Twitter and TikTok are Losing the War Against COVID Disinformation (usatoday.com) 146
America's leading social media companies "pledged to put warning labels on COVID-19 and COVID vaccines posts to stop the spread of falsehoods, conspiracy theories and hoaxes that are fueling vaccine hesitancy in the USA," reports USA Today.
"With the exception of Facebook, nearly all of them are losing the war against COVID disinformation." That's the conclusion of a new report shared exclusively with USA TODAY. As the pace of the nation's immunizations slows and public health agencies struggle to get shots in arms, Advance Democracy found that debunked claims sowing unfounded fears about the vaccines are circulating largely unfettered on Twitter and TikTok, including posts and videos that falsely allege the federal government is covering up deaths caused by the vaccines or that it is safer to get COVID-19 than to get the vaccine.
Twitter began labeling tweets that include misleading or false information about COVID-19 vaccines in March. It also started using a "strike system" to eventually remove accounts that repeatedly violate its rules. Yet none of the top tweets on Twitter using popular anti-vaccine hashtags like #vaccineskill, #novaccine, #depopulation and #plandemic had labels as of May 3, according to Advance Democracy, a research organization that studies disinformation and extremism. What's more, when USA TODAY searched these hashtags on Twitter, unlabeled posts were served up along with advertisements for major consumer brands including Cheetos, Volvo, CVS, even Star Wars...
After coming under fire for its slow response to COVID-19 misinformation, Facebook has made significant progress in labeling COVID-19 posts, according to Daniel Jones, president of Advance Democracy... As of May 3, all of the top 10 posts discussing COVID-19 vaccines that used the #vaccineskill hashtag were labeled, compared to only two of the top 10 on March 28, Advance Democracy found... Facebook told USA TODAY it has removed more than 16 million pieces of content on Facebook and Instagram for violating its COVID and vaccine policies since the beginning of the pandemic....
As of May 3, TikTok failed to consistently apply labels to anti-vaccination hashtags used in videos with millions of views, the report said. Nine of the top 10 videos related to COVID-19 vaccines using the hashtag #NoVaccine did not have a label. Videos with the #NoVaccine label racked up 20.5 million views...
The Advance Democracy research did not look at vaccine-related content on Facebook-owned Instagram or Google's YouTube.
"Promises to address public health misinformation online are only consequential if there is action and follow through..." Jones told USA Today.
"This pandemic is not over, and with the rate of vaccinations on the decline, directing users to reliable information on vaccines is more important than ever," Jones said.
"With the exception of Facebook, nearly all of them are losing the war against COVID disinformation." That's the conclusion of a new report shared exclusively with USA TODAY. As the pace of the nation's immunizations slows and public health agencies struggle to get shots in arms, Advance Democracy found that debunked claims sowing unfounded fears about the vaccines are circulating largely unfettered on Twitter and TikTok, including posts and videos that falsely allege the federal government is covering up deaths caused by the vaccines or that it is safer to get COVID-19 than to get the vaccine.
Twitter began labeling tweets that include misleading or false information about COVID-19 vaccines in March. It also started using a "strike system" to eventually remove accounts that repeatedly violate its rules. Yet none of the top tweets on Twitter using popular anti-vaccine hashtags like #vaccineskill, #novaccine, #depopulation and #plandemic had labels as of May 3, according to Advance Democracy, a research organization that studies disinformation and extremism. What's more, when USA TODAY searched these hashtags on Twitter, unlabeled posts were served up along with advertisements for major consumer brands including Cheetos, Volvo, CVS, even Star Wars...
After coming under fire for its slow response to COVID-19 misinformation, Facebook has made significant progress in labeling COVID-19 posts, according to Daniel Jones, president of Advance Democracy... As of May 3, all of the top 10 posts discussing COVID-19 vaccines that used the #vaccineskill hashtag were labeled, compared to only two of the top 10 on March 28, Advance Democracy found... Facebook told USA TODAY it has removed more than 16 million pieces of content on Facebook and Instagram for violating its COVID and vaccine policies since the beginning of the pandemic....
As of May 3, TikTok failed to consistently apply labels to anti-vaccination hashtags used in videos with millions of views, the report said. Nine of the top 10 videos related to COVID-19 vaccines using the hashtag #NoVaccine did not have a label. Videos with the #NoVaccine label racked up 20.5 million views...
