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."
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."
oh? (Score:5, Insightful)
135 subreddits have gone dark and nothing of value has been lost.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe some people will venture outside now and experience "life".
Re: (Score:3)
With "venture outside" you of course mean "take a look at other subs that sound like the ones that went dark", yes?
Because nothing else will happen.
Re:oh? (Score:5, Funny)
Shouldn't 'Poke Mongo' be banned for encouraging harassment?
Mongo only pawn in game of life.
Re:oh? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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, Informative)
https://www.forbes.com/sites/r... [forbes.com]
Re:oh? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
I started reading other Reddits : anti-vaxx (Score:2)
Reddits were very informative and gave me a whole new look on the Covid Vaccines
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:3)
TYFU
Re: oh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Fascists I guess. If you are angry because you do not believe in: I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it. Then you are the fascist. You are against freedom of speech, and good riddance. However, I do support people who do not agree with Reddit to go dark. It is a shitty thing to not agree with, but that is their right.
Another part of the problem isn't just about freedom, it is also that people can be very sure of themselves, even when wrong.
Because once you get past some of the basics, like, water is wet (usually) and the sun rises in the morning (relatively) -- as soon as you get into matters of any consequence, then the real absolute truth of something is usually not knowable with certainty or even a ball park estimate. Often there are reasoned arguments for why a thing is really good and really bad, at the same time. And who remembers Minority Report where the point was that the smartest and most gifted are in their views naturally a minority, outnumbered by the consensus?
Yet we go round yelling "disinformation" when quite frankly we could very easily just be coming from our own biases and ignorance or just very good but still flawed or incomplete expertise.
We also live in a world where everybody prints stories to manipulate public opinion, with advertising and public relations and marketing, and it doesn't stop there. Editors of medical journals have written that the literature is so full of propaganda by big corporations that you simply can no longer believe most of what has been published. Because there's big money at stake, and the studies are so cleverly and expertly designed to produce the preferred results yet the deception be undetectable.
It isn't just about freedom, it is that all human beings are selfish and deluded to some degree, so our best bet is to keep free speech flowing, so that those who happen to get control of a message first, aren't automatically the winners.
Yelling "misinformation" is just as easily a tool of the propagandists.
Yes it would be wonderful if only the correct ideas were taught. But ideas are a lot like germs -- to develop an immune system, to develop the capacity for critical thinking, you need to be exposed to the bad ideas as well.
If you are only ever fed the correct ideas, then how will you ever learn to think for yourself?
And who in charge is so omniscient that they can know all the correct ideas to teach, and enforce only those ideas?
I mean otherwise we're just throwing the advances of the last 300 years under a bus.
Re: (Score:3)
If you are only ever fed the correct ideas, then how will you ever learn to think for yourself?
Well see, that is the thing. Most people do not want other people to think. A person who thinks may come up with the wrong idea.
Re: (Score:3)
If you are angry because you do not believe in: I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it. Then you are the fascist.
Well no you're not but nice name calling! I can tell you're a real grown up.
Wanting to have a discussion about how far any of our rights should extend is a reasonable conversation to have in a democracy. An informed electorate and confidence in government are absolutely essential for the proper functioning of a democracy and without that we likely wont have anything close to free speech anyways. Meanwhile 1/4 to 1/3 of our population believe our last presidential election was rigged despite the courts (lite
Re: oh? (Score:5, Insightful)
And yet, the best examples of fascism we see right now are the anti-mask crowd getting violent against school board members and now even kids [axios.com] if they dare to keep kids safe via simple measures like wearing a mask. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that seems to check the box of "forcible suppression of opposition".
Facts == Flamebait on today's Slashdot (Score:4, Informative)
Anti-Maskers Are Assaulting Teachers and School Leaders. [bu.edu] — A California teacher is hospitalized after an alleged attack from a parent the teacher tried to restrain from assaulting a principal over masks in school. Anti-masking (and unmasked) protesters yell angry taunts at Kansas school officials, comparing them to the Taliban. Police respond to school board meetings in Pennsylvania and Nevada when enraged anti-mask audience members become verbally aggressive.
