Facebook Begins Hiding Anti-Vaccine Misinformation (usatoday.com) 239
America now has 206 confirmed cases of measles, its highest year-to-date number in over 25 years . Now USA Today reports on how Facebook is responding:
In mid-February, Facebook told USA TODAY it had "taken steps" to reduce fake health news and anti-vaxx posts and said it was considering making anti-vaccination content on its site less visible amid a measles outbreak that has reignited a conversation about preventative shots. At the time, Facebook said, "we know we have more to do...." Revealed Thursday: The social network says it will reduce distribution and provide users with "authoritative information" on the topic.
Facebook is following the lead of Pinterest, which has blocked all searches using terms related to vaccines or vaccinations as part of a plan to stop the spread of misinformation related to anti-vaxx posts.... It will reduce the ranking of Facebook groups and Pages that spread misinformation about vaccinations in News Feed and Search. "These groups and Pages will not be included in recommendations or in predictions when you type into Search," Facebook said. When it discovers ads with misinformation about vaccinations, "we will reject them." Facebook said it has removed related targeting options, like "vaccine controversies," in ads.... Additionally, Facebook said it wouldn't show or recommend content that contains misinformation about vaccinations on the Explore section of Facebook-owned Instagram or on its hashtag pages.
Facebook is following the lead of Pinterest, which has blocked all searches using terms related to vaccines or vaccinations as part of a plan to stop the spread of misinformation related to anti-vaxx posts.... It will reduce the ranking of Facebook groups and Pages that spread misinformation about vaccinations in News Feed and Search. "These groups and Pages will not be included in recommendations or in predictions when you type into Search," Facebook said. When it discovers ads with misinformation about vaccinations, "we will reject them." Facebook said it has removed related targeting options, like "vaccine controversies," in ads.... Additionally, Facebook said it wouldn't show or recommend content that contains misinformation about vaccinations on the Explore section of Facebook-owned Instagram or on its hashtag pages.
This is the wrong approach (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that it makes it very easy to hide correct information as well, if the "authorities" do not like it. The right approach would be better education. But that is also something the "authorities" do not like, as better educated citizen may just spot all their various screw-ups, extreme waste and outright evil machinations.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This is the real objective. It has always been the objective.
Authorities or people in positions of power have always said, we need to take your liberty/rights away under the guise of protecting you.
They do (Score:2, Troll)
You don't have the r
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. While I do not like the term "order" (it is too close to "law" and law is a very dangerous construct that can easily be abused for fascism and worse) society requires some level of sacrifice (which must be carefully limited to sacrifices that actually make sense), and provides huge advantages in return. Anybody not willing to make the rational sacrifices has no place in society and should be removed from it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nothing is stopping you from creating your own antivaxx network. Go to it. Facebook is not obliged to host such content, or at the very least to make it easy to find. Censorship, as a dire tool of tyranny is only used in the context of the State, and so far as I'm aware, no one is proposing the US or other national governments make spreading antivaxx garbage unlawful.
Re: (Score:2)
I have no desire to educated the stupid. I just wish I was not on the same planet with them.
Re: (Score:3)
I have no desire to educated the stupid. I just wish I was not on the same planet with them.
You can stow away on Musk's rocket to Mars, you can kill yourself, or you can educate the stupid. Any other result is going to leave you sharing the same ball of mud with dumbasses.
Re: (Score:2)
#RemoveAllWarningLabels -- I think that's a good start to solving the stupid people problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Well, that makes you even more dangerous that the anti-vaxxers: You appear to be rational, but are not.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I just don't lie to people like you and tell them, this is all perfectly safe and this will not hurt a bit.
Everything has a risk, vaccinations are the same thing. The entire Medical industry is about weighing the pro's and con's of the medicines they give people.
Right now the information indicates that risks of not getting vaccinated outweigh the risks of getting vaccinated. The fear is stepping into the arena when you fear a bad outcome.
Sure I fear the risk of vaccinations... but I fear things like m
Re: (Score:3)
No, I just don't lie to people like you and tell them, this is all perfectly safe and this will not hurt a bit.
And that I did do exactly where? Oh, right, I did not. What I said is that for the discussion at hand (Measles) vaccinations are _necessary_ and that not having them (unless there is a sound medical reason) is dangerous and harmful to others. That is a bit different from what you claim I have said.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes indeed.