The Advance Democracy research did not look at vaccine-related content on Facebook-owned Instagram or Google's YouTube.
"Promises to address public health misinformation online are only consequential if there is action and follow through..." Jones told USA Today.
"This pandemic is not over, and with the rate of vaccinations on the decline, directing users to reliable information on vaccines is more important than ever," Jones said.
All of them fail in other languages (Score:5, Informative)
Sure, Twitter and TikTok are even worse, but Facebook is definitely not the knight in shining armour.
Re: (Score:3)
Removing crap in any language should not be seen as virtuous, with the exception of illegal crap. It is not the place of Facebook to decide The Truth because history shows again and again when you give that power to a small group of individuals they will abuse that power.
Serbian people especially should know of the danger of corporate mouthpieces for the government. It devolves from good-intentions into one-sided propaganda alarmingly quickly with devastating results. That is a shameful part of their hist
Re: (Score:2)
Removing crap in any language should not be seen as virtuous, with the exception of illegal crap.
Forcing someone else to remove something is not virtuous. Setting your own standards and abiding by them is, and that includes what help you're prepared to give others. If you want to enjoy a drink and curse like a sailor, go to a dive bar, but don't be surprised when a fancy restaurant patronized by Lady Snottington throws you out. Facebook is running an establishment, and can decide what's okay and what isn't within its virtual walls.
there is mounting evidence the government is coercing the private companies to de-platform their political rivals
I doubt it. Rather said rivals are going dangerously around the bend
Re: (Score:2)
The same reasoning was used to ban religious speech in soviet Russia. And currently used by the Chinese to censor the Uyghur Muslims. In fact its the exact same reasoning used by every fascist in human history. "Those people have dangerous ideas so we are silencing them for the Public Good." And the citizens dutifully cheer and wave their little flags and agree that B
Re: All of them fail in other languages (Score:2)
The same reasoning was used to ban religious speech in soviet Russia. And currently used by the Chinese to censor the Uyghur Muslims. In fact its the exact same reasoning used by every fascist in human history.
Not even a little bit.
I am saying that if you, personally, find speech dangerous or repugnant, then you should not enable it, and you can certainly urge others to not enable it, but you should not have the ability to silence it.
So if Facebook doesn't want to host something, they can ban it on Facebook and they can encourage other social media sites and users to impose their own bans, on their respective sites, but Facebook's power stops at Facebook.
No one is talking about the government banning speech, alth
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, very much so. Fascist governments start by taking over the newspapers and censoring any opinions that arent aligned with the government. I think the best example from recent history is from Serbia. If you dont know the details now is a good time to learn.
As I pointed out above, the government is coercing these tech-giants to de-platform and censor on the governments behalf. Recall that Zuckerberg was firmly on the side of ze
Re: All of them fail in other languages (Score:2)
As I pointed out above, the government is coercing these tech-giants to de-platform and censor on the governments behalf.
I genuinely disagree. I don't think there has been coercion of that sort.
Recall that Zuckerberg was firmly on the side of zero censorship. Then the senate hauled his ass into congress, reminded him that section 230 could be revoked at a moments notice, and suddenly Zuckerberg is singing a different tune.
Facebook is well-positioned to pull through with the repeal of section 230 and as I recall has suggested it in the past. It would harm startups worse than them and further cement Facebook's position in the market.
I suspect that the change was more that the attempted coup at the Capitol was a wake up call as to just how dangerous the right has become. It was basically a second Beer Hall Putsch and we all know what that led to.
Nothing was said about the government compelling them to allow speech.
At least a
Re: (Score:2)
But I am not a government official and you accused me of holding that position, when in the very post you were replying to I had clearly stated the exact opposite position. As I said before, you are dishonest and you argue in bad faith.
Well thats because you are deaf dumb and blind. In this thread I have posted links to actual documented on record cases of government coercion.
Re: All of them fail in other languages (Score:2)
you accused me of holding that position
Mea culpa. Fair enough; your position is apparently that Facebook should remain neutral but is not obligated to do so, and can favor any side of any issue.
Personally, I disagree. I think that Facebook should show some backbone and take a side, but it is not obligated to do so, and can favor any side of any issue.
In this thread I have posted links to actual documented on record cases of government coercion.
