3 ms·

> While saying that "chloroquine phosphate is a good prophylactic for covid-19" to someone who would believe it certainly should be punishable (as attempted mur

by antpls 7y ago

> While saying that "chloroquine phosphate is a good prophylactic for covid-19" to someone who would believe it certainly should be punishable (as attempted murder perhaps! and regardless of whether the speaker is a licensed physician!). I would disagree. As an example in the history, saying "The Earth is a sphere" was once punishable by death. Fake news and pseudo science has always existed, but censorship is not a solution. Only research, education and communication can help, and even then, each generation will always have his own set of questions without answers. I don't agree with the parent' solution either, for the same reasons.

cryptonector 7y ago
Chloroquine phosphate is fishtank cleaner, and -to humans- poison. Granted, if you're just dumb and ignorant and choose to take it yourself, that's no crime. But telling others to take poison, without telling them it's poison, should be a crime. Of course, in the case of chloroquine phosphate, if you look at the packaging, you'll see it's poison.
- kgwgk 7y ago
  Water will also kill you if you drink too much. But telling people that they need to drink water is not a crime. Chloroquine phosphate is a fish tank cleaner. On the other hand, chloroquine phosphate is a medicine.
6510 7y ago
Lets take a different perspective. The drawback of paper days where one would publish a final version are over. On paper one could only enhance by publishing a retraction or a follow up. Assuming the author has better things to do others could provide value by endorsement. We have star ratings and thumbs all over the web, it works but the rocket scientist gets as many votes as the 12 year old under an article about rocket science. I've often had the discussion on wikipedia. The funniest one was 4 so called established editors repeatedly overruling the Nobel prize winner in his area of expertise on an issue that according to the guidelines is left up to editors. Initially he argued the text he added was common sense. When trying to add sources there was only cursory mention in top journals (they assumed it was common sense for their reader) everything else was considered not RS. It struck me how easy it would be to use [for example] university profile pages to host a public key. It doesn't even have to be visible. The WP editors argued it impossible but its easy. Then them professors can go around and rate peoples publications the way they always do. As a reader I would much enjoy the endorsements. It's much better than just my own opinion crudely put together without expertise. The journalist probably doesn't know anything either. I wonder, what are we even doing? (me and the journalist) If neither of us can see the false-positives or -negatives nor can do the probability calculations... what is the point of the exchange? I see much greater potential with little extra effort.

by antpls 7y ago

cryptonector 7y ago

Chloroquine phosphate is fishtank cleaner, and -to humans- poison. Granted, if you're just dumb and ignorant and choose to take it yourself, that's no crime. But telling others to take poison, without telling them it's poison, should be a crime. Of course, in the case of chloroquine phosphate, if you look at the packaging, you'll see it's poison.

kgwgk 7y ago
Water will also kill you if you drink too much. But telling people that they need to drink water is not a crime. Chloroquine phosphate is a fish tank cleaner. On the other hand, chloroquine phosphate is a medicine.

6510 7y ago

Lets take a different perspective. The drawback of paper days where one would publish a final version are over. On paper one could only enhance by publishing a retraction or a follow up. Assuming the author has better things to do others could provide value by endorsement. We have star ratings and thumbs all over the web, it works but the rocket scientist gets as many votes as the 12 year old under an article about rocket science. I've often had the discussion on wikipedia. The funniest one was 4 so called established editors repeatedly overruling the Nobel prize winner in his area of expertise on an issue that according to the guidelines is left up to editors. Initially he argued the text he added was common sense. When trying to add sources there was only cursory mention in top journals (they assumed it was common sense for their reader) everything else was considered not RS. It struck me how easy it would be to use [for example] university profile pages to host a public key. It doesn't even have to be visible. The WP editors argued it impossible but its easy. Then them professors can go around and rate peoples publications the way they always do. As a reader I would much enjoy the endorsements. It's much better than just my own opinion crudely put together without expertise. The journalist probably doesn't know anything either. I wonder, what are we even doing? (me and the journalist) If neither of us can see the false-positives or -negatives nor can do the probability calculations... what is the point of the exchange? I see much greater potential with little extra effort.