4 ms·

I understand that people feel quite strongly about this subject, but rather than mass flagging people who support/sympathize with anti-vaxxers, it would be much

by bArray 7y ago

I understand that people feel quite strongly about this subject, but rather than mass flagging people who support/sympathize with anti-vaxxers, it would be much more beneficial to reason with them. As this is a comments section and not a news article, discussing these things is perfectly fine and does not "platform" anti-vaxxers. To change peoples minds we must win hearts and minds, not alienate them. With regards to making links between intelligence and anti-vaxxers (as some here have), unless you have hard numbers then you too are just as susceptible to drawing conclusions without strong facts to back it up. Some of the most intelligent people can still act illogically, just look at the unfortunate later years of Nikola Tesla [1]. > As Google fights criticism that it has let anti-vaccine disinformation > flourish on its platform, [..] Lastly, I don't like the phrasing of this article. There is zero evidence that Google has in some way purposely allowed disinformation to spread. There's a disgusting "serves them right" feel and I think that's really unfair. I am sure Google has put in many resources to prevent disinformation and what people see is what gets through the net. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla

fake-name 7y ago
The problem here is that you assume they're reasonable. No one is antivaccine from a position of logic or science, because the position is completely impossible to support with either. Antivaccine beliefs are functionally very similar to religion.
- yters 7y ago
  Such broad dismissal does not sound entirely reasonable either.
  - fake-name 7y ago
    I'll tell you what. You provide a decent science-based argument for antivaccine beliefs that's not trivially falsifiable with 5 minutes of research, and I'll change my mind.
    - bArray 7y ago
      Devil's advocate (not my actual position): I don't want my child to risk getting measles, mumps, bruises, seizures or a severe allergic reaction [1]. I believe the number of these cases to be under-reported (not everybody goes to the doctor after getting ill) and the risk of side effects from the MMR vaccine (treats measles) to be greater than the benefits. [1] https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vaccinations/mmr-side-effects/ https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vaccinations/mmr-side-effects/
- briantakita 7y ago
  The problem is we assume pro-vaccine advocates being reasonable, arguing from a position of logic & science. If they have truth on their side, the logic & reason of their arguments should be undeniable; without a need of ad hominem & censorship. Provaccine beliefs are fundamentally very similar to mass-delusion & religion. But, I'll take a reasoned argument either way. Problem is, there is no effective forum for a debate because it gets shut down with propaganda & censorship because some people are "unreasonable". Sounds legit</sarc>
- bArray 7y ago
  > The problem here is that you assume they're reasonable. And you assume they are unreasonable? Almost everybody has the ability to reason, the problem is that their reasoning system is grounded differently from yours. To begin common reasoning, we must first find common ground, even if we have to go all the way back to "I think therefore I am". > No one is antivaccine from a position of logic or science, > because the position is completely impossible to support > with either. There are plenty of ways to argue a point from an anti-vaxxer perspective (which I don't support FYI): 1. There is not enough data to draw conclusions about negative long-term effects. This argument is also used for radio signals (cellular/wifi/bluetooth/etc), smoking (at the time where it was unclear whether there was harm) and many others. 2. Some organization has an incentive to hide known issues. Whilst you might say "conspiracy", just look at the poor ladies who were painting with radium and how their companies hid the effects. Or asbestos. There is a long history of covering up issues to aid profits. 3. The default logical or scientific position is to be skeptical of all claims. If a mass of people say "this is good", it is important for at least a small number of people to challenge this. If people didn't go against the grain, perhaps we would still believe that the earth is at the center of the Universe and if we sail too far, one will simply fall off. As I'm sure you are aware, for many (including myself), it's not possible to read every paper on a subject, hence some of our biases are based on things we haven't confirmed ourselves directly. I didn't personally take a picture of a black hole, but people I trust say that they have and it fits my model of reality. It's unlikely that more than a handful of people with strong positions on vaccines have read years of dense academic articles on vaccine research. They probably get their information from sources they trust, probably different sources from you and I. > Antivaccine beliefs are functionally very similar to > religion. I'm not sure that's true, the reason to be an anti-vaxxer or religious could be completely different. Perhaps anti-vaxxers can be considered as fighting an authoritative figure and religious persons as wanting to follow some authoritative figure? I'm sure the reasons are many and varied. I imagine the reasons for being religious are more socially based though.
- tomjen3 7y ago
  Really? I figure the following: at a certain point the negative utility of getting a disease is greater than the negative utility of an allergic or worse reaction. This has already happened to smallpox, as we assume the only two remaining places that have them won't release theirs. At some point the same was likely the case for measles in the US, and is the case for polio and malaria in the US.
yters 7y ago
^ This! What is wrong with having reasonable discourse these days? I most often see mass shaming instead of reasonable discourse. I guess the former is easier. Mass shaming, at least to me, signals the shamers have the weaker argument. Whereas articulate and even handed communication signals great strength.
- wtallis 7y ago
  > Mass shaming, at least to me, signals the shamers have the weaker argument. Whereas articulate and even handed communication signals great strength. You only see mass shaming because there are large populations that are publicly rejecting the articulate and even-handed communication that they've been receiving for their entire lives from their doctors and the CDC. To a large extent, anti-vaxxers are only willing to engage with the issue in an emotional, irrational way and they are almost by definition unreceptive to the kind of rational discourse you pretend isn't being attempted.
  - bArray 7y ago
    > To a large extent, anti-vaxxers are only willing to engage > with the issue in an emotional, irrational way and they are > almost by definition unreceptive to the kind of rational > discourse you pretend isn't being attempted. Maybe you are correct, but I don't think it's reason to stop trying. Something is very wrong when we decide to give up on our fellow humans.
    - wtallis 7y ago
      > Maybe you are correct, but I don't think it's reason to stop trying. Last time I checked, all the experts are still providing the same expert advice to get vaccinated. The shaming has not displaced any of that, and most of the shaming seems to take the form of telling people that they're doing a bad thing by rejecting the advice of their doctor or encouraging others to do so.
      - yters 7y ago

by bArray 7y ago

fake-name 7y ago

The problem here is that you assume they're reasonable. No one is antivaccine from a position of logic or science, because the position is completely impossible to support with either. Antivaccine beliefs are functionally very similar to religion.