I don't find Greenwald to be convincing on this issue. I'm not obligated to believe him that coercion has happened or is happening. I feel the simpler explanation is that there is a zeitgeist and
Re: (Score:2)
Removing crap in any language should not be seen as virtuous, with the exception of illegal crap.
Says the guy posting on slashdot.
You know they like every other forum have a ton of heavyweight spam filtering in place to prevent the forum being drowned in spam, commercial and otherwise (like the continuous flood of n@zi spam they keep fighting).
Re: (Score:2)
Removing spam is not even in the same ballpark as de-platforming people, banning their accounts, and censoring their words, all for nothing more than having the wrong opinion. It's disingenuous to even make the comparison. A person's opinion is not spam, no matter how wrong they are, no matter how stupid they are, they still should have the right to voice their opinion without being censored.
And how ridiculous that this weapon, formerly a favourite of the religious-right used primarily against t
Re: (Score:2)
Do you deny saying this:
Removing crap in any language should not be seen as virtuous, with the exception of illegal crap.
Yes or no?
Removing spam is not even in the same ballpark as de-platforming people, banning their accounts, and censoring their words, all for nothing more than having the wrong opinion.
Coward.
There's a continuum between the two and you avoiding the hard question of what you would ban by pretending they're two disjoint things. That guy who keeps trying to evade slashdot's spam filters so
Re: (Score:2)
Idiot.
But if he posted his swastikas to a swastika appreciation thread on a swastika friendly forum, thats not spam so surely that would be ok under your rules. Apparently not because those sites keep getting censored too. Their web-hosting, their dns, their payment processors, all revoked, censored for having the wrong ideas. And although we ca
Re: (Score:2)
But if he posted his swastikas to a swastika appreciation thread on a swastika friendly forum, thats not spam so surely that would be ok under your rules.
Yes, that would be OK.
Apparently not because those sites keep getting censored too. Their web-hosting, their dns, their payment processors, all revoked, censored for having the wrong ideas.
If you're too lazy and stupid to find a webhost that will host anything legal under the first amendment then the problem lies with you, not the world. It's not hard, typ
Re: (Score:2)
Is Facebook even removing crap in English?
The definition appears to be "shows a label." The problem with Facebook is that they show the "get the facts on COVID!" infobox on everything. From what I can tell, if you post anything that hits on any of a giant list of keywords, you get the COVID info box. I've seen meme images mocking Facebook's box since it appears on basically everything.
And, since it appears on everything, there's no real way to tell if a post it appears on is showing actual facts or not. (As
Re: All of them fail in other languages (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It would be really fucking nice if you weren't such a fucking imbecile that you're unable to tell the difference between an opinion and a lie about a fact. But what can we do? We're stuck with your imbecility, making our world that little bit shittier each and every day.
Re: All of them fail in other languages (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Aside from mRNA being also researched for decades, any issues from the the current vaccines would have been found by now.
In comparison, the vaccine of obtaining a live and potent SARS-CoV-2 virus has immediate side effects of pneumonia, organ damage, and a kill rate which would be much higher if it weren't for modern h
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What ever happens to: I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it?
Because the correct statement [wikipedia.org] is "I will defend to the death your right to say it..."
Personally, I am not defending to my death the right for anyone to tout baseless conspiracy theories and bullshit with no basis in reality. People with their "Bill Gates will have to Kill Me before he vaccinates me" crap can fuck right off.
If there was credible information in this space which supported not being vaccinated (covid, or in general), it surely would have bubbled up in common discourse. But it hasn't. If th
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
People with their "Bill Gates will have to Kill Me before he vaccinates me" crap can fuck right off.
What is wrong with that ? It is a statement of personal opinion and has no applicability to anyone else.
Now, if the statement were "Bill Gates will have to Kill YOU before he vaccinates YOU" is a statement of opinion that presumes that the speaker knows the opinion of the reader. While this may or may not be true, what does it have to do with anything?
Similarly, the statement "Bill Gates will have to Kill YOU before he vaccinates ME" is a statement which does not have very much fact -- it is again merely
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What is wrong with that ? It is a statement of personal opinion and has no applicability to anyone else.
What's wrong with that statement is clearly explained. "Bill Gates will have to kill me first" bullshit is not worthy of "defend to the death your right to say it" -- which is the point in the GP I was speaking to.
