[mbostleman]

>>Why is the private sector responsible for providing accurate health information? As this article shows, the incentives for people running medical websites <in the private sector> and the people reading them are not aligned.>>

I don't know that the cause of this particular misalignment is "private sector". But no doubt the current implementations by the private sector exhibit this misalignment.

>>I'd say the UK NHS website <which is public sector> and symptoms/medications pages hit the nail on the head>>

I assume this implies that the NHS website does not exhibit the previously noted misalignment. Why is that? Obviously this site's sole funding is not from advertising. I assume it's from taxes collected by the government. So what is incentivizing those that build this site and maintain its content to make it so good?

[mbostleman]

I'm wondering why my question got downvoted. I've had this happen before when asking questions. Could it be a matter of a couple of readers not assuming benign intent? As in, someone thinks I'm not actually asking a question but making a statement and they don't agree with the statement. Either way it's interesting.

Perhaps the more likely to be read as benign version would be this: We all agree site A is bad because it's misaligned (which I think all agree is due to being driven by ads). Then we propose that site B is good - but there's no indication about WHY site B is good. We know why site A is bad, but why is site B good. And more specifically since we're describing the value in terms of alignment, what alignment is there in site B that drives the goodness?