I disagree (Score:5, Insightful)
The trouble with a purely algorithmic news source is that it's going to serve you up more and more of whatever it is you're clicking on. That's because the algorithms aren't really that complex. There's no magic, it's just "People who clicked this video also clicked this video". Without someone stepping in it becomes an endless echo chamber. One that also tends to push the worst ideas up to the surface because extreme, visceral ideas get the most reactions and most clicks.
The problem is that the current ad supported Internet exists to increase engagement. They want to keep you on the page longer, clicking more and seeing more ads. This is a hyperactive version of what happened in the 80s when News shows figured out that fear sells and they all started running terrifying news stories about pedophiles and gang bangers.
My mom saw those and locked me up in my room, never mind that most pedophiles are family members or authority figures like priests and the gang bangers stayed in their own little neck of the wood because if they didn't the cops came round and busted heads. It was all lies, but it had a huge impact on my life when I spent the better half of my teenage years in constant conflict because I wasn't allowed to go anywhere or do anything. It sucked.
And yeah, she was an anti-vaxxer too. Give people like that something to be afraid of and they will. Instead, cut it the fuck out and replace it with reality.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, yes. That is indeed a problem. But how do you make sure this will not be the initial push for widespread censorship in the current climate of raising authoritarianism?
Re: (Score:2)
But how do you make sure this will not be the initial push for widespread censorship in the current climate of raising authoritarianism?
Nobody is forcing them to do this. The only thing the government's even made noises about forcing them to do is to take better control of political messaging.
Re: (Score:2)
You make sure that Facebook is not part of the government. Because governments can be totalitarian, but Facebook doesn't have an army or a police force or jails.
Oh look, we've succeeded!
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with this is that true information which questions the safety of a particular vaccine or vaccine from a particular vendor will be hidden along with the lies.
The answer to misinformation is always to refute it, not to hide it. When you drive speech underground it always flourishes, and now there is no one to refute the lies.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed.
Re: (Score:2)
Provably wrong, but it does take a bit of knowledge of human history. I guess you are lacking that or have not understood what you were taught.
Re: (Score:3)
Before wide use of the Internet, White Supremacists were a fringe group who basically communicated with each other via xeroxed periodicals delivered in brown paper wrapping. Yes, the White Supremacists were there, and yes, the general social censure gave them some sort of a bizarre mystique, but they were basically dying out. Along comes the Internet, and suddenly you have a racist goon driving a car into a crowd, and a pack of Neo-nazis chanting Antisemitic slogans on TV.
I'm sorry, but the fact is that if
Re: (Score:2)
That is an exceptionally dangerous path you are advocating there. In principle, I would be thrilled if we could just squash all that anti-science, anti-truth nonsense. But history shows this may have exceptionally bad side-effects.
Re: (Score:2)
> White Supremacists were a fringe group who basically communicated with each other via xeroxed periodicals delivered in brown paper wrapping.
I don't see how you could claim this with so many nations claiming ethnic and racial superiority throughout history. Even the Old Testament had the Hebrews as "the chosen people" with divine favor. If you look more at history, I think you'll find that American "White Supremacy" is simply a more recent version of the racism and tribal loyalties that are found in alm
Re: This is the wrong approach (Score:2)
Forced-vax nazis sure do love corporate censorship.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You wish. But since you lack in education and insight, you cannot actually see how wrong you are. If you should ever get a small glimpse of insight into your true mental capabilities, I recommend starting with reading up on the Dunning-Kruger effect. Yes, that is a serious recommendation.
Re: (Score:2)
I worked in the oxymoronically named intelligence community. You may or may not be surprised how much of the stuff that's classified is just to cover for a screwup of some sort.
.
See George Carlin. They don't want critical thinking citizens at all, the the educationa
Re: (Score:2)
I worked in the oxymoronically named intelligence community. You may or may not be surprised how much of the stuff that's classified is just to cover for a screwup of some sort.
I actually have some insight into that (without ever having held a clearance, don't ask), and I fully agree. One of the most important reasons to classify things is to hide screw-ups.
See George Carlin.
I love that guy. I am currently trying (and clearly failing) to follow his advice to just "not give a shit".
Of course, it's better for ME if YOU get vaccinated with a high risk vaccine...because herd immunity....so this is a case where it's easy for anyone running things to make a case it's the best for the most people, even if there ARE flaws in the current vaccines...you still wind up with fewer deaths.
