5 ms·

All social media are strangely censoring anything that even remotely questions the official coronavirus story. I had shared this article on twitter some days a

All social media are strangely censoring anything that even remotely questions the official coronavirus story. I had shared this article on twitter some days ago and it's not even some weird conspiracy theory but twitter flagged it https://off-guardian.org/2020/03/24/12-experts-questioning-the-coronavirus-panic/ https://off-guardian.org/2020/03/24/12-experts-questioning-t...

laumars 7y ago
Most platforms don’t really like censorship themselves because it effectiveness is limited, costs them money to implement and acknowledges liability for stuff contributed to their platform. However COVID-19 poses a unique challenge in that misinformation can have a death toll. At least other conspiracy theories and extremist content is either (relatively) harmless or requires the viewer to step far beyond the boundaries of common sense.
jswny 7y ago
Because this is not the time for conspiracy theories. People talking about the earth being flat doesn't really hurt anyone. People believing conspiracy theories about a global pandemic can be seriously dangerous.
- guscost 7y ago
  This is not the time for fascism, either.
  - jswny 7y ago
    We are talking about private companies right? This has nothing to do with the government.
    - guscost 7y ago
      It's just one (and hopefully the only) step in a very troubling direction. Several places in Europe are much further along, for example: https://www.thelocal.dk/20200313/denmark-passes-far-reaching-emergency-coronavirus-law https://www.thelocal.dk/20200313/denmark-passes-far-reaching... Apparently there's a newer law that makes posting crackpot theories illegal, but I can only find one source: https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=&sl=da&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fnewsvoice.se%2F2020%2F04%2Fdanmark-forbjuder-corona-policy%2F https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=&sl=da&tl=en&u=htt...
- s9w 7y ago
  This particular incident actually sounds like it involves pretty heavy "out there" stuff. But in general the term conspiracy theory means barely more than "not in line with government press releases". The average conspiracy theory guy is much less crazy than one might assume and a surprising number of now public revelations have been circulating in these corners of the internet way earlier. It can be quite informative and challenge critical thinking at the same time.
  - jswny 7y ago
    I have no problem with conspiracy theories, or people talking about them. What I do have a problem with is the general category of misinformation/conspiracy theories which hurt or endanger others. For instance, for every person who doesn't get a vaccination because they believe some of the anti-vaccination conspiracy theories, there is an immune-compromised individual who is being put into harm's way because of misinformation because they medically cannot receive the vaccine. In the case of the coronavirus, we are dealing with a very dangerous global pandemic, and I personally think that this falls into the category of "misinformation can be very dangerous."
    - s9w 7y ago
      People are entitled to form their own opinions, even and in particular on vaccinations. They own their body after all.
      - jswny 7y ago
        As much as I agree with you when it comes to pretty much anything else, I have to draw a line when it comes to conspiracy theories which are undeniably false such as anti-vaccination ones, which harm others who cannot medically get vaccinations.
        s9w 7y ago
        I see your point and can understand your position. Just as a counterpoint I would still add that "undeniably false" is a very high bar that many believe is not reached with some topics, the "gospel" (not meant dismissive) on vaccinations being one of them.
- thinkingemote 7y ago
  Now is not the time to question whether Saddam has weapons of mass destruction.
kazinator 7y ago
Good for Twitter; it is complete nonsense. This is not a made-up spook. "Normal" coronaviruses don't cause 3500 people in New York city to die over the course of a few weeks.
- thu2111 7y ago
  It's nonsense, except it's a summary of what a bunch of professors and research scientists specialised in biology and medicine think. So you[tube] are now in a position of deciding which experts are right and which are wrong. Is there anything that defines your view of what nonsense is other than government approval? Wait, except up-thread I am reading that the problem is politicians who don't accept experts. So who defines expertise? Who gets the label of expert and who doesn't, in your view, if qualifications aren't it?
  - kazinator 7y ago
    > So who defines expertise? I would say that the answer to this involves peer review. Do the statements have the backing of the expert's organization? Experts speaking alone are less credible than experts speaking on behalf of a committee (consisting of members from more than one organization, ideally) which reviewed information and prepared statements for presentation to the public.
    - thu2111 7y ago
      OK, here's a peer reviewed paper for you, from the International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924857920300972 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092485792... In OECD countries. the mortality rate for SARS-CoV-2 (1.3%) is not significantly different from that for common coronaviruses identified in public hospitals of Marseille, France (0.8%; P=0.11). The problem of SARS-CoV-2 is probably overestimated, as 2.6 million people die of respiratory infections each year compared with less than 4000 deaths for SARS-CoV-2 at the time of writing. So this paper agrees with the ones in the page you cited as nonsense. Will you now do an about-face and demand Twitter erase tweets by public scientists demanding mass lockdowns? Peer review is no panacea. It can rapidly become a circular argument - someone is an expert because some experts say they're an expert. OK, who says those people are experts? Ah, the first set of people we're trying to evaluate. Peer review lets all sorts of rubbish slip through because the peers doing the reviewing aren't usefully different to the people being reviewed (same background, same education, same social circles, same incentives structure). But it can be great at shutting down outside voices and reinforcing groupthink. When there's expert disagreement about something important, there's typically no substitute for just letting people wade in there and form their own opinions. Twitter (of all companies!) is nowhere near intelligent enough a group of people to resolve every controversy in every field of study in the world, indeed the fact that they're even trying suggests serious deficiencies of institutional analysis!

