Liberal politician Craig Kelly was criticised for claiming on social media that mask mandates for COVID-19 "can only be defined as child abuse".

 

In an ABC interview on Tuesday, Acting Prime Minister Michael McCormack was asked if members of the Liberal Party such as Mr Kelly should be censured for spreading misinformation.

"Facts sometimes are contentious, aren't they?" Mr McCormack responded. "And what you may think is right, somebody else might think is completely untrue. And that's part of living in a democratic country."

Mr McCormack earlier said he wouldn't want to be on a jury that decides what gets taken down from social media.

"I don't think we should have that sort of censorship in our society," he said. "But people also need to think very much about what they put up on Twitter and what they put up on social media."

 

AMA calls for social media campaign to counter COVID conspiracy theories (msn.com)

 

Well said, Mr McCormack!

 

---

Ummm NO Mr McCormack,  facts are not contentious.  Not even 'sometimes'.  I know Mr Trump thinks he invented alternative facts but he really just tried to justify lies.

 

The definition of a fact is something that is true or something that has occurred or has been proven correct.

 

How then can a fact be contentious?

 

---

When it's presented as a fact, but later proven not to be a fact.

"Facts sometimes are contentious, aren't they?" Mr McCormack responded.

No they are not - a fact is not a supposition - a fact is proveable.

"And what you may think is right, somebody else might think is completely untrue. And that's part of living in a democratic country."

Has nothng to do with ' FACT. '

He actually said ' nothing '.

Fact is, that the US, Britain and the Coalition of the Willing invaded Iraq because they believed Iraq had Weapons Of Mass Destruction was a "fact"

.

In fact, it was not, and no WMD's were ever found.

Just an example.

Facts are indeed, contentious.

---

@icyfroth wrote:

Fact is, that the US, Britain and the Coalition of the Willing invaded Iraq because they believed Iraq had Weapons Of Mass Destruction was a "fact"

.

In fact, it was not, and no WMD's were ever found.

 

Just an example.

 

Facts are indeed, contentious.

 

---

Not really. The fact is they suspected it or lied. The claim that Iraq had WOMD was never proven, so it wasn't a fact. You may have your facts wrong about what the facts actually were!

---

@icyfroth wrote:

Fact is, that the US, Britain and the Coalition of the Willing invaded Iraq because they believed Iraq had Weapons Of Mass Destruction was a "fact"

.

In fact, it was not, and no WMD's were ever found.

 

Just an example.

 

Facts are indeed, contentious.

 

---

The US, Britain & the Coalition invaded Iraq because they believed Iraq had WOMD.

That is indeed FACT - they did invade.

That no WOMD were found is now - FACT.

FACT - came later.

Facts are not contencious.