Anti-vaccine, anti-mask demonstrations across U.S. take violent turns [arkansasonline.com] — Across the country, anti-vaccine and anti-mask demonstrations are taking scary and violent turns. People have been stabbed, punched or harassed at their homes for being in favor of vaccine and mask mandates. Often the assailants are parents.
The next Covid war: school vaccine and mask mandates [msnbc.com] — Far-right extremists, anti-maskers and now parents are fueling a rising pattern of violence against educators.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
and not specially nationalistic.
That part isn't true.
The Classic Fascists were indeed very nationalistic.
And while it is true that most of the fascists did stem from socialist movements, they themselves were notoriously at odds with those socialist movements.
Ultimately, even classic fascists don't fit well on the right-left scale (particularly economically) but they are all very definitely anti-liberal.
So in today's terminology of right-left (at least in the US) where liberal/conservative is the only real distinction on that scale (si
Re: (Score:3)
Re: oh? (Score:4, Insightful)
Not yet. We are steadily getting there though - https://www.mediaite.com/polit... [mediaite.com]
Re: (Score:2)
This includes Hitler, and Mussolini.
They then promptly eliminated those movements.
Re: oh? (Score:5, Informative)
That party was rebranded as the National Socialist party in order to increase the size of their tent (lure socialist voters), something Hitler vocally disagreed with.
Hitler was no socialist, and considered a doctrine that favored nobody as inexcusably stupid.
Hitler came from a socialist party, but that's because he was an anti-capitalist (insomuch as capitalism was detrimental to nationalism at some scales) looking for a place to fit in. Socialist movements were that place.
After the DAP became the NSDAP, and it rode to power upon the backs of socialist votes, Hitler very famously eliminated the socialists from the party, and then very famously outlawed them from government, while committing fully to the rebranding of fascism as National Socialism.
TL;DR: Hitler coopted the word socialist to mean someone who commits any crime as long as it's "for the good of their particular definition of society"
Re: (Score:3)
No. Hitler was a member of the German Workers Party, which was socialist in nature, but much more about nationalism and protectionism.
That party was rebranded as the National Socialist party in order to increase the size of their tent (lure socialist voters), something Hitler vocally disagreed with.
Hitler was no socialist, and considered a doctrine that favored nobody as inexcusably stupid.
Hitler came from a socialist party, but that's because he was an anti-capitalist (insomuch as capitalism was detrimental to nationalism at some scales) looking for a place to fit in. Socialist movements were that place.
After the DAP became the NSDAP, and it rode to power upon the backs of socialist votes, Hitler very famously eliminated the socialists from the party, and then very famously outlawed them from government, while committing fully to the rebranding of fascism as National Socialism.
TL;DR: Hitler coopted the word socialist to mean someone who commits any crime as long as it's "for the good of their particular definition of society"
Worse than that, the first people the Nazi's targeted were the real socialists Bolsheviks were almost quite literally beaten to death in Germany in the 1920's by NSDAP stormtroopers (who would become the Sturmabteilung, SA or Brownshirts).
Anyone who thinks the Nazis were socialist in any way must also think the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea is a democracy (or in any way, for the people).
Also Hitler wasn't anti-capitalist and happily took money from large German corporations before and after his
Re: (Score:3)
His vision was very clearly totalitarian and fascist in nature, never once even remotely approaching what we might consider "socialism". If you look at the economics of Nazi Germany it was about privatization, entrepreneurship and abolishment of workers rights, welfare & unions. All for the enrichment party
Re: oh? (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, all those Republicans who whined we can't shut things down for a few weeks because the economy is more important than people's lives. The same people who claim to be "pro life". The same people who are now prohibiting local school districts from implementing mask policies. The same people who have repeatedly said local school districtis should have more control. The same people who say there's too much government interference.
Now we have people who have serious and legitimate concerns about the long term consequences of a novel type of vaccine
Now who's spreading FUD? The only people who have "concerns" are the same ones taking goat medicine. The same ones who, when shown undeniable, incontrovertible facts there are no "long term" effects of any vaccine ever made, go on and on about how that can't be true because their dad's, cousin's, brother's, sister-in-law read it somewhere that that's a lie. So shut up about "long term" effects. There are none. Zero. Ever. For any vaccine ever created in the history of mankind.