Well, Measles is not a "high risk" vaccine. It is however an extremely contagious disease and its potential complications are pretty much "high-risk". So yes, medically it makes sense to vaccinate anybody except for a few
Re: (Score:2)
I think the measles vaccine risk depends somewhat on which study you look at. It's all I actually know; I'm, I guess, lucky I had it as a child and it doesn't matter to me personally anyway. I'm not an anti-vaxxer by any stretch. Western medicine has saved my hide more than once. And also messed me up more than once, but that was lack of skill on an individual's part. I'm a scientist by trade myself, and I kinda beli
Re: (Score:2)
You are perfectly right that censorship is only part of the threat. I have long suspected that "controlling the narrative" is done on /. as well, probably by TLAs, and certainly by commercial organizations. (Just criticize Linux systemd and then remember that the US military is the largest Red Hats customer with apparently more than half their business to put the reaction into perspective. Right from a playbook, the PyOps/Marketing folks do not even try to come up with any rational arguments. It is all pure
Re: (Score:2)
In the meantime, while you are trying and failing to present real data, their kids go unvaccinated, putting them and everyone around them in danger.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, yes. Fanatics are always convinced they have the truth, no matter what and that is pretty much what they are. What education may allow is to prevent others from even considering that these people may be right and it may prevent any laws from going their demented way.
Re:Censorship is the wrong approach (Score:2)
You left the key word out of your comment. It's censorship and the key question is why Facebook gets to play gawd.
I've actually seen some evidence that makes me think Facebook is actually playing a broad game against many categories of political activity. I'm inclined to agree when the sources are professional trolls, even if they're not working for Putin, but the collateral damage counts, too. The trolls actually have the strongest motivation to game the system and push the limits, whereas the innocent peo
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think this argument stands up. It's not like Facebook is claiming some kind of novel power over content linked in their site or developing some new technological capability. They already track you to as fare-thee-well. If Facebook wanted to censor mainstream conservative political opinions, they could do it *right now*. They don't need to establish a precedent; as a private corporation they can take any kind of editorial policy they want.
The reason they don't crack down on political opinions t
Re: This is the wrong approach (Score:2)
I know (in person, not online) several self-described conservatives who claim their political posts on Faceboot are frequently censored. I cannot confirm as I refuse to use Faceboot.
Re: (Score:2)
The right approach would be better education
False. Education hasn't worked. No sane person would be an anti-vaxxer unless exposed to a horrid echo chamber of lies, a chamber that discredits the very "education" and "science" you propose would fix the issue.
The best we can do is prevent people from finding these toxic environments. Only if we do that do we have any hope of sanity prevailing when presented with education.
Re: (Score:2)
I am not arguing that this would be ineffective for the problem at hand. I am arguing that the risks of (long term) extreme negative side-effects are too large.
Re: This is the wrong approach (Score:2)
Forced-vax nazis sure do have little faith in the persuasive power of their own ideas.
better education useless (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Its cute you try to bring political affiliation into the conversation. This is a stupid person problem, they exist on both sides. Stupid liberals exist just as much as Stupid republicans. You're just helping divide the country and make the stupid dig their feet in deeper. This kind of thing does not help anybody. Please take your partisan bullshit and go home. Thank you.
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook even plays host to these groups and amplifies their message every time someone searches for inf
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Oh, this case is hiding misinformation. There is no information that would support not getting vaccinated against the measles. There is a large body of lies though that support this stance and a large number of stupid and badly educated people that believe these lies. No, the problem is the precedent, and once such censorship has been used to suppress clearly false information, it will be used in successively less clear cases.
Re: This is the wrong approach (Score:4, Informative)
"There is no information that would support not getting vaccinated against the measles."
A statement of pure ignorance. Here even the CDC would like to call you out on that.
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/v... [cdc.gov]
Thankfully the side effects are rare in most cases, and the risks of not getting vaccinated are higher than getting vaccinated.
If vaccines were totally safe they would be sold over the counter available for anyone to pick up instead of keeping them locked behind doctors and regulations. Your should have just stopped at your first post, you were doing good until now.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No The CDC website does not have any information that would support not getting vaccinated., maybe go finish middle school and try reading it slower, maybe get the adult in charge of you to help
Re: This is the wrong approach (Score:2)
To be fair, it's also possible that he can think, but prefers not to.
