5 ms·

Why did Instagram ban hashtags like #vaccinescauseautism in the first place? I mean is there any other reason than to look good in the eyes of others?

by deith 7y ago

jrockway 7y ago
I assume their advertisers don't like being associated with the anti-vaccination movement. There is also a lot of pressure on the Facebooks and Googles of the world to censor things. Politicians and traditional media are the big abusers here (and it always feels like it's motivated by self-interest rather than the greater good). I think these companies should push back, and they probably want to (it's expensive to be the police), but when Congress threatens to investigate, what choice do you have but to do what they say? It's unconstitutional to make a law about what you can and can't say on the Internet, but it's not unconstitutional to say "hey, maybe censor some stuff and we won't look too hard into what taxes you're paying". I have a surefire solution to the problems of fake news, anti-vaxxing, etc. Give every American a world-class science education for free, and this problem solves itself in a generation. Nobody wants to pay for that, though, so instead we blame Instagram. It's cheaper and we feel like we're doing something.
- cookie_monsta 7y ago
  > It's unconstitutional to make a law about what you can and can't say on the Internet I don't think that's true. In fact there are various categories of speech that aren't protected and the category of false medical claims appears to be in a grey area.
  - pfdietz 7y ago
    The limitations on the first amendment are very strictly defined, and anti-vax would not fall under any of them.
    - cookie_monsta 7y ago
      Not a lawyer, but the right to incite actions that would harm others has been off the table for over 100 years. I'd imagine you could build an interesting case around that one.
      - jrockway 7y ago
        Inciting imminent lawless action is something like "lynch him!", not "after a careful reading of many studies, I believe that vaccines cause autism". Look, I don't want to defend these people, but any limitations on the first amendment are not what's going to bring this movement to an end.
        cookie_monsta 7y ago
        It's not the lawless action exception that I'm talking about, it's the harm to others one. The classic example is yelling "fire" in a crowded building which I think has its parallels to yelling "autism" in response to vaccines. Interestingly, the precedent-setting case was with a guy distributing pamphlets persuading people not to enlist for WW1 which doesn't seem remotely close to any of these scenarios. The real reason why it's a moot point, though, is that no government would have the political will to legislate on something as divisive as this.
        pfdietz 7y ago
        That classic case is no longer good law. Consider the 1960s anti-war movement.
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - pfdietz 7y ago
        No, you could not. Not even close. https://www.popehat.com/2015/05/19/how-to-spot-and-critique-censorship-tropes-in-the-medias-coverage-of-free-speech-controversies/ https://www.popehat.com/2015/05/19/how-to-spot-and-critique-...
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
IshKebab 7y ago
Because they don't want to help people spread dangerous lies?

Why did Instagram ban hashtags like #vaccinescauseautism in the first place? I mean is there any other reason than to look good in the eyes of others?

by deith 7y ago

Why did Instagram ban hashtags like #vaccinescauseautism in the first place? I mean is there any other reason than to look good in the eyes of others?

jrockway 7y ago

I assume their advertisers don't like being associated with the anti-vaccination movement. There is also a lot of pressure on the Facebooks and Googles of the world to censor things. Politicians and traditional media are the big abusers here (and it always feels like it's motivated by self-interest rather than the greater good). I think these companies should push back, and they probably want to (it's expensive to be the police), but when Congress threatens to investigate, what choice do you have but to do what they say? It's unconstitutional to make a law about what you can and can't say on the Internet, but it's not unconstitutional to say "hey, maybe censor some stuff and we won't look too hard into what taxes you're paying". I have a surefire solution to the problems of fake news, anti-vaxxing, etc. Give every American a world-class science education for free, and this problem solves itself in a generation. Nobody wants to pay for that, though, so instead we blame Instagram. It's cheaper and we feel like we're doing something.

cookie_monsta 7y ago
> It's unconstitutional to make a law about what you can and can't say on the Internet I don't think that's true. In fact there are various categories of speech that aren't protected and the category of false medical claims appears to be in a grey area.
- pfdietz 7y ago
  The limitations on the first amendment are very strictly defined, and anti-vax would not fall under any of them.
  - cookie_monsta 7y ago
    Not a lawyer, but the right to incite actions that would harm others has been off the table for over 100 years. I'd imagine you could build an interesting case around that one.
    - jrockway 7y ago
      Inciting imminent lawless action is something like "lynch him!", not "after a careful reading of many studies, I believe that vaccines cause autism". Look, I don't want to defend these people, but any limitations on the first amendment are not what's going to bring this movement to an end.
      - cookie_monsta 7y ago
        It's not the lawless action exception that I'm talking about, it's the harm to others one. The classic example is yelling "fire" in a crowded building which I think has its parallels to yelling "autism" in response to vaccines. Interestingly, the precedent-setting case was with a guy distributing pamphlets persuading people not to enlist for WW1 which doesn't seem remotely close to any of these scenarios. The real reason why it's a moot point, though, is that no government would have the political will to legislate on something as divisive as this.
        pfdietz 7y ago
        That classic case is no longer good law. Consider the 1960s anti-war movement.
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
    - pfdietz 7y ago
      No, you could not. Not even close. https://www.popehat.com/2015/05/19/how-to-spot-and-critique-censorship-tropes-in-the-medias-coverage-of-free-speech-controversies/ https://www.popehat.com/2015/05/19/how-to-spot-and-critique-...

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

IshKebab 7y ago

Because they don't want to help people spread dangerous lies?