4 ms·
> 1) I doubt that an average user scrolling through gofundme would see and decide to support such a campaign, I'd imagine most of the funding comes from the lin
by baddox 8y ago
> 1) I doubt that an average user scrolling through gofundme would see and decide to support such a campaign, I'd imagine most of the funding comes from the links being directly shared
That's probably true, although I really don't know why it's particularly relevant. GoFundMe probably doesn't want people funding anti-vaccine campaigns regardless of how they arrived at the web page.
> 2) The above makes me think such campaigns will simply move to a GoFundMe competitor and be equally (un?)successful, effectively nullifying any changes
How does that nullify any changes? There are a finite number of crowdfunding platforms, and this reduces the number by one. And of course, this is a particularly large and prominent one.
> 3) Gives more attention + victim points to anti vaxxers
I don't really buy the "don't give them what they want" argument. If they really do want press about how harmful their practices are and how children are dying because of their campaigns, well okay, I'm fine with giving them this desire. I think that they should be "victims" of de-platforming, even if that's what they want. It's theoretically possible to get the Streisand effect, where their platform is increased, but I highly doubt that's likely when you remove them from huge platforms with massive market share, like YouTube or GoFundMe.
> 4) If their discourse is further pushed out of mainstream platforms, does it actually reduce the spread of their ideas or just limit their exposure to counter-arguments and public condemnation?
There are probably some anti-vaccers who are genuinely mislead, but the prominent voices in the movement almost certainly are aware of the invalidity of their claims. I don't think we have any lack of exposure to pro-vaccine arguments.
- RobertRoberts 8y ago>...but the prominent voices in the movement almost certainly are aware of the invalidity of their claims. What do you object about these two medical doctors issues with vaccines? I would consider them more prominent than you or I, so their opinion/knowledge should hold more weight than ours. Yet, but the very limited standards set, they would be called "anti-vaxxers", even though Dr. Halverson provides vaccine services for children and familes. Dr. Richard Halvorsen (England) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMs1ue8j9CM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMs1ue8j9CM Dr. Suzanne Humphries (USA) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFQQOv-Oi6U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFQQOv-Oi6U
- daeken 8y agoNeither of these doctors have published a single paper relating to vaccination or immunity in general, according to PubMed. A Youtube presence does not an expert make.
- RobertRoberts 8y agoI don't think you watched the videos. Their facts and arguments are what matter. I didn't say they were "experts" with vaccines, I said they were more "prominent" than us, and I asked "what do _you_ object to?" from those videos. Arguing to authority is a logical fallacy any ways. Peer reviewed papers does not mean they are true. There are plenty of peer reviewed papers that disagree with each other or have results that are not reproducible. Edit: I recommend anyone that think "peer review" means that a paper is automatically true to research how the peer review process works and also the results. (there was a scandal this past year or so on peer reviewed papers, most of them medical papers)
- luiscleto 8y ago> How does that nullify any changes? The impact on society won't come from the number of crowdfunding platforms, but from the number of campaigns and their reach. My point with 1) and 2) was that neither is necessarily affected by this. > likely when you remove them from huge platforms with massive market share, like YouTube It's really super hard to fully remove an idea from social media platforms. It's like playing whack-a-mole. They tend to find more ways of spreading the information. If the discourse itself is moved to another platform, my concern is that it might be a much more hospitable environment for such ideas to fester. And I'm not certain we will significantly reduce the spreading of these platforms. Context: I work in Trust and Safety and am genuinely concerned with how to best address these issues, which I fear has fallen to the same pitfalls as many political discussions (i.e. get the favorable public opinion to stay in power for the mandate even if it means sweeping the dust under the carpet and let it build up)