Re: (Score:2)
Valid argument. I agree.
Re: (Score:2)
"You cannot think." I am not the one spreading lies that were so quickly disproven.
"This information does not support not getting vaccinated."
For the people with known allergies to the drugs involved it does.
The problem here is that you are just plain wrong and cannot accept it and you are using my discussion of "rare" situations to make it appear as though I am talking about the general situation and I am not.
I support getting vaccines, I vaccinate my children, but making equally stupid statements like y
Re: (Score:2)
Well, of course there are actual medical arguments why some (very few) people cannot get vaccinated. And, of course, I am very obviously not talking about them. That I even need to state this just highlight that your mind is broken and that you have no rationality. I am talking about the scum that chooses to not get vaccinated with not valid medical argument and that endanger those that cannot get vaccinated and those where the vaccination doe not take. That I even need to state this is beyond stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
What is the objective of calling them and treating them like SCUM?
I may not be an antivaxxer but I also understand fear. It is an irrational beast and you just like them have irrational fears that make you do stupid stuff too. In fact most people have them. Just because that irrational fear is over vaccines does not make it better or worse than peoples fears of disease, terrorists, crime, fire, or any other fear you can come up with.
I bet you are more understanding with other fears, why have you decided
Re: This is the wrong approach (Score:4, Informative)
In general, the CDC article is strongly supportive of vaccination, and lays out sound medical reasons to get the vaccine. But it's important to read the entire article, which also says:
> Anyone who has ever had a life-threatening allergic reaction to the antibiotic neomycin, or any other component of MMR vaccine, should not get the vaccine.
Acknowledging the dangerous cases or the exceptions is one of the most reliable signs of good science.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
This would make a great way to do Eugenics.
Just need to make vaccinations mandatory and with the amount of citizen tracking and information we have we can selectively sterilize any group we want.
Hopefully we will start with the group that does want government mandated vaccinations.
We can selectively control entire groups through medication. Heck once DNA editing is in effect we can edit those folks. Heck if we find a way to modify our DNA to live much longer lives we can introduce accidental deaths for th
Re: (Score:2)
Jesus Christ. Seek medical help. You need some intense paranoia.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait... you act like this stuff has never happened before. I guess you do not read history. So do tell, what am I being paranoid about?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://www.cdc.gov/tuskegee/t... [cdc.gov]
It's not really paranoia. There is always an ebb and flow to government corruption. This year nothing happened, next year there is controversy where someone lied to the government got things done. How many times does government get to murder people before you stop worshiping them? How many Mao's, Hitler
Re: (Score:2)
Since the government isn't chasing antivaxxers around, this is at best a non sequitur, an even by the low standards of that fallacy, a pretty damned tortured one.
Re: (Score:2)
You are very deep into delusion. Nothing of that paranoia you are spouting has any connection to reality. I advise you to seek medical help before you harm yourself or others.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean you have no connection to reality?
These things have been done before, and it is hardly irrational to want to take steps to prevent them from happening again.
Additionally, I know how to use fear to get you and many like you to dig a grave, get into it, pull the dirt over your faces, and even talk great things about me the entire time it is happening.
You see, the only thing that stops things like this from happening is because it takes a lot of time to find out which fears works best to trigger these
Re: (Score:2)
This was the theory being spread in Kenya about the tetanus vaccines being provided for young women whose infants are still at risk of tetanus. It's an infamous case, see https://africacheck.org/2016/0... [africacheck.org] It's also frequently cited by anti-vaxxers as verified proof of deliberate contamination of vaccines, which is simply not true.
Re: (Score:2)
I briefly wonder how Niemoller and Alex Jones would get along.
I quickly conclude not so well.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the original suffices. Your "update for modern times" is stupid and tone deaf.
See, in the origi
Re: (Score:2)
It's not censorship to shift dubious information to a place where the consumer has to lift two fingers instead of one, just as it wasn't censorship to confine pornography to pornographic magazines, and to make the consumer trudge an entire city block to the nearest newsstand (who was on his way for fresh smokes or a letter stamp to begin with).