Re: All of them fail in other languages (Score:1, Informative)
Re: All of them fail in other languages (Score:2, Flamebait)
Sooner or later you will be the one uttering the bullshit. Not in your opinion of course, but in the eyes of those that rule over you.
The statement is a promise to defend each others freedoms. Thinking this is unnecessary because you align with the current rulers is rather naive.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe they should focus on providing people with access to their fundamental first amendment rights rather than try to decide what is acceptable.
Every time you or some other moron brings up the First Amendment I'l remind you it only applies to the government. Maybe you should use the six ounces of grey matter you have rattling around in your skull before you say something else stupid.
Discord and competition of ideas in a free market place are more important than ever.
When lies are spoken, they must be ca
Re: (Score:3)
Private companies are brazenly being coerced by the government to act on the governments behalf. The legality of the situation is not as simple as you seem to think it is. For example
We have a name for when corporations act on behalf of the government to infringe the rights of citizens. This is not something the progressive left should be supporting. But it seems nobody learns from history.
Re: All of them fail in other languages (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
No, the article I linked to specifically refutes that talking point.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they should focus on providing people with access to their fundamental first amendment rights rather than try to decide what is acceptable.
Every time you or some other moron brings up the First Amendment I'l remind you it only applies to the government. Maybe you should use the six ounces of grey matter you have rattling around in your skull before you say something else stupid.
Pretty much every authoritarianism has started by outsourcing its censorship and intimidation. It's a dodge.
The first amendment only applies to government. The principle of free speech and how it relates to freedom is not so limited.
I happily got vaccinated and I don't like vaccine misinformation anymore than you do. But if we decide that people can't be trusted to talk and to hear, it won't stop there. (And of course, it didn't stop there - there is lots of political censorship too.)
Re: (Score:2)
You make a good point. We probably should do a version of the Section 1 of the 14th that applies to businesses and individuals.
Re: All of them fail in other languages (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: All of them fail in other languages (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Why would I mention that? Its another debunked conspiracy theory. Might as well mention they were transported off of the planet on alien UFOs.
Be sure not to mention the Nayirah testimony.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, the "free market place" argument. Kind of like when someone corners the market on a certain product, and thus disrupts the market enough and changes it into a cornered market.
In the same way, someone can flood the "free market place" with misinformation spam, and let the damage commence.
Who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
Millions get their news and information (Score:5, Informative)
So to answer your question, who cares? Anyone who's thought about it even in passing.
Re: Millions get their news and information (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: You missed something (Score:2)
Re: Who cares? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Social media is nothing more than a platform for discourse. There's fundamentally not difference between reading Facebook, watching a talk show, or sitting in the pub discussing the world over a beer.
Every time you criticise Facebook, or Fox News, or Breitbart, remember that your post is usually more accurate when you simply replace any of those names with the word "other people" and realise that you are wholly dependent on other people for your information. The platforms aren't the problem, and propaganda
Give USERS the power to censor, problem solved (Score:1)
Censorship is only problematic if someone else does it. The answer is very simple: empower individual users to censor their own information.
We already do this: spam filters, family filters, friend lists, dislikes, ignore flags, report flags.
And of course, slashdot itself. You can censor comments on a sliding scale. No one moans and groans about that, because the end user is doing the censoring.
PROBLEM SOLVED.
Re: (Score:2)
Very few spam filters are "individual". they're often centrally controlled and centrally programmed, and specifically tuned to permit the content advertised by its sponsors. If you're not convinced of this, look carefully at the rules for spamassassin.
Re: (Score:2)
Authoritarian measures don't work.. (Score:5, Interesting)
When your opponent's whole argument is about an all controlling authoritarian monster forcing you to take the vaccine with something harmful mixed in, like sterilization chemicals etc..
If anything, they should be making a "console wars" like scheme where you turn people into fanboys of a specific vaccine and allow the public to freely choose which one they can take.
Re:Authoritarian measures don't work.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Personally I think vaccination is good and safe, but fascism is not, even if well intended.
Re: (Score:2)
Now we have politicians and armchair vaccine experts saying this is dangerous messaging and all vaccines are good a
two weeks (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
"If we all do our jobs we can have this done by the end of the week." immediately followed by half the people not doing their jobs and the rest doing it wrong.
