Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Social Networks Medicine The Internet

Reddit's Teach-the-Controversy Stance On COVID Vaccines Sparks Wider Protest (arstechnica.com) 582

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica, written by Jon Brodkin: Over 135 subreddits have gone dark this week in protest of Reddit's refusal to ban communities that spread misinformation about the COVID pandemic and vaccines. Subreddits that went private include two with 10 million or more subscribers, namely r/Futurology and r/TIFU. The PokemonGo community is one of 15 other subreddits with at least 1 million subscribers that went private; another 15 subreddits with at least 500,000 subscribers also went private. They're all listed in a post on "r/VaxxHappened" which has been coordinating opposition to Reddit management's stance on pandemic misinformation. More subreddits are being added as they join the protest.

Last week, the moderators of over 450 subreddits joined an open letter urging Reddit to "take action against the rampant Coronavirus misinformation on their website," saying that subreddits existing "solely to spread medical disinformation and undermine efforts to combat the global pandemic should be banned." Reddit published a response defending its stance, saying it will continue to allow "debate" and "dissent" on vaccines and other COVID-related matters even when it "challenge[s] consensus views."

"We appreciate that not everyone agrees with the current approach to getting us all through the pandemic, and some are still wary of vaccinations. Dissent is a part of Reddit and the foundation of democracy," the company said. Reddit does draw a line somewhere, as it said it will continue to take action against communities "dedicated to fraud (e.g. fake vaccine cards) or encouraging harm (e.g. consuming bleach)." But in general, Reddit said, "we believe it is best to enable communities to engage in debate and dissent, and for us to link to the CDC wherever appropriate."

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Reddit's Teach-the-Controversy Stance On COVID Vaccines Sparks Wider Protest

Comments Filter:
  • oh? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by snowshovelboy ( 242280 ) on Tuesday August 31, 2021 @10:38PM (#61750711)

    135 subreddits have gone dark and nothing of value has been lost.

    • by suss ( 158993 )

      Maybe some people will venture outside now and experience "life".

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by luvirini ( 753157 )

      Well,if they were all active before, that is about 0.1% of all active subreddits.. so really insignificant. And they disapear as a rounding error among the total number of 2.8 million.

      So the thing should be seen as what it is... a really tiny loud minority trying to dictate what others can say.

    • Re:oh? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by HanzoSpam ( 713251 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2021 @12:23AM (#61750903)

      135 subreddits have gone dark and nothing of value has been lost.

      One can only hope they stay that way. But I suspect they'll be back to throw another tantrum. It's what they live for.

    • Reddits were very informative and gave me a whole new look on the Covid Vaccines

    • 135 subreddits have gone dark and nothing of value has been lost.

      Dude... the Pokemon subreddit went dark! Have you no sense of the gravity of what's happening here?

      (Whatever the fuck a subreddit is)

    • by kfh227 ( 1219898 )

      TYFU

  • Weird place which became positively schizophrenic after Pao showed up.

  • by lsllll ( 830002 ) on Tuesday August 31, 2021 @10:59PM (#61750761)

    I'm a firm believer in letting people choose their own paths, their own sources of knowledge, and in general what happens in their own lives. This carries over to them trying to convince others of their beliefs. Because if I believed I knew better than them, how would I justify that their opposing point of view could and should exist? Having this train of thought, I don't assume that my position is 100% correct. I always leave some room that I could be wrong and that there's a possibility the opposing point of view could be right. That doesn't mean I won't argue with people with opposing points of view. Au contraire, I try to convince them that their point of view is flawed. But I would never succumb to limiting their outlets for convincing others of their point of view.

    I have to agree with Reddit on this. Why should the opposing point of view get banned? You don't like what they say? Argue with them. Inform them, and the people they're trying to convince. Asking for Reddit to ban these groups achieves nothing. Conversation and education might.

    • Agreed. Bear in mind that some of these "anti-vax" groups are really not interested in conversation. They're just going to bull-rush you with dubious links and other tidbits that they themselves might not understand.

      A public, scholarly exchange on actual vaccine risks would be welcome. Whether or not that's going to take place on Reddit is an entirely different matter.

