I am a big believer in DIY science. I think science can gain a lot by exposing itself to amateurish interest and experiments, be it only through the insight the quantity of data could bring to conventional science. However, this is very different from what this article discusses on Fast Company's website. According to the latter, an inadequate cure for multiple sclerosis suggested by an Italian doctor and rejected by all the medical community was able to survive that denial in Canada where it got media coverage. As the logic of news diffusion would want it, the news ended up in the realm of social media where it gained defenders and Fan pages. This ended up giving unnecessary credibility to a false idea, Canadian supporters going as far as demanding funding for further research into the matter.
Yes, there is a situation where social media might propagate false truths and rumors. It happens all the time. People are wrong all the time and take half-facts for unshakable truths. However, titling an article like this
"Why you should consult your doctor and not Facebook on medical issues"
Gives the feeling that the Web is not to be trusted when it comes to medical issues. I disagree. The Internet cannot be your sole reference but it is a Very useful one since it aggregates the knowledge and experience of millions of patients, compared to doctors who aggregate only their knowledge and the experience of their patients.