laumars 7y ago

Most platforms don’t really like censorship themselves because it effectiveness is limited, costs them money to implement and acknowledges liability for stuff contributed to their platform. However COVID-19 poses a unique challenge in that misinformation can have a death toll. At least other conspiracy theories and extremist content is either (relatively) harmless or requires the viewer to step far beyond the boundaries of common sense.

jswny 7y ago

Because this is not the time for conspiracy theories. People talking about the earth being flat doesn't really hurt anyone. People believing conspiracy theories about a global pandemic can be seriously dangerous.

guscost 7y ago
This is not the time for fascism, either.
- jswny 7y ago
  We are talking about private companies right? This has nothing to do with the government.
  - guscost 7y ago
    It's just one (and hopefully the only) step in a very troubling direction. Several places in Europe are much further along, for example: https://www.thelocal.dk/20200313/denmark-passes-far-reaching-emergency-coronavirus-law https://www.thelocal.dk/20200313/denmark-passes-far-reaching... Apparently there's a newer law that makes posting crackpot theories illegal, but I can only find one source: https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=&sl=da&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fnewsvoice.se%2F2020%2F04%2Fdanmark-forbjuder-corona-policy%2F https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=&sl=da&tl=en&u=htt...
s9w 7y ago
This particular incident actually sounds like it involves pretty heavy "out there" stuff. But in general the term conspiracy theory means barely more than "not in line with government press releases". The average conspiracy theory guy is much less crazy than one might assume and a surprising number of now public revelations have been circulating in these corners of the internet way earlier. It can be quite informative and challenge critical thinking at the same time.
- jswny 7y ago
  I have no problem with conspiracy theories, or people talking about them. What I do have a problem with is the general category of misinformation/conspiracy theories which hurt or endanger others. For instance, for every person who doesn't get a vaccination because they believe some of the anti-vaccination conspiracy theories, there is an immune-compromised individual who is being put into harm's way because of misinformation because they medically cannot receive the vaccine. In the case of the coronavirus, we are dealing with a very dangerous global pandemic, and I personally think that this falls into the category of "misinformation can be very dangerous."
  - s9w 7y ago
    People are entitled to form their own opinions, even and in particular on vaccinations. They own their body after all.
    - jswny 7y ago
      As much as I agree with you when it comes to pretty much anything else, I have to draw a line when it comes to conspiracy theories which are undeniably false such as anti-vaccination ones, which harm others who cannot medically get vaccinations.
      - s9w 7y ago
        I see your point and can understand your position. Just as a counterpoint I would still add that "undeniably false" is a very high bar that many believe is not reached with some topics, the "gospel" (not meant dismissive) on vaccinations being one of them.
thinkingemote 7y ago
Now is not the time to question whether Saddam has weapons of mass destruction.

kazinator 7y ago

Good for Twitter; it is complete nonsense. This is not a made-up spook. "Normal" coronaviruses don't cause 3500 people in New York city to die over the course of a few weeks.

thu2111 7y ago
It's nonsense, except it's a summary of what a bunch of professors and research scientists specialised in biology and medicine think. So you[tube] are now in a position of deciding which experts are right and which are wrong. Is there anything that defines your view of what nonsense is other than government approval? Wait, except up-thread I am reading that the problem is politicians who don't accept experts. So who defines expertise? Who gets the label of expert and who doesn't, in your view, if qualifications aren't it?
- kazinator 7y ago
  > So who defines expertise? I would say that the answer to this involves peer review. Do the statements have the backing of the expert's organization? Experts speaking alone are less credible than experts speaking on behalf of a committee (consisting of members from more than one organization, ideally) which reviewed information and prepared statements for presentation to the public.
  - thu2111 7y ago
    OK, here's a peer reviewed paper for you, from the International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924857920300972 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092485792... In OECD countries. the mortality rate for SARS-CoV-2 (1.3%) is not significantly different from that for common coronaviruses identified in public hospitals of Marseille, France (0.8%; P=0.11). The problem of SARS-CoV-2 is probably overestimated, as 2.6 million people die of respiratory infections each year compared with less than 4000 deaths for SARS-CoV-2 at the time of writing. So this paper agrees with the ones in the page you cited as nonsense. Will you now do an about-face and demand Twitter erase tweets by public scientists demanding mass lockdowns? Peer review is no panacea. It can rapidly become a circular argument - someone is an expert because some experts say they're an expert. OK, who says those people are experts? Ah, the first set of people we're trying to evaluate. Peer review lets all sorts of rubbish slip through because the peers doing the reviewing aren't usefully different to the people being reviewed (same background, same education, same social circles, same incentives structure). But it can be great at shutting down outside voices and reinforcing groupthink. When there's expert disagreement about something important, there's typically no substitute for just letting people wade in there and form their own opinions. Twitter (of all companies!) is nowhere near intelligent enough a group of people to resolve every controversy in every field of study in the world, indeed the fact that they're even trying suggests serious deficiencies of institutional analysis!