If you can't even manage two clicks, no
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to never have heard about how totalitarianism and ultimately fascism gets established. You should read up on it, there is a ton of historical precedent.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not censorship to shift dubious information to a place where the consumer has to lift two fingers instead of one, just as it wasn't censorship to confine pornography to pornographic magazines,
No, those two things are wholly different. This is Facebook choosing to take this action. The pornography was forced into little boxes (and forced off of the TV box) by government. One is free speech, the other is censorship.
Similarly, it's not censorship when YouTube demonitizes your channel because it's politically hard-edged, depriving you of a large audience of lazy people who won't make two clicks to express their independent viewing preferences.
Right, that's not censorship any more than Facebook kicking their soapbox out from under the anti-vaxxers, because nobody forced them to do it, and the anti-vaxxers are still free to set up PolioTube or whatever and spread their ridiculous views on the internets. The point at which they
Re: (Score:2)
It was the other way around. Hate speech was the first thing they came for. So the haters tried to dress it up as journalism, but eventually Alex Jones got banned too.
Re: (Score:2)
It was the other way around. Hate speech was the first thing they came for. So the haters tried to dress it up as journalism, but eventually Alex Jones got banned too.
Sure explains why all of those progressives and leftists have facebook and twitter accounts, while not being banned, or even given a "time out" for maliciously spreading fake information. Everything from Mike "hands up don't shoot" Brown, to the Covington kids, to actively promoting and endorsing racism against whites. Looks like some types of hate speech are perfectly fine with them.
Give you a tip, go watch the 5hr podcast with Tim Pool on the Joe Rogen experience, and watch as Jack Dorsey and his pet la
Re: (Score:2)
How the fuck do you abuse free speech? You do know what free speech is right?
Re: (Score:2)
I have. But most were highly educated and smart and pretty disgusted with the rest of their country. The problem with the morons is that they will feel validated on any censorship and go even deeper into fanaticism.
Re: This is the wrong approach (Score:2)
I am an American, and I approve this message. We are indeed all morons; not a single one among us is capable of critical thinking. Even the immigrants are required to have half their brains removed before they are granted citizenship.
Oh... both my kids had all their shots. And I don't blame that for my younger daughter's autism.
But you're right, I'm a moron. Through and through. Just sayin'.
Re: (Score:2)
I was only a moron until I was 25, when I realized I didn't know shit. Now I'm just mostly a moron.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree to all of that. But I think censorship will be even worse in its effects, at least long-term. Bit is there any other solution besides these two? I do at least not see one.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Up next: Conservative opinions (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems like if they were going after conservatives they would start with the Nazis on Facebook. Even less controversial than vaccination.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe I've been living under a rock for the last 90 years so...
What does Nazism have to do with conservatism?
Yes, it would be less controversial to filter out Nazism. What that does though is remove the premise that Facebook is merely a communications conduit. As soon as they start filtering out information that they do not agree with then they should lose any protections similar to those granted to phone companies. A phone company cannot be held liable for communications they transmit because the phone
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, seriously? That is your argument? They are a private company, and they are not forced into hosting anything they don't want to.
Re: (Score:3)
This is the information age. Hitlers campaign speeches are seconds away. Everyone is seconds away from seeing that Hitler said the same shit the american left now says: The rich are evil, we are here for the working class, the state should provide healthcare, fuck the russians, gotta get rid of guns, etc, etc, etc... the list isnt endless but it goes
Re: (Score:2)
Your logical fallacy is: the Slippery Slope [yourlogicalfallacyis.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Not every slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Joe Rogan just put out a video that so far has got 10 million views in 10 days, and not once was the video listed as trending or in any other way made easily discoverable by youtube.
These leftist censorship fucks dont give a fuck.
I noticed this yesterday (Score:2, Interesting)
Legitimizes FB as a "source of good information" (Score:5, Interesting)
Whenever people cheer that FB is blocking "bad things", that makes it more tempting to thing, "If it is allowed on FB, it must be good!"
If people cultivate the idea that FB is a source of "information" that may or may not be correct, they'll be a bit less likely to fall for the next "As Seen On FB" craze, be it medical, political, or religious.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Whenever people cheer that FB is blocking "bad things", that makes it more tempting to thing, "If it is allowed on FB, it must be good!"
The slippery slope fallacy is called a fallacy for very good reason.