Fortunately, these same whiners and morons are starting to die en masse, their last breaths saying they wished they had gotten the vaccine. But it's too late for them and the rest of get a fantastic laugh.
If you want to restore public confidence, then clean house of the liars, incompetents, and failures starting with Fauci.
The only liars are trolls like you, Governor DeathSentence in Florida and the cripple in Texas. 900 people died in Florida last week from covid, and those are only the ones we know about. We know Florida doctors and medical staff have been directed to change their reporting to undercount deaths. As for Texas, the same state where Raphael Cruz fled to a warmer climate while his constituents were literally freezing to death.
Fire them all, and tell the public that incompetence wonÃ(TM)t be tolerated.
Yes, every Republican governor who has deliberately spread lies, prevented basic safety precautions and has shown they don't care about their people should be fired. And tried for murder. To tell people muliple vaccines don't work when the facts show otherwise, to prevent private industry from protecting their workers, to lying about the number of deaths, all constitute willful murder by not taking this pandemic seriously. From day one it has only been Republicans who have gone out of their way to stop the spread of the virus because make no mistake, they want people to die. The more people die the better because they will use it as a political foil in the next election. They do not care about human life. All they care about is misery and suffering so they can use it for their own ends.
Now shut the fuck up and go pedal your crap on whatever fascist web site you normally inhabit.
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed, why would anyone start personal attacks?
Maybe because they are losing the actual discussion?
And yes dyslexia is a real thing that exists..
Reddit is exactly like Facebook but anonymous (Score:2)
Weird place which became positively schizophrenic after Pao showed up.
I'm gonna get modded down, but ... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Cuz it's obvious lies killing people (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Cuz it's obvious lies killing people (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re: Cuz it's obvious lies killing people (Score:3)
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,
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't need to be God to know that ivermectim is not a viable treatment for COVID.
You would need to know more than the FDA does now:
"There is insufficient evidence for the COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel (the Panel) to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19. "
https://www.covid19treatmentgu... [nih.gov]
Go look up a Youtube video from Rebecca Watson, the research is clear, the doses needed for it to do anything will fuck up your intestine. It's useless. Maybe if we completely change the formulation after a decade or so of research. Maybe not. It's still useless and will be for the duration of this pandemic. That is cold, hard fact.
I sometimes wonder if people read what they write before clicking submit. I don't usually bother and sometimes I regret it.
Re: (Score:3)
Here is the video [youtube.com]. I guess I can understand why rsilvergun didn't want to link to it.
She repeatedly calls ivermectin "horse dewormer" as if she is unaware that 4 billion doses of it have been administered to human and that it is responsible for essentially wiping out several really nasty human diseases.
Of course, she isn't actually unaware of the human uses. About 3 minutes in, she gets around to acknowledging that it has been used in humans. So, I guess that stuff about "horse dewormer" is just to estab
Re:I'm gonna get modded down, but ... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:I'm gonna get modded down, but ... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:I'm gonna get modded down, but ... (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:I'm gonna get modded down, but ... (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
If they believe it and choose that path, wouldn't they be getting what they deserve anyway?
At what point do we treat people like adults and let them make their own decisions?
Foundations of democracy (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
You don't get to vote to force people to prioritize safety over liberty.
You're wrong. Traffic laws, motorcycle helmet laws, basically almost anything dealing with vehicles. And why is that? Because individuals generally are incapable of properly judging the risk to both themselves and others. So if they wish to participate in vehicular activity, they are forced to follow those laws.
There are many other examples. Suicide is illegal. Arson - you can't burn your own house down because it puts the lives and property of others at risk. Generally speaking, your personal liberty ends
Re: (Score:2)
What OP said. It is the "American Way" to express one's opinion on everything. If said opinion is wrong, the cure for it is not to ban it, but offer your own, correct opinion to counter it. That's how we do things in this country. Banning stuff is how they do things in communist countries. We like freedom, not censorship.
Re:Good. (Score:4, Insightful)
If said opinion is wrong, the cure for it is not to ban it, but offer your own, correct opinion to counter it.
