6 ms·

Does anyone understand what point he's trying to make, or is it that the point is a very generic, "hey censorship is bad," which most people will agree with, bu

Does anyone understand what point he's trying to make, or is it that the point is a very generic, "hey censorship is bad," which most people will agree with, but is argued rather poorly? At the end he writes, "From everything I’ve heard, talking to doctors and reading the background material, the Bakersfield doctors are probably not to be trusted. But the functional impact of removing their videos (in addition to giving them press they wouldn’t otherwise have had) is to stamp out discussion of things that do actually need to be discussed, like when the damage to the economy..." Does taking down a video of a couple of charlatans, "stamp out discussion of things that do actually need to be discussed"? I don't see how at all, maybe I'm missing something about why this has upset Taibbi so much. Other than, maybe anything that involves Google/Facebook playing a role in removing content from the Internet will just make him mad, regardless of the issue at hand.

masswerk 6y ago
From the article's comments section on the Erickson and Massahi video and "stamping the discussion": > The comments section was filled with interesting discussion (I'd say as many against as for, but I didn't count). It gave people a public sphere. The point by point dissection of the doctors' presentation by many commenters expanded understanding. Many of the commenters provided refutation and data analysis. Taking the presentation down ended the discussion. > The rush to censor is fearful. At least the Erickson and Massahi video provided (for a brief few days) a forum where people of different viewpoints engaged each other.
- sameers 6y ago
  Thanks for engaging - I appreciate the chance to have a discussion. I haven't read any previous thread on this issue. Just from your comment, it appears that discussion of this issue is absolutely alive and well - we are discussing it right here! The question of balance between physical and economic health has hardly been suppressed - governors, mayors and public health officials across the country are engaging in it every day and are being quoted in major news outlets regularly. I too wish, like Taibbi, that we didn't have a left/right media where everyone takes a particular side and vilifies the others, but while that points to a decay in journalistic decorum, I don't see how it qualifies as censorship and suppression of free speech. If I want to know how conservatives feel, I read the WSJ and listen to Fox News. For middle-of-the-road liberals, NYT and NPR. To get mad about rich people, Red Rose Twitter. It's all out there, completely uncensored! In the face of all this abundance, I continue to be mystified at Taibbi's rage about this one particular video, whose purveyors have suspect motives to boot. Like, if I was a lawyer trying to make a case, this wouldn't be one of my top witnesses.
  - masswerk 6y ago
    I think, what is discribed in that comment, is essentially what free speech is all about: a spark for a broader discussion. It also is what the Springtime Revolutions of 1848 were all about: free communications and free assembly to facilitate a discussion, which may lead to a (democratic) formation of will. Inhibiting such a discussion by any means of authority (and an appeal to common good as perceived by that authority) is much like what had been before this and what that revolution was an answer to. In a sense, we're on the best way of backtracking to before 1848. Is this really the answer? As to the discussion here, mind that it is not the discussion that was and may have been there, but a meta discussion on this discussion. The particular discussion is gone, with no traces left. Regarding bipartisan divides, mind that I am located rather far away from the US (as may be guessed from the previous context, in Europe). However, the big platforms, which have established some kind of oligopoly for virtual assembly, while mostly located in the US, are of global concern and shaping discussions and chances for them happening at all in a global manner. Politics are derailing all over the world, with regard to a second half of the 20th century context, and there's no obvious answer in place. However, inhibiting virtual assembly by silencing those controversial sparks, which may ignite them, probably isn't the way. At best, it may just further the divide. (On the other hand, having a "spark free", homogeneous conversation is probably much in the commercial interest of anyone selling targeted advertising along with providing the very platform for this conversation.) Free speech in a lonely, homogeneous (echo) chamber, maybe in company of a few friends, who are consenting anyway, isn't what free speech ought to about in a political sense. It's more than a right to verbalize.
nicodjimenez 6y ago
Chastising a man that’s complaining about our loss of freedom of speech? The irony! Censor him! He’s pointing out a disturbing trend, if you are pro democracy and pro freedom of speech. What’s wrong with that? Not everyone believes in democracy / freedom of speech, but these two things go hand in hand. You can’t have democracy without freedom of speech and vice versa. The disturbing trend towards censorship is the first step towards totalitarianist dictatorships. A lot of people will argue this state is “inevitable” but resisting the urge towards tyranny is an ongoing fight.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- TomMarius 6y ago
  Of course you can have freedom of speech without democracy. Why do you think you need democracy for that? There are many not democratic countries with freedom of speech, and many democratic countries without freedom of speech; and many ideological directions that don't even allow to control a person whatsoever.
