8 ms·
This is incredibly worrying. I understand that anti-vax conspiracy theories are dangerous, but I can think of a ton of ways banning "bad medical advice", as de
by nabnob 8y ago
This is incredibly worrying. I understand that anti-vax conspiracy theories are dangerous, but I can think of a ton of ways banning "bad medical advice", as determined by a $10/hr contractor at Pinterest, Facebook, etc. could end up hurting people with health problems by preventing them from sharing useful information. I have gender dysphoria and at one point considered getting on testosterone, but thanks to conversations with transmen and detransitioned women on social media, I learned about less-commonly discussed side effects and decided against taking testosterone. This is an area where research is still developing and there aren't a ton of long-term studies, so it's incredibly helpful to be able to learn from other people's experiences, even if they aren't yet confirmed by research.
Likewise, I know people who've had a post or comment removed by Facebook because it was erroneously interpreted as racist or sexist. Off the top of my head, I know a friend who was sharing information on ICE raids with friends who were immigrants and they got banned from Facebook for a couple of hours (he was unbanned after appealing). I know someone else who was sharing statistics on domestic violence that was interpreted as discriminatory. The corporations making these policies don't have a good enough understanding of political issues to determine whether a statement is hate speech - and hell, even people who are knowledgeable about politics and history disagree in a lot of areas.
- maxxxxx 8y agoI agree. It worries me that public conversation gets policed by companies whose main goal is to sell ads to the highest bidder. By definition they will have to prefer information that makes them money over information that doesn’t make them money. They are also very vulnerable to pressure from governments. In addition you have no real recourse if the big machine doesn’t like what you posted.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- C1sc0cat 8y agoThis is true but its more stopping scammers / snake oil salespersons selling placebo's to desperate people. I few years ago I reported (to Matt Cuts) people using ppc selling snake oil pills to people with chronic organ failure by buying ppc on the medication keywords that people like me where using.
- maxxxxx 8y ago"This is true but its more stopping scammers / snake oil salespersons selling placebo's to desperate people." Snake oil salesmen are probably willing to pay good money for their ads so all incentives are for Google, Facebook and others to not stop these ads.
- TACIXAT 8y agoThat was my first thought too, about how this can cut down on new information that isn't supported by medical literature. I have some weird food issues that I can't find any research on. Some people with similar issues go on an all meat diet, which might not be the most nutritionally complete, but it beats the hell out of their regular symptoms. It would be a shame for discussions like that to vanish under the premise that it doesn't match the food pyramid.
- msla 8y ago> I have gender dysphoria and at one point considered getting on testosterone, but thanks to conversations with transmen and detransitioned women on social media, I learned about less-commonly discussed side effects and decided against taking testosterone. This is an area where research is still developing and there aren't a ton of long-term studies, so it's incredibly helpful to be able to learn from other people's experiences, even if they aren't yet confirmed by research. I'm sorry for using your actual problem as a jumping-off point, but this is a real issue: There are people called TERFs, or Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists, who think "being trans" doesn't exist, that trans people are all mentally ill and/or (in the case of transwomen) men trying to invade female spaces to cause havoc, and who are organized enough to turn being trans into a huge political clusterfuck. More than it already is, I mean. My point is, the project of cleaning up "Bad Medical Information" runs into politics even quicker than most would imagine, and TERFs are very, very good at playing the "You're misogynistic!" card early, often, and loudly. How much courage would a tech company have in the face of that these days? (They're also good at playing the "TERF is a slur! Cis is a slur!" card.)
- ummonk 8y agoTERF is most definitely a slur, and cis is often used as one as well. E.g. "cis white males!"
- jdietrich 8y ago>TERF is most definitely a slur Really? What else should we call self-professed radical feminists whose definition of a woman excludes trans women?
- creaghpatr 8y agoProbably not a slur.
- ummonk 8y agoRadfem. You wouldn’t go around calling pro-choice and pro-life people “anti-life” and “anti-choice” would you?
- MR4D 8y agoIt doesn't have to be a $10/hr contractor even - it could be a $500,000 per year MD. For instance, for years, people recommended a high carb/low fat diet. Now that's being challenged. (I'm not weighing in on the argument, just stating that it is one.) How would this debate take place if this type of information were blocked? For years (decades?) Atkins was treated as a fringe-food nut job. Now, his early research is being promoted by many others, and the tide may yet turn in his direction. [0] for example only. How many other topics are out there that face the same issues of being labeled "fringe" before being commonly accepted? [0] - https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0883073809347597 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/088307380934759...
- skh 8y agoScience gets it wrong sometimes. New information requires revision. The best we can do is go by consensus expert opinion. There will always be some probabilty of error but we needn’t be afraid to declare some things dangerous and wrong.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- jamieson-becker 8y ago> There will always be some probability of error but we needn’t be afraid to declare some things dangerous and wrong. But, who is we in this case? And what specifically are some things and how narrowly are they defined? > The best we can do is go by consensus expert opinion. Is that really the best we can do? How many times in history has consensus expert opinion been found later to be dangerous and wrong? Should we assign that task to an AI or a customer service drone of unknown education and experience? Or, should we assume that any reader of any particular "dangerous and wrong" things might be a better judge of whether those things are, in fact, "dangerous and wrong" as applied to their specific circumstance?
- skh 8y agoWe is you, me, and society at large. Yes, it really is the best we can do. If a very large majority of the people who study an area of science agree on a conclusion in that area then it’s more likely they are right than someone who has no expertise in that area. Clearly if a large majority of the experts in an area of science agree on something then it suggests that if a person were to educate themself in that area to the point of being an expert then they’d agree with the conclusion too. Non experts deciding for themselves what is right/wrong is a recipe for disaster. Peoples’ intuition is usually wrong without a lot of experience to back it up. It’s why we don’t let just anyone practice medicine or structural engineering. Expertise matters and the opinions of experts matter much more than a nonexpert’s opinion.
- existentialhalt 8y agoI was vaccine injured. It destroyed my life. This is not rare. I'm not anti-vax. I'm pro safer vaccination practices. But of course, I'm not allowed to talk about this despite overwhelming scientific evidence that vaccines are not 100% safe.
- existentialhalt 8y agoHow would you like it if I called "gender dysphoria" a conspiracy theory? Despite me not being an expert in the issue? That's what your saying to people with vaccine injuries.