Haven't you noticed? Countering misinformation with the truth no longer works; the misinformed simply ignore the truth, talk louder, and make up more fresh bullshit faster than you can correct it.
Dunno what the solution is, but the old 1990's ideal of "drowning out the lies with more truth" is well and truly dead; it's the opposite that occurs.
Re:Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Who cares of they ignore the truth and talk louder? The object isn't to change the minds of people spreading lies. It's to sway those who watch silently.
Re: (Score:2)
if, not of. Bleh.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, people are most likely to believe whatever side tells them what they want to hear. This is why certain "news" outlets that produce very little new and even less true content are so popular. They tell people what they want to hear and reinforce their preconceived perception of the world. Look, I'm not stupid or deluded, they say it too, right here in this paper, magazine or TV channel, so it must have some kind of merit or else they wouldn't dare to print or broadcast it.
Re: (Score:2)
The object isn't to change the minds of people spreading lies. It's to sway those who watch silently.
Precisely.
However, I can also easily hypothesize situations where misinformation can have a cost that's higher than standard ideological standpoints on free speech can really afford.
So I'm able to see that there must be... nuanced thought on what's occurring.
Particularly, is it such a big deal if the private sector is the one doing the "censoring"?
I mean, ultimately, they have always censored.
You have never been allowed to speak your mind on someone else's property if you offended them.
The fact that
Re:Good. (Score:5, Informative)
All the people crying "censorship" have no fucking clue what that word really means. Censorship can only be done by governments and laws, not private companies.
About that... From Merriam-Webster:
Definition of censorship
the institution, system, or practice of censoring
Definition of censor
to examine in order to suppress (see SUPPRESS sense 2) or delete anything considered objectionable
This post is rate PG-13 and not E for Everyone (Score:3)
"All the people crying "censorship" have no fucking clue what that word really means. Censorship can only be done by governments and laws, not private companies."
Nope. You may have meant that when non-government entities censor, it's not a 1st Amendment violation (in the US). But they certainly can and do censor.
I give you the MPAA...
From wikipedia
In 1930, the MPPDA introduced the Production Code, sometimes called the "Hays Code". The Code consisted of moral guidelines regarding what was acceptable to inclu
Re:Good. (Score:4, Insightful)
That's why they talk louder, so that those telling the truth can't be heard by the silent watchers.
Look at the current fad of taking horse de-wormer to protect against COVID. It's obviously idiotic, it's widely and repeatedly debunked, and yet there are still plenty of people soiling themselves because they took medication designed for equines.
The biggest issue here is that social media companies like Reddit make money from engagement, and they don't care what kind of engagement it is. If poisoning yourself gets clicks then they will promote that. See the "Tide pod challenge" and numerous other examples.
Re:Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good. (Score:4)
Yep. Anyone at this point who snivels "let both sides present their arguments and the right one will win" needs to stfu.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
We've had the Surgeon general comment that masks were ineffective, before saying they were https://www.axios.com/surgeon-... [axios.com]
We have news media commenting in a similar manner https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/29... [cnn.com]
HCQ and Ivermectin are either crazy misinformation or effective inexpensive prophylactics/treatments depending on which nations and doctors you ask. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]
The 'lab leak' started
Re:Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
HCQ and Ivermectin are either crazy misinformation or effective inexpensive prophylactics/treatments depending on which nations and doctors you ask. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p [nih.gov]... [nih.gov]
That very paper describes a level of effectiveness for hydroxychloriquine that wouldn’t take the death toll down hardly at all, vs vaccines which reduce it a thousand fold. Literally millions would die worldwide if they took hydroxychloriquine in the best possible light of available evidence. We aren’t talking about fully vaxed people who might need prophylactic treatment, we are talking scientific denial by people who would refuse safe and effective treatment hundreds of times better for less money. It’s pretty much the same for invermectin only with even less evidence, dewormer even if it’s for humans has at best highly limited benefits for covid treatment.
Re:Good. (Score:4, Informative)
See? You straight out lie here, and there's a chance undecided people seeing it might believe it even though you just completely made up stuff.