    • by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Tuesday August 31, 2021 @11:37PM (#61750827)
      And because there is no such thing as a marketplace of ideas. The anti-vax lies are being pushed heavily by state actors and certain political parties or transparently obvious reasons. If you don't push back against that then it's like any battle for freedom you'll lose all of your freedom. We can't have a functional civilization or a significant portion of people don't believe in science and reality. And you can't just rely on a very obviously non-free market to protect the public space. At a certain point people who aren't crazy need to put their foot down against The crazies. Because the crazies are well crazy and if you let them they will win. Thousands of years of History and thousands of years of advanced civilizations being taken down by stupid barbarians proves that
      • by burtosis ( 1124179 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2021 @12:53AM (#61750971)

        The anti-vax lies are being pushed heavily by state actors and certain political parties or transparently obvious reasons. If you don't push back against that then it's like any battle for freedom you'll lose all of your freedom.

        Well, Reddit users transformed r/invermectin into a horse porn sub, which basically has functionally ended the sub. If you had told me 5 years ago horse porn would be used to combat misinformation and save lives, well, thems were the before times.

      • If the people of your country are so stupid as to believe unverified reddit posts with links to strange sources over information provided by long established institutions with integrity and backed by peer reviewed scientific research, then maybe you deserve to lose and fail. The Visigoths and Huns btw were actually pretty damn smart, considering how many times they were able to sack Rome.

        Romes problems werent that they werent fascist enough and didnt censor barbarians enough. Their problems were decadance,

    • by hyades1 ( 1149581 ) <hyades1@hotmail.com> on Tuesday August 31, 2021 @11:42PM (#61750841)

      Your sentiment is noble, but it is based on a false assumption. You assume both sides of this debate are doing their best to present good faith arguments. Though neither side has been impeccable, anti-vaxxers, have repeatedly acted in bad faith, often, it seems, in a manner calculated to cause as much damage as possible to the countries where they operate. They use what I've called "used car salesman's scripture" to take advantage of honest people with dishonest information. A used car salesman knows a whole lot more about the cars on his lot than the customer, and takes full advantage of his knowledge to present facts selectively, or even outright lie. Similarly, anti-vaxxers offer as "evidence" studies that have been withdrawn for flaws or outright fraud, allege conspiracies that are superficially plausible but ultimately baseless, and appeal to emotion rather than intellect. All the while they know full well that even well-educated people are probably ignorant of detailed statistics and research in this area, and inclined to accept public statements of fact as reliable.

      I sympathize with Reddit and their unwillingness to act as censors. But by taking a hands-off approach, they are giving a huge advantage to creeps who knowingly use deceit to gain advantage in a debate where lives literally hang in the balance.

      • by physicsphairy ( 720718 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2021 @01:02AM (#61750983)

        The only thing that confers an unfair advantage is if they use power and coercion to skew the debate in their favor. Otherwise, lying is not an advantage, it is self-sabotage that, when made clear by opponents, discredits the whole case.

        You are actually rigging things to the charlatans' favor when you impose bans. First of all, because that community moves to private channels where they control 100% of the information presented and everyone there is in consensus, creating a perception to anyone participating that all the beliefs touted are viewed as common sense. They invite their friends, neighbors, etc. in to that community and those new people *never even see* your counter-evidence because you pushed them all into a closed platform.

        Second, because now that you have rigged it yourself, there is nothing you can say they can't dismiss on that basis. "Scientific consensus? The consensus is built on you silencing dissenters rather than real merit - your evidence can't be trusted."

        The "we just need to make sure we set things up so those idiots can *only* make right the choice" mentality is ultimately a major contributor the situation we're in. The people who are being mislead are not as nearly as unintelligent (or ill-intentioned) as you think. And they are certainly intelligent enough to realize when they're told "you can't discuss this" that something is up. The loss of institutional trust that occurs when they aren't viewed and treated with respect is precisely where we lose them to alternative messaging. (That doesn't mean that messaging should be allowed to run unchecked, but it should be checked with aggressive counter-messaging and personal outreach.)

        It's even more true in this particular case. We have already vaccinated most people and a change in their views would have no effect - they can't unvaccinate themselves. But the unvaccinated *can* become vaccinated. So at this stage open exchange of information is far more to the advantage of getting more people vaccinated.

        • by Namarrgon ( 105036 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2021 @03:05AM (#61751191) Homepage

          lying is not an advantage, it is self-sabotage that, when made clear by opponents, discredits the whole case.

          In the real world, as Swift wrote 300 years earlier, "Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it; so that when Men come to be undeceiv’d, it is too late". This is clearly more true than ever, as the last few years have abundantly proved.

          The people who are being mislead are not as nearly as unintelligent (or ill-intentioned) as you think.