  - nicodjimenez 6y ago
    Please provide examples of totalitarian dictatorships with freedom of speech.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
- ztjio 6y ago
  The article doesn't cite even one sample of a violation of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech doesn't entitle you to a presence on someone else's platform. Freedom of speech protects you from oppression of your voice from the government, and even then it's heavily qualified to disallow incitement and such. As far as I can tell there is no violation at all. In fact, I applaud the non-government organizations taking on the absolutely critical and necessary act of moderating their platforms, they should be doing it vastly more than they are. The whole point of the internet is you can go and put up your own thing. Thinking the Googles and Facebooks have an obligation to amplify your voice no matter what you say is asinine and flat out wrong. If platforms were responsible for what they actually distribute there would be fewer of these mega platforms and the world would be dramatically better off for it. Let these doctors put their own video on their own website on their own computers. If ISPs decided to censor that then I'll start to see your side because ISP choice is limited at least in part by government restriction. But even then, the constitution doesn't ever mention the internet or anything like it. These people can all go out in public and say what they like still. They have not had any rights violated.
carapace 6y ago
Here's my take: stupid people need to be managed, but if you think you're smart enough to do the job you're one of the stupid people. "With the best leaders / When the work is finished / The people all say / We did it ourselves." ~Tao Te Ching
runawaybottle 6y ago
I just did some back of the napkin Googling: https://rsf.org/en/news/time-magazine-censored-twice-over-coverage-radical-buddhists https://rsf.org/en/news/time-magazine-censored-twice-over-co... I always remember these things but never take heed because it just doesn’t happen much in the West. Look up some magazines you know of and see what countries censored them and why. You’ll see how benign some of the triggers are. It’s the benign censorship that will catch up to us.
iibjisjhdj 6y ago
It's so funny you talk about how censorship is bad and yet you enjoy the privilege of being top comment on one of the heaviest censored sites on the internet. My comment will never be seen. I'm not allowed to speak openly about m o d eration here.
- kragen 6y ago
  Oddly enough, I see your comment.
- goodcanadian 6y ago
  Discussions about moderation are rarely on topic. It is only marginally on topic, here.
roenxi 6y ago
> Does taking down a video of a couple of charlatans, "stamp out discussion of things that do actually need to be discussed"? I pose the question, to which I don't actually know the answer, were the people who decided they were charlatans better qualified than the two doctors in question? More than stamping out discussion, I don't see how YouTube can authoritatively enforce their own guidelines. They lack the the technical competence to make consistently good decisions. And yes this stamps out the issues that need to be discussed. The censors will be working on behalf of the 'don't do anything that might cause panic' types who were offering consistently bad advice until this pandemic was completely out of control. Possibly even clamping down on 'racists' who supported border closures and quarantines early when that would have helped. The 'shut down the borders now' types would all have been censored under this policy if it were in place 6 months ago and we'd all be sitting around arguing questions like 'could this risk have been foreseen' rather than 'why weren't the people who saw this coming taken credibly' which is a much more important question. If we are censoring things on behalf of the UN we might also end up asking other questions, like 'why are you talking like Taiwan is independent of China?'. YouTube have started to enter dangerous territory using government agencies as a source of truth. Government is known to lie and mislead people from time to time, such as during press conferences or when politicians are involved.
- krainboltgreene 6y ago
  > were the people who decided they were charlatans better qualified than the two doctors in question? Yes.