Re: (Score:3)
The evidence for ivermectin is it works in a test tube, when you put so much ivermectin in the test tube that it will kill a human. Lower doses do not work in a test tube.
There are zero in vivo (aka in-animal) trials, and zero in-human trials. There are idiots giving it to people and proclaiming that is a study, but those don't have controls, nor significant sample sizes. It's just "I gave it to 10 people and they didn't die!".
More to the point, even if we pretend those are studies, it's still way, way,
Re:Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
The world is not black and white.
There is a difference between misinformation and unconfirmed speculation. The idea that masks were ineffective was based on several factors:
1, deliberate misinformation designed to reduce panic buying of masks - to ensure that those who needed them most (ie medical workers) still had ample supply.
2, unconfirmed speculation because there was not sufficient study at the time to determine what (if any) effect they would have.
3, deliberate misinformation designed to encourage panic buying of masks to drive up prices and generate profit for a select few.
Had they claimed masks were highly effective, healthy people would have gone out and bought large stockpiles of masks, and many would have then tried reselling masks at exorbitant prices once stocks ran out.
Doctors and more at-risk people would have been unable to obtain masks, or have to pay a lot more for them.
Any theory is plausible until it's disproven, and that's why we need open debate. The lab leak story illustrates that.
There are many potential treatments that have not been fully explored. This doesn't mean they are ineffective, this just means they have not been adequately studied. People have to weigh up their own risks, if you're dying anyway and an experimental treatment is available - why not try it? If it doesn't work you're no worse off than if you didn't take it.
Properly educated people should examine the evidence and draw their own conclusions based on their own individual circumstances and individual risk vs reward calculations.
Re:Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not misinformation. That's experts whose opinion changes due to available evidence.
Re: (Score:3)
Where is the evidence that kids are the main vector of infection and need to be isolated and wear dirty, wet masks all day that in some cases have given them fungal pneumonia.
If you are wearing a "dirty, wet mask[] all day" I think you may be doing it wrong. If your mask is dirty and/or wet change it. Also, kids aren't getting fungal pneumonia from wearing masks.
https://www.reuters.com/articl... [reuters.com]
https://www.reuters.com/articl... [reuters.com]
https://www.capradio.org/artic... [capradio.org]
https://apnews.com/article/arc... [apnews.com]
https://www.politifact.com/fac... [politifact.com]
I know that Facebook would never lie to anyone but maybe in this case they are mistaken.
Re: (Score:2)
Haven't you noticed? Countering misinformation with the truth no longer works; the misinformed simply ignore the truth, talk louder, and make up more fresh bullshit faster than you can correct it.
Everyone has exactly equal reasons for believing what they believe: everything they have seen. No one dictates "truth" to anyone else, Hell, in this case you aren't even on the side of the scientific method, just "wow science" spokespeople and the media. Nevermind there's all kinds of subjectivity in the scientific method, especially in the realms of hypothesizing, experimental design, data analysis methodologies, and modes of communication, because it tends to work more than not, but only when no monetar
Re: (Score:2)
the misinformed simply ignore the truth, talk louder, and make up more fresh bullshit faster than you can correct it.
They are not merely misinformed, some of them are paid to spread it.
The problem does not lie with them, however, since they will always exist. The problem lies with people who were once considered trustworthy sources of information. When prominent scientists, the American Heart Association and the US government all agreed that cutting fat reduces the chance of heart disease, everyone took it to heart and started eating less fat and more carbs. Guess what? It not only didn't work, but made everything worse.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Haven't you noticed? Countering misinformation with the truth no longer works;
It works as well as it ever did.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Nope. Not when there's foreign governments using your country's social media for their own purposes.
Re: (Score:3)
Prove it. Foreign countries have always spread information, that is nothing new.
Re: Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
One solution is just letting it be. Maybe the price of freedom in a high diversity, low trust society is higher than in a past with more homogenuity and less social media, but still worth paying.
Re: Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Acceptance solves your frustration.
Re: (Score:3)
So I should just accept major problems facing our society and our democracy? What a super problem solver you are!
With that attitude everything is bound to work out, right?