          It's less a matter of intelligence or malice than of source selection. As most people don't have the time or willingness or subject expertise to check every statement they hear, they accept or reject it for other reasons than verisimilitude, like their trust of the source, and alignment with other accepted information. People often take statements on faith from friends or family, or even Reddit, and if an accredited expert later claims differently then that may no longer be so plausible to them - especially for those politically disinclined to trust those "so-called experts".

          I do agree loss of institutional trust is an issue, but you cannot claim this trust is lost by deplatforming liars whilst simultaneously claiming people will recognise and discredit those same lies. If a news outlet spreads claims you know to be lies, they *lose* your trust, while those that don't, do not. A scientific journal that refuses to publish flat-earthers will (if anything) enhance your trust in that journal's scientific integrity. And if a source presents truth and untruth with equal weight, saying only "you decide", they're not much use as a source.

          Ensuring misinformation is accompanied by proper context and genuine facts can indeed be effective, and this is often done. But when this proves insufficient or ineffective, and people are actively harmed, what do you suggest? Deplatforming has proved effective in at least limiting reach, and tends only to lose the trust of those most directly affected, whereas allowing uncontrolled spread of misinformation instead damages trust in the platform as a source.

        • by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Wednesday September 01, 2021 @08:12AM (#61751777) Homepage Journal

          lying is not an advantage, it is self-sabotage that, when made clear by opponents, discredits the whole case.

          You're assuming that it will be made clear, which depends on assuming that the people lied to will examine the evidence, and also understand the evidence, and frankly both of those assumptions are fucking stupid given what we know about people.

          Lying is an advantage because you can make up any bullshit that people will buy. Telling the truth puts you at a disadvantage because people often don't understand facts, and even if they do, they often don't believe them. Most people wouldn't know a credible citation if it lived in their house. And it totally does, because we all have internet access. You can trivially fact-check if you don't go to Faux News or similar for verification, and therein lies the problem. A lot of people only believe what they want to believe, and only hear what they want to hear, and echo chambers exist that seem credible as Faux News is massive and persistent, and surely if it was all bullshit they would have been shut down! by the government which they think does that kind of thing, when it doesn't, but Faux News said it does, and would! And how could it be wrong!

          TL;DR: A lie has the advantage that it only has to be appealing, the truth has the disadvantage that it has to be correct.

      • by lsllll ( 830002 )

        You assume both sides of this debate are doing their best to present good faith arguments.

        The story of my life. When I was a kid (7th grade) I was the captain of our soccer team. Every time there was an out or a foul during a casual game with no referee, I called it straight. If it was an out because it touched one of my teammates last, I said the ball was the opposite team's. When one of my players fouled the other team, I called it straight again. My players pleaded with me, saying that the opposing team would never do the same, but I kept at it. Maybe that's a personality flaw, giving o

      • by Craefter ( 71540 )

        Lately this wonders through my head: "I have the right to be wrong." If I do not have this right that what truth should be forced upon me? Or, if you can't force it, how will you educate me? And not education as in learning some laws (which all have a good history of how the came into being) but learning to think for yourself. For that I need all sides of the story to form my own opinion.
        As for the used car salesman, have they been banned from society or have we learned to recognize these sleazebags and don

    • You don't like what they say? Argue with them. Inform them, and the people they're trying to convince. Asking for Reddit to ban these groups achieves nothing. Conversation and education might.

      The hardcore anti-vaxxers aren't looking to be educated. They're not making good faith arguments. They do not want a conversation. They didn't reason themselves into their position and so cannot be reasoned out of it.

      The problem for the rest of us is two fold. First the hardcore anti-vaxxers aren't concerned with the v

    • If your "opinion" endangers a part of the population that does not share your "opinion", then I dare say that yes, your "opinion" should be considered harmful.

  • by ByTor-2112 ( 313205 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2021 @07:40AM (#61751633)
    First, calling dissent a "foundation of democracy" is an excuse to avoid dealing with the uncomfortable situation they find themselves in. A democracy is just where people vote on issues. Second, you know what else happens in a (functioning) democracy? After a "vote", instead the issue is pretty much settled and society moves the fuck on instead of tearing itself into separate groups. For reference, see the American Civil War and how that turned out. If a democracy ran itself on the premise of perpetually re-voting on every issue that even a small faction disagreed on, it would eventually devolve to chaos (see the current California recall election).

This is the theory that Jack built. This is the flaw that lay in the theory that Jack built. This is the palpable verbal haze that hid the flaw that lay in...

Working...