Given the enourmous amount of bad press (Score:2)
But if you're really that worried about it there's an easy enough solution: More Education. In particular more liberal arts. Why the liberal arts? Because yes, you can teach critical thinking, but no, you can't do it with Math. Math is too hard, and there's no value in being half right.
Ever wonder why even to this day the rich and powerful insist on a well rounded education for their little spawnlings? Because that's
Wonderful news! (Score:2, Interesting)
1. Proclaim yourself to be a Nazi, who advocates -- well, I don't know really. I think just saying that you are a Nazi might be enough? And a swastika picture I guess. (-how do you make that ASCII swastika again?-)
2. Proclaim yourself to suspect medical vaccines may sometimes be of questionable usefulness.
Incomprehensible (Score:2)
Anti-vaxxers are incomprehensible to me- do they think these diseases just disappeared on their own? Diseases like polio, diphtheria, pertussis, measles, mumps, and rubella more or less disappeared because vaccines kept them from spreading and persisting.
Anti-vaxxers are just as idiotic as flat-earthers or chemtrail whackos, or the people who believe that Reptilians control a secret shadow government.
Re: (Score:2)
.... or the people who believe that Reptilians control a secret shadow government.
That whole reptilian thing is just a smoke screen by house cats... who actually do control everything (not just government). Go ahead, ask any cat person.... they know.
will they hide other information? (Score:2)
Will they hide other anti-science information, such as "human embryos aren't really human", or "human gender is whatever you feel like it is", or "brains aren't biological and are not affected by genetics"?
What's that? No?
Re: (Score:2)
As there are plenty of idiots, plenty of people use Facebook. Since you seem to think that vaccination is not an important topic, I must conclude you are one of the non-Facebook using idiots though.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh? Then explain the "who cares" in detail, please.
Re: (Score:2)
No. Not even a small chance. Unless you believe the earth is flat as well?
Re:Vaccination = Homeopathy (Score:4, Insightful)
The most successful series of public health initiatives since soap and in-door plumbing is a "real health scare". You should be lucky. I had a teacher in school who had polio as a child, and carried the scars the rest of his life. There are enough pictures of kids in iron lungs, kids damaged by measles outbreaks, and the like, to demonstrate that vaccines really are among the most successful medical interventions every created. There are millions of people whose lives have been saved outright, or have never had to suffer the long-term, often permanent ravages, of these diseases, and it's because of that that idiots like yourself seem so willing to be cavalier with both the truth and the health of millions of people.
Grow up. You do not possess some secret knowledge. You're just an ignorant fool.
Re: (Score:2)
And fail. A scientific consensus is not a consensus in the ordinary sense. I get the people like you are not equipped to understand that, but to all others, "scientific consensus" means that nobody has come up with a valid counterclaim based on actual science. A normal consensus is that nobody has a different _opinion_ and that is something so much weaker it is not even of the same nature.
Re: (Score:2)
- Misrepresentation of the term "scientific consensus" - Check
- Exaggeration of incorrect science - Check
- Post-modernist blather essentially making all opinions equal because of above "point" - Check
I'd say that's enough to either label you a pointless contrarian, or a complete moron, or worst of all, someone who wants to defend the spreading of dangerous lies about vaccines. So what is it? Are you just a miserable SOB, a fucking idiot, or actually outright evil?
Re: (Score:2)
There was barely a thing called science when Copernicus and Galileo came up with their models. In many ways, they were the first sciences. But really this misrepresents even them. Science didn't replace heliocentrism. Planets do orbit the sun. The model was updated with better observations and with more planets to test premises against. Heliocentrism wasn't disproven, it was improved. When you have to go back half a millennium to show how unreliable science is, I think even you know your argument is pretty
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. While I would applaud any anti-vaxxer self-extermination, for every of the 3% or so of _vaccinated_ people were it just does not take and that gets sick, I would support shooting 10 anti-vaxxers at random as a recognition of their positive contribution to safety and health of society.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny. Does not say anything good about you, but funny nonetheless. Confirms my evaluation of you nicely though. And you know, you are posting as a coward, so I am probably naive to expect even a bit of decency or insight from you.
Re: (Score:2)
This is what happens when you let eight year olds on the Internet without supervision.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, looks like it.
Re: (Score:2)
But these Jews are just a minority in that, the problem is far, far larger and it is not caused by religion.
It's caused by bullshit magical thinking, so it's not caused by religion, but by the same force that permits religion.