Re:Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Calling people idiots and telling them you're smarter than them and the truth you speak is the only possible truth is what does not work. The problem is we have an entire segment of society that believes they are intellectually superior and looks down on anyone with different views, different education, different social status, different place on the map, etc. Not to mention that same segment tends to politicize everything and make every debate an us vs. them thing pushing otherwise reasonable people away. Followed with threats to silence anyone that speaks in contradiction of the official truth (which looks really bad when months later, the opinions being silenced turn out to be true (not speaking vaccines here)). Then you wonder why people dig in their heels...
Instead of dictating to people what they must do while also telling them they're too stupid to make their own decisions, it should be about engagement and respect.
And, yes, I am fully vaccinated and heartily recommend everyone without medical issues to also be. I'm also all for giving people the freedom to speak their minds. If you treat people like adults, they typically make informed decisions despite crazy talk they hear from others.
Re: (Score:3)
Haven't you noticed? Countering misinformation with the truth no longer works; the misinformed simply ignore the truth, talk louder, and make up more fresh bullshit faster than you can correct it.
This is question of credibility. When you have mainstream news outlets unrepentantly spewing lies and fabricating click-bait stories, inevitably followed by lawsuits and retractions, they are not trusted even when they present factual information.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
When you pick your facts and get your news from biased echo chambers, countering an opinion with a differing opinion and having a debate about it no longer works. And there's no shortage of calls to the poison control centers in various states from people taking livestock dewormer against all recommendations from accredited doctors that don't have an immoral interest at play.
I have to say I'm ashamed of my fellow countrymen that reject a free and effective preventative vaccine on the grounds of it being "u
Re: (Score:3)
It's not an isolated problem. If you watch how people form their opinion, you'll find that barely anyone is capable of actually deducing and using a scientific approach to arrive at a conclusion. Most people's approach is to just belive someone who sounds convincing, without any kind of verification because they lack the ability to verify it. And once they finally find out that they have been duped, their logical conclusion is "I don't want to believe A anymore, so instead I'll believe B, for the same reaso
Re:Stupid idea for a protest (Score:5, Interesting)
Hey, lets commit COVID misinformation by closing down a bunch of subreddits that have correct information!
No, what it does is decrease "engagement" which means Reddit is losing advertising money. Also, "misinformation" doesn't mean what you think it means if that's how you are using it.
Re: (Score:3)
Some of the subreddits going "private" have absolutely no Covid-19 information at all. Unless you think people go to a Pokemon GO subreddit for vaccine data?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Stupid idea for a protest (Score:5, Funny)
I do think that.
They get vaccine info from the pillow guy. I'll bet Pikachu knows twice as much as him.
To be fair, a coronavirus pandemic is peak achoo...
Re: (Score:2)
A better option is linking to official sources for COVID information like the CDC or WHO. Even if those are sometimes wrong, they are less wrong than most. And often times their "mistake" is because of inaccuracies in the media's reporting.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So you are antivaxx
Not even slightly, and the fact that you think so shows why it's so important not to censor anyone - because your ignorance could well make up some reddit that is allowed to post as others are shut down.
Fail to the King, baby.
Re: (Score:3)
Hi there.
I'm clearly a big fan of vaccinations. And mask mandates. And school closures. I hate the anti-vax crowd, and the misinformation spread within their groups.
I still think it's wrong to close down the groups and censor them. That will drive them further underground, but still be easy enough to find. It'll just be more difficult to engage with them for people with a better view of the real world.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand the hatred of the antivaxx crowd.
TLDR: They're spreading a deadly disease to other people. They're giving a deadly disease space to mutate and form new variants.
Re:Stupid idea for a protest (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not hate those that don't wash their hands?
Couldn't tell you. Perhaps the public risk is less well quantified.
Why not hate on those that happen to come closer than 2 meters from you?
Because in normal circumstances, those people don't present a clear and present danger to your life, statistically speaking.
Why not hate on those that chooses to go to work instead of telecommuting when they can?
Most people don't have that choice. Their employers generally told them whether they'd be telecommuniting or not.
Vaccinated people slow the spread of the virus down, but so what? It's like watching a movie at 5fps vs 10fps. Yes things happen more slowly, and that's good to not overcrowd the hospitals, but the logic is completely bonkers
This is a hideously terrible analogy.
