Welcome to the Podiatry Arena forums

You are currently viewing our podiatry forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view all podiatry discussions and access our other features. By joining our free global community of Podiatrists and other interested foot health care professionals you will have access to post podiatry topics (answer and ask questions), communicate privately with other members, upload content, view attachments, receive a weekly email update of new discussions, access other special features. Registered users do not get displayed the advertisements in posted messages. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our global Podiatry community today!

  1. Everything that you are ever going to want to know about running shoes: Running Shoes Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Have you considered the Critical Thinking and Skeptical Boot Camp, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
Dismiss Notice
Have you liked us on Facebook to get our updates? Please do. Click here for our Facebook page.
Dismiss Notice
Do you get the weekly newsletter that Podiatry Arena sends out to update everybody? If not, click here to organise this.

Who should bear the costs when bad information from the internet is relied upon?

Discussion in 'General Issues and Discussion Forum' started by Craig Payne, Apr 18, 2014.

  1. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator


    Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.
    I found this intriguing:
    The Cost of Vaccine Misinformation

    Even though this essay is related to the crap, lies, bull****, misinfo related to vaccines, the argument has wider implications beyond infectious diseases and vaccines.

    I am sure we can all come up with examples online where info is distributed that is contradicted by the scientific evidence. Who is liable is that info is relied upon to make decisions?
  2. Boots n all

    Boots n all Well-Known Member

    You would think the Author.

    But with things like FB a lot of information has become second and third hand and because its on the internet it must be correct? As to who should bare the responsibility for that, l still say the Aurthor
  3. wdd

    wdd Well-Known Member

    I would think that in practical terms (as there is no reliable way of guaging the accuracy of online information) the responsibility sits squarely on the shoulders of the person relying on the information?

    'Information from the internet covers a huge spectrum in terms of reliability. What are the markers of 'more' reliable information and what are the markers of 'less' reliable information?

    If there was a recognised system for assessing the reliability of online info. then responsibility should initially be upon the shoulders of the person relying upon the information but they would be able to use the assessed level of reliability of the information in mitigation and to redirect responsibility.

    Then again I like the 'a big boy did it and ran away' defence. I also like the "look the other way" defence, frequently encountered upon entering round-abouts when you have priority and someone else enters the round-about before with their head turned so that they are not looking at you. I think I am getting off the point.

  4. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    Here is a specific scenario that came to mind when I read that article:

    Is Severs disease due to impacts on the growth plate from heel striking or is is due to the pull of the achilles tendon on the growth plate? There is NO evidence either way and I have asked two people who did their PhD on severs which one they thought it was and neither of them at any clue which one it was. In light of that my standard treatment for severs has been a cushioned heal raise to cover both bases.

    Several times now I have seen on barefoot running forums parents asking for advice on their kids severs disease and the universal advice in response is that heel striking is the problem and that they should be forefoot striking! How the f...k do they know that? No one else knows that!

    That advice would be good if heel impacts are the problem and the advice would be disastrous if the pull of the achilles tendon is the problem.

    Should those who post that sort of bad advice not be held legally accountable for it if things went wrong?
  5. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

  6. camkitchen

    camkitchen Member

    Without a doubt. Shoot the messenger applies IMHO.

  7. caf002

    caf002 Active Member

    I presume we have all heard the expression "buyer beware"?
    We have all assumed that the information provided on the www is truthful and accurate, in spite of the dangers of this folly. So in my view, the person seeking the information is liable. If the information is from a reliable source (eg Podiatry Arena, or abstracts from scientific journals) then the Author and the Autoriser should be responsible.
  8. joejared

    joejared Active Member

    In a multi-billion dollar industry, it's fairly easy to quell dissent for the majority. I'm content with my decision not to vaccinate my daughter. Other than flu like symptoms on Day 364 of her life for a few hours, she's never been sick. Fear mongering and bad information exists on both sides of the issue.

    Last edited: May 2, 2014

Share This Page