Re: (Score:1)
We have bigger threats than COVID which thanks to Donald J. Trump we have a vaccine for.
Such as the boarder (and if you were worried about COVID I guess you would want the boarder crisis solved due to just the COVID carries coming in.)
Also many other issues
Re: (Score:2)
Come on, don't you think all the Inns being filled up is a national crisis??? Too many damn boarders.
So what (Score:2, Insightful)
People think and say all sorts of things, some of those things are self-destructive, who cares. Everyone is an adult here, given the options they can decide what to do. Someone who happens to be susceptible to misinformation probably has a lot of other personal problems as well. Nobody has to fix that.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And what if those problems start to affect their friends, families, children, and communities? At that point it's no longer a "personal problem".
Re: (Score:3)
Still doesn't matter. Children suffer from bad parents, teachers, cops, and role models every day, nobody raises a hand to change that. It's just taken as given that life sucks, people suffer, stupid people suffer the most, and stupid people make everyone else suffer too. Six people were shot to death in Colorado Springs today, by someone who was crazy stupid. Nothing could stop that, nothing will be done about it, it will happen again and again and again. I don't see any point in pretending that will chang
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So what (Score:5, Insightful)
That might have been used as an excuse for pro-smoking or pro-meth posts.
The important thing about a contagious disease is that it's contagious. The lies affect everyone that the disinformed person breathes around.
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone is an adult here
Actually it would appear that some people are more adult than others. Adult is not an adjective I assign to someone making self destructive decisions based on lies that they don't find themselves capable of verifying while demonstrating a complete lack of responsibility for their ability to harm others.
Speaking of harming others, judging by your UID you are way too old to not understand how vaccines affect the community beyond the person taking them. So what's your story?
That's hardly a surprise (Score:1)
They'd need much heavier handed solutions and probably more help from the Biden administration, but thanks to our incredibly messed up politics neither are likely to happen. So say goodbye to herd immunity and hello to new variants.
Re: (Score:3)
For reference:
Twitter - $42.9 billion
ByteDance - $100 billion
Fox Corp - $21.5 billion
Fuck 'em (Score:5, Interesting)
At this point I am really starting to run out of patience for many of these people. From the folks who straight up think it's not real, to "not as bad as they say" to "masks don't work". We've made it all the way through to the other side where the possibility of putting this to rest soon exists. Where we sit today at least in the US there is enough vaccine available over the next 60 days to likely vaccinate every single person in the country and the sooner that happens the sooner the rest of the world (I don't like how that works, but that's the reality). If we can't get to 75%+ to take it because some people just don't don't want to, fuck it, let's just re-open and they can have that freedom to get sick if they want (even though many of them won't because other people did)
At this point everyone I care about is fully vaccinated. After a year of putting things on hold and doing what's right for the greater good in spite of these, lets just say, anti-intellectual jerks, it's our turn to be selfish. I want to stop wearing a mask indoors and go to concerts and travel again. I shouldn't have to stop because some people are propagandized.
Re: (Score:2)
"masks don't work"
That applies to OPE masks, not PPE masks. Masks worn for Personal Protection and appropriately chosen work exactly as designed. However, most of the "masks" people wear are OPE, not PPE. They are designed to prevent surgeons from spitting in the open surgical wound and to prevent "blood splatter" from shooting into the surgeons mouth when they accidentally cut an artery (and they are rated according to the "stream pressure of blood" they can withstand).
Whether OPE (source control) does anything at all is
Re: Fuck 'em (Score:2)
You may be right but I have never encountered an anti masker in person or online who had that nuanced a take. If that was the case they would all be wearing N95s instead of nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
I sympathize, but if we reopen with enough un-vaccinated people to sustain a chain reaction then the virus will keep evolving. I don't want to give it the chance to come up with a mutation that gets past my immunity.
Re: (Score:2)
My message for anyone who doesn't want to wear a mask in public... stay home. In a civilized society, we all have a responsibility to act in a manner that is respectful.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Fuck 'em (Score:2)
Yeah I know deep down we will have to continue measures due to this issue. The dummies are still going to clog hospitals and keep restrictions in place. I can be mad about it though.
Re: (Score:2)
"That's not how it works,."
Oh, but it is. While it is to our foremost benefit that everyone else gets vaccinated, barring that the next best thing in our enlightened self-interest is that everyone of the refuseniks gets infected as fast as possible.