Whether you watch a movie at 5fps, or 10fps, the beginning is the beginning, and the end is the end. They're the same.
The rate of spread of a pathogen has fucking huge implications for the end.
If in a few months the hospitals are not overcrowded, you will still hate on the unvaccinated, and that makes no sense.
No, it makes perfect sense. Because they're overcrowded right now. Because of them. And they'll be hated then, most likely, because when the next peak happens, they'll become overcrowded again. Also because of them.
people hate on unvaccinated just because IT IS CONVENIENT. It has nothing to do with the science, because the science indicates that these vaccines are doing absolutely nothing to stop this pandemic. If the R-number is not Unvaccinated people are simply not causing any outbreaks compared to vaccinated! Compare that to measles where unvaccinated DO cause outbreaks.
No. You're utilizing a second grader's logic because it is convenient.
You're too fucking lazy to put your own arguments through even the tiniest bit of rigor before transmitting them.
Vaccines are absolutely doing something to stop this pandemic. Vaccinated people are found to be 78% less likely to spread the disease if they become infected.
Outbreaks are occurring among the unvaccinated. We called them "super spreader events" now, since the term outbreak is a bit meaningless int he midst of a pandemic.
It's almost unbelievable how people are willing to get 5% lower probability of infection (IN THE NEXT 12 MONTHS) only, and write away their freedoms for getting that security.
I think what you meant to say is a 95% lower probability of death, and a 74.1% reduced probability of being responsible for someone else's death.
No freedom is written away. You do not have a freedom to be a Typhoid Mary. Constitutional jurisprudence in the US has long held that the State can directly compel vaccination, or quarantine.
That's a reduction of your fucking freedom. What's going on now? Your psychotic asses are being coddled.
Now think about what these people would do in Nazi Germany. Someone publishes some report that homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles? These people would be in favor of locking them up. It's exactly the same reasoning. "Why would MY freedoms to move freely be infringed by THOSE people exercising their right to live how they want to live? Isolate them! Lock them up!"
That analogy doesn't work.
It'd be more like, "someone publishes some report that homosexuals are more likely to kill you and those you love simply by breathing on you."
And of course, if that were the case, you can bet society would react accordingly.
Dude. I want to be nice to you. But fuck, you're dumb as fucking bricks. What is the point in trying to educate you on basic logical evaluation when you're the kind of motherfucker that eats toothpaste?
Re: (Score:3)
"Youâ(TM)re spreading a ton of misinformation. Covid vaccination does not reduce viral load or prevent infection."
I read what he said as vaccination helps lower the probability of infection, which it does, a lot.
"We have discovered that viral load of the delta variant is high enough in vaccinated individuals for them to be contagious."
Sort of. Vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals are more likely to have a higher viral load it they catch the delta variant than if they catch one of the others. For all
Re: Stupid idea for a protest (Score:4, Informative)
Covid vaccination does not reduce viral load or prevent infection.
Yes, it does.
We have discovered that viral load of the delta variant is high enough in vaccinated individuals for them to be contagious.
Yes. But still less contagious.
While the vaccine MAY prevent the onset of serious symptoms, we may see higher rates of mutation and new variants that are vaccine avoiding.
This is simply not true.
Mutation rate is a function of viral load.
While it is true that mutations among the vaccinated will favor vaccine resistance, the overall mutation rate will still be far lower than in an unvaccinated person.
Thing of it this way- an unvaccinated person is the incubator in which a vaccine resistant strain can finally jump over to vaccinated people.
The only solution is to learn to live with it.
Why? To coddle your irrational fears and misunderstanding? I think not.
Out of all the points you made, only one was close to right, and even it included a hugely wrong conclusion derived from it. I think your horse de-wormer has clouded your brain.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Let's take "retard" out of circulation today (Score:2)
I see you understand the necessity of not scrubbing the language of words for unpleasant truths. Good.
Re:Yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Fire in a crowded theater? You do know that Schenck is obsolete [slashdot.org], right? Heard of Brandenburg vs. Ohio at all? I'm guessing not, or you wouldn't be parroting an old censorship trope.