yters 7y ago
Such broad dismissal does not sound entirely reasonable either.
- fake-name 7y ago
  I'll tell you what. You provide a decent science-based argument for antivaccine beliefs that's not trivially falsifiable with 5 minutes of research, and I'll change my mind.
  - bArray 7y ago
    Devil's advocate (not my actual position): I don't want my child to risk getting measles, mumps, bruises, seizures or a severe allergic reaction [1]. I believe the number of these cases to be under-reported (not everybody goes to the doctor after getting ill) and the risk of side effects from the MMR vaccine (treats measles) to be greater than the benefits. [1] https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vaccinations/mmr-side-effects/ https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vaccinations/mmr-side-effects/
briantakita 7y ago
The problem is we assume pro-vaccine advocates being reasonable, arguing from a position of logic & science. If they have truth on their side, the logic & reason of their arguments should be undeniable; without a need of ad hominem & censorship. Provaccine beliefs are fundamentally very similar to mass-delusion & religion. But, I'll take a reasoned argument either way. Problem is, there is no effective forum for a debate because it gets shut down with propaganda & censorship because some people are "unreasonable". Sounds legit</sarc>
bArray 7y ago
> The problem here is that you assume they're reasonable. And you assume they are unreasonable? Almost everybody has the ability to reason, the problem is that their reasoning system is grounded differently from yours. To begin common reasoning, we must first find common ground, even if we have to go all the way back to "I think therefore I am". > No one is antivaccine from a position of logic or science, > because the position is completely impossible to support > with either. There are plenty of ways to argue a point from an anti-vaxxer perspective (which I don't support FYI): 1. There is not enough data to draw conclusions about negative long-term effects. This argument is also used for radio signals (cellular/wifi/bluetooth/etc), smoking (at the time where it was unclear whether there was harm) and many others. 2. Some organization has an incentive to hide known issues. Whilst you might say "conspiracy", just look at the poor ladies who were painting with radium and how their companies hid the effects. Or asbestos. There is a long history of covering up issues to aid profits. 3. The default logical or scientific position is to be skeptical of all claims. If a mass of people say "this is good", it is important for at least a small number of people to challenge this. If people didn't go against the grain, perhaps we would still believe that the earth is at the center of the Universe and if we sail too far, one will simply fall off. As I'm sure you are aware, for many (including myself), it's not possible to read every paper on a subject, hence some of our biases are based on things we haven't confirmed ourselves directly. I didn't personally take a picture of a black hole, but people I trust say that they have and it fits my model of reality. It's unlikely that more than a handful of people with strong positions on vaccines have read years of dense academic articles on vaccine research. They probably get their information from sources they trust, probably different sources from you and I. > Antivaccine beliefs are functionally very similar to > religion. I'm not sure that's true, the reason to be an anti-vaxxer or religious could be completely different. Perhaps anti-vaxxers can be considered as fighting an authoritative figure and religious persons as wanting to follow some authoritative figure? I'm sure the reasons are many and varied. I imagine the reasons for being religious are more socially based though.
tomjen3 7y ago
Really? I figure the following: at a certain point the negative utility of getting a disease is greater than the negative utility of an allergic or worse reaction. This has already happened to smallpox, as we assume the only two remaining places that have them won't release theirs. At some point the same was likely the case for measles in the US, and is the case for polio and malaria in the US.

yters 7y ago

^ This! What is wrong with having reasonable discourse these days? I most often see mass shaming instead of reasonable discourse. I guess the former is easier. Mass shaming, at least to me, signals the shamers have the weaker argument. Whereas articulate and even handed communication signals great strength.

wtallis 7y ago
> Mass shaming, at least to me, signals the shamers have the weaker argument. Whereas articulate and even handed communication signals great strength. You only see mass shaming because there are large populations that are publicly rejecting the articulate and even-handed communication that they've been receiving for their entire lives from their doctors and the CDC. To a large extent, anti-vaxxers are only willing to engage with the issue in an emotional, irrational way and they are almost by definition unreceptive to the kind of rational discourse you pretend isn't being attempted.
- bArray 7y ago
  > To a large extent, anti-vaxxers are only willing to engage > with the issue in an emotional, irrational way and they are > almost by definition unreceptive to the kind of rational > discourse you pretend isn't being attempted. Maybe you are correct, but I don't think it's reason to stop trying. Something is very wrong when we decide to give up on our fellow humans.
  - wtallis 7y ago
    > Maybe you are correct, but I don't think it's reason to stop trying. Last time I checked, all the experts are still providing the same expert advice to get vaccinated. The shaming has not displaced any of that, and most of the shaming seems to take the form of telling people that they're doing a bad thing by rejecting the advice of their doctor or encouraging others to do so.
    - yters 7y ago