My attitude? (Score:5, Funny)
I figure anyone who cares has at least had their first shot. So they're what, 70% protected?
Mid June I'm gonna quit wearing my mask, and go where I want. If you get sick it's because you couldn't be bothered to get the shot. So, fuck you. No, seriously, I'm actually glad in a pleasurable way I made you sick. I hope you not only end up in the ICU, I hope you fucking die. And all your Social media Pro Trump Anti Vaxx posts somehow get Lester Holt's attention.
I've never before felt like such a super hero. I am immune while smiting the enemies of good.
Re: (Score:3)
I will keep wearing the mask in many places. Never before in my life was I able to get through a year without catching a cold.
Where is the motivation (Score:3)
I don't understand the psychology behind the motivation to invent vaccine disinformation, to propagate it, and the eager willingness of some to believe it because it comes to them via social media. Like the protein armour of the virus, the vaccine usually comes with a political armour to increase the uptake in the brainless.
Re: (Score:2)
I honestly think it's a biological imperative that drives humans to act in this way, but only broken humans do so without regard to the larger whole. History is replete with examples of both, including current politics in the United States of America.
They turned "Dis/Misinformation" into a trademark. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
For the record (Score:5, Interesting)
When the polio vaccine was developed by Jonas Salk, Democrats wanted a federally funded program to distribute the vaccine to all school children. It was Republicans, led by then secretary of health education and welfare Oveta Culp Hobby, a Texas millionaire, who railed against the proposal. Guess what his objection was? Socialism. He claimed it was socialized medicine.
And now we have Republicans going about spreading lies (it's not disinformation, it's lies) about covid vaccines.
The question becomes, why do Republicans want people to die when it's so simple to protect them? It's bad enough they've been deliberately manipulating the number of people who have died from covid resulting in a large undercount [thehill.com], but now it seems they just want the deaths to keep on going.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The question becomes, why do Republicans want people to die when it's so simple to protect them? It's bad enough they've been deliberately manipulating the number of people who have died from covid resulting in a large undercount [thehill.com], but now it seems they just want the deaths to keep on going.
It's not that they want the deaths to keep going, so much as they don't want to lift a finger, even if it just means paying a few extra cents on their taxes, to help the people who will die from it. Why? Because to them, the people who are dying are the "wrong kid of people" — the poor, the people of color, the overweight, the people with diabetes, the people who "aren't like them". Many of them even feel that those with health issues who died deserved to die for not being healthier.
Republican lead
Re: (Score:3)
The question becomes, why do Republicans want people to die when it's so simple to protect them?
Their whole brand is based on "Government can't fix anything, only make it worse'
It's easier for them to let those people die, than come up with a better brand their followers will believe in.
When you're worried.... (Score:1)
Why Do They Exist? (Score:3)
Why do these misinformation/disinformation posts and videos exist? I'm not asking about the completely moronic posts for clueless idiots incorrectly repeating old wives tales that they heard clueless Great Aunt Mable say. I'm asking about the lengthy recordings from "doctors" and "scientists" prattling utter horseshit for 20-30 minutes fanning fear of the virus, or the vaccines, or the "hoax that is the virus"...
These things seem to be relatively high production quality, likely scripted, claim extensive pedigree or credentials, and are always beyond belief for any reasonably logical or critical thinker. But they keep churning them out.
Who is behind these posts and why are they making this rubbish? It seems like a lot of effort for stupidity with no apparent reward. What is the motivation or agenda behind these posts that all too easily spread like a malignant cancer?
Hanlon's razor... (Score:1)
I know it's easy to flag those hastags. And if they refuse to do it then sure, that's something I want to know. But "as of writing, computers have
Civilization evolution at work? (Score:2)
Perhaps this is just another stage of civilization evolution - the naive, gullible, and just plain stupid get weeded out over time. No different than other inventions, say fast cars - sure some people get stupid and crash to their fiery deaths, while their relatives want to sue anyone in sight for enabling that, but such events also serve as warning to others, so it happens less and less. So, perhaps at some point a large enough group pays the price for lack of critical thinking, and future generations lear
Just checking (Score:2)
A lot of justifiable frustration here at stupid people not getting vaccines. These people are willfully acting in ways that will make other people sick - actually risking lives - when they KNOW there are mitigation methods that are solid for preventing harm to themselves and others.