Regarding anti-vaxx, the censorship is counter-productive, but it feels good emotionally and gives you an enemy to lash out at to blame for everything going wrong. I've explained how (not) to engage [slashdot.org] a few times but I guess it bears repeating. If you want people to vaccinate (and I do), then you have to listen to their concerns and explain why it's in their best interests.
It's not really that hard, provided you haven't burned all bridges of trust with them by, say, treating them as enemies and threatening to censor everyone. You're trading a 2% risk from Covid for a 0.0002% risk from the vaccine. Yes, you might need boosters, but you can afford quite a few with that change in risk. Yes, there are some complications, but things like myocarditis are known to be caused by Covid as well, so again, you're lowering your risk by several orders of magnitude and it doesn't make a lot of sense to raid the veterinary supplies in the hopes of something not even a tiny fraction as good as that. And yes, I'll happily hold a magnet to my arm to show you that I have not become Magneto or something after the shot.
I have and continue to convince whoever I can to vaccinate, but guys, really, some of this crap is *not helping* at all. When you come up with this stuff, remember, "first do no harm" because a lot of the interventions fail badly at that.
Covid is likely to either become endemic at this rate (but hopefully mutated to be less deadly) or take several years to wipe out, so I'd like to be able to actually discuss things without a few power mods on Reddit trying to leverage their moderation of things like showerthoughts and pics into control over what people can discuss, especially when they're really not helping here.
Re:Yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater ... (Score:5, Insightful)
The deaths from misinformation about covid are small, generally people only wanted excuse to not get vaxxed.
Depends. The vaccinated vs. unvaccinated death rate is well documented.
If we are to say that every unvaccinated death was a result of misinformation that led normally positive-vax people to becoming anti-vax, then misinformation has a higher death rate than any war the US has participated in.
Of course, that's a stupid comparison for a litany of reasons. But you're the one that made it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't expect Reddit to do the right thing, but freedom of speech is the right thing. The main issue with censorship is "Who gets to choose what to censor?" and whatever the answer is, I guarantee you won't like it.
Re: (Score:3)
You've just cut to the core of the biggest question social media has ever faced.
Are they a private platform free to control the speech of their users or are they a public platform, a virtual town square, where individuals control their own speech? If the former then they should be responsible for the content of their platform. If it's the latter then they should not be, but they sacrifice control of speech on that platform.
That question has not been decided, and there are compelling arguments on both sides
Re: (Score:2)
*snicker* ...and that rumbling you hear is the sound of a million entitled feet, all being stomped at once....
Re: (Score:3)
Voat died some time ago. No advertiser would touch it and nobody wanted to pay for subscriptions. You know that crazy uncle who your family rarely speaks to? He was a typical voat user. Last time I went there half the stories were blaming the jews for the worlds problems and the other half boiled down to I hate n1gg3rs. That was the level of content on voat.
Re: (Score:3)
Then why would you assume everyone else does?
Evidence shows that people do that. Otherwise, explain to me how people believe the most harebrained conspiracy crap that is even physically impossible.
Re:Do anti-vax channels actually hurt anyone? (Score:4)
There's plenty of people who have no means to tell bullshit from information. The lack education and information to differentiate and to debunk bullshit as bullshit. All they can do is believe either one side or the other.
Their approach to having an opinion is listening to arguments and following whoever makes the "better" one. With "better", unfortunately, usually meaning "whoever tells me what I prefer to hear".
Re:Do anti-vax channels actually hurt anyone? (Score:4)
Do anti-vax channels actually hurt anyone?
Yes. Even if it is only the dumbshits who buy the bullshit, that still counts. There is a cost to all of us when people self-euthanize by avoiding vaccination. In fact, there are multiple costs.
I know some anti-vax people, no amount of scientific data is going to make them change their mind.
Right, it takes them getting deathly ill before they beg for the vaccine, by which time the medical professionals have to tell them it is too late, and that they're probably going to die.
IMHO "Cancelling" the anti-vax is an attack to freedom of speech that is not justified.
IMO not cancelling them is the same thing as not cancelling a violent criminal.