Fair enough.
But I'm genuinely curious how many of you expressed the same rage a few decades ago at homosexual men during the explosion of the AIDS crisis? Do you think the media took the same slant "these people are stupid and
Re: (Score:2)
But I'm genuinely curious how many of you expressed the same rage a few decades ago at homosexual men during the explosion of the AIDS crisis?
I'm not quite old enough, but in retrospect, I have no problem with closing bathhouses just as I have no problem with providing needle exchanges. Neither of them is a solution, but both have useful tactical value in responding to the epidemic. And as an eerie similarity, I understand that at some of the early discussions about AIDS as it was only beginning to be understood, when it was suggested that people shouldn't be so sexually promiscuous so as to slow the spread of the disease, a lot of people took
Re: (Score:2)
I have to ask: with a 4 digit ID you're not old enough? What did your parents sign you up for /. pre-conception?
I've been a regular user of slashdot since I don't know when, and while I did have an id, lost it (my contact email was @iname.com which died what, 2002?) and had to restart...but still, I've been here a while.
I appreciate your open response. Thanks.
My point is that in fact, no, there absolutely wasn't any public excoriation or condemnation of people deliberately making dangerous, irresponsible
Re: Just checking (Score:3)
By the time I was old enough to be aware of AIDS those fights were basically over. Slashdot started when I was in my 20s.
no, there absolutely wasn't any public excoriation or condemnation of people deliberately making dangerous, irresponsible choices, while now there is
There was terrific discrimination against the gay community and lots of people lied about their illness just to conceal its origins. Others who got AIDS through other sources, eg blood transfusions, hid it or tried to cope with the reactions (like Asimov or Ryan White). Maybe it's hard to pick apart what was due to bigotry and what was due to concern about the epidemic (as well as drug us
The vaccine stresses the body (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You obviously never had to take some of the early anti-rabies vaccinations. They messed me up several orders of magnitude more than the CV-19 vaccine ever did. The second shot didn't produce any side effects.
Social media has no reason to fight it (Score:2)
Social media operates on one content metric: popularity. Whatever gets clicks and generates ad impressions, they don't really care. None of the platforms have any incentive to improve the quality of content, they rely purely on quantity.
Billions and billions (Score:2)
Jfc these companies have enough employees devoted to monitoring posts to fill a small stadium.
Figure out how to deal with it, and earn your billionaire club entry ticket.
Of course they are (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
https://pastebin.com/xxH4zr5M [pastebin.com]
Here, I posted the final form of your copypasta on pastebin for you.
Re: (Score:1)
Exactly. People know where to get the information that is accurate and they’ve made the decision. Seems like the real problem here is drug companies made a huge investment on a treatment instead of an actual cure and now they want the government to step in and guarantee their profitability.
Re: (Score:1)
When did Americans begin assuming that the federal government always tells the gospel truth, and that anyone who questions the government line is malicious or wrong?
That sounds like the exact opposite of the traditional American independent free thinker.
As a general rule, anyone who "raises questions" about "the government line" -- or anything else for that matter -- with very scary sounding claims but not even a tiny shred of evidence... _is_ almost certainly wrong and quite likely malicious. Don't have to be too much of a free thinker to figure that out.
Re: (Score:2)
When did Americans begin assuming that the federal government always tells the gospel truth, and that anyone who questions the government line is malicious or wrong?
That sounds like the exact opposite of the traditional American independent free thinker.
That is exactly how the USA has traditionally built support from its population to justify going to war, for instance in Vietnam or in Iraq. This is nothing new. The new thing here is that this time the government is not lying to the population.
Re: (Score:2)
Deceit about internal and external enemies is hardly unique to US history.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree but I think the original point was specifically about US history.
Re: (Score:2)
Making the observation specifically or only about US history is unjust. Since it's very commonplace and in many times and places far, far worse, it's wiser to point out that it's common place throughout history.
Re: (Score:2)
If my comment were a general comment without context I would agree, but this is not the case. It was in reply to a specific sentence in a specific context. The original comment was a statement about a supposed cultural specificity of independent free thinking in the USA, which interestingly did not trigger a comment from you - even though following your thinking it might be wiser to point out that it's common place throughout history. All I did was counter argument that it was in fact provably not true, and