  - nicodjimenez 6y ago
    ^ totalitarian mindset! Love how you don’t leave a shred of doubt. You’re 100 percent sure you’re right, you have 0 doubt. That’s really the mark of an intelligent and moral person! You’re just being honest that you’re 100 sure, since you must be very intelligent. I get it! “If only me or my group of people I like controlled everything, we would achieve the utopia!” -> mindset that leads to totalitarianism Truth is that it takes a really evolved mindset to support the two party state. A lot of people don’t get this. You actually have to want to stand for people who you might hate, or at least disagree with. When people stop protecting the views of people they disagree with / think are stupid, that’s when we descend into tyranny.
cmroanirgo 6y ago
> Does taking down a video of a couple of charlatans Having watched the video, the main things that actually stuck with me was when they mentioned the impact of isolation on the community. Explicitly he mentions how molestation, spousal abuse were "up" and suicides were "spiking", and that for those affected by these problems "will be with them forever rather than a season". He asked the question, at what cost does a few deaths outweigh all these other social issues? The other impact that isolation had (according to the Drs) is that it weakens your immune system. One of their arguments is that a few months could have a devastating effect on the immune system of healthy people and they were worried about the effects on the hospital system when isolation ended several months down the road. Whether or not the Drs have ulterior motives on re-openinig their hospitals, shouldn't be a primo cause of calling someone a 'charlatan'. They also explicitly mention how West Coast and East Coast was very different. They were very explicit in mentioning how isolation was a correct course of action: Initially the virus was unknown & there was fear of it's effects and that all they had were models available. They cited sources that changed their projections downwards significantly just a few days after initial projections were released (I forget exactly who 'they' were) They were explicit in mentioning that the data was now available on the spread rates and the death rates. They also mentioned how the Drs everywhere were being encouraged to add cv19 as a cause of death to issues of "Co-morbidity". That is, in their experience, that all the deaths they saw were with people with serious health issues already. Again, they were ok in mentioning how East and West were different. They also mentioned how Lowes was open, but a coffee shop was closed, which to them made no sense. So, I while I understand that other Drs might be mortified by the testament made in the video, people should have the right to be heard. At the worst, it certainly made for interesting viewing while isolating!
- Hokusai 6y ago
  > few deaths 60,000 deaths in just the USA and counting. That guy needs to revise what 'few' means. > people should have the right to be heard. That is an oversimplification of the situation. To allow videos to mislead the public into thinking that there has been just a 'few' deaths may cause more harm. Like screaming fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire is wrong, the same applies to call over 60,000 deaths 'few'. It's a lie and it is a harmful one.
CodeWriter23 6y ago
> At the end he writes, "From everything I’ve heard, talking to doctors and reading the background material, the Bakersfield doctors are probably not to be trusted. But the functional impact of removing their videos (in addition to giving them press they wouldn’t otherwise have had) is to stamp out discussion of things that do actually need to be discussed, like when the damage to the economy..." With all due respect to Taibbi as an outstanding Journalist, in making that statement, he employed the flawed “crash course in relying on the opinions of others” he illustrated in the beginning of the article. From my own experience, I have been unable to engage in meaningful discussion about economic impact or death rates associated with poverty with anyone. It’s either “fu reopen now” or “are you crazy you selfish murderer?”. The most concerning discussion I had was with a friend who is County Counsel in one of the Big 6 NorCal Counties that initiated the first lockdown. He’s writing the orders but not setting policy. I asked him why we aren’t talking about opening non-essential businesses with social distancing? He said “the medical experts haven’t green lit that yet”. So I further inquired “are there any economists or sociologists at the table”. He said no. When I said “poverty has a death rate too”, his response was “that’s just a Trump talking point”. I made sure he understood I had read a study by Columbia University in 2001 when unemployment was 4%, and they pinned the death toll from poverty at about 3x the current CV-19 death toll. Like, I said he’s not setting policy but this type of blindness based on politics mentioned by Taibbi is very apparent to me with the lack of experts other than medical experts at the policy making table. That’s pretty fucking scary to me when at a time like this we need to remain objective. To analyze data. To consider all conclusions may be incorrect or may not be as optimal as others. And bottom line, if the goal is to save lives, then the death toll of the disease must be weighed against the death toll of any mitigations.
- JPKab 6y ago
  Extremely well said. I agree with you it's very hard to have a conversation about this because the science has been politicized. We tend to think of politicization of science as a GOP thing for global warming denial. And that's definitely a massive reason that I really don't like the GOP. It's interesting because nuclear power has a similar paradigm with the Democratic party. And now here we are at these silly extremes on opening versus keeping everything locked down. Neither of which are remotely reasonable. I'm lucky that I live in Colorado. unlike a lot of the Democratic politicians in other parts of the country Colorado has a tradition of business savvy leaders. Our governor has been excellent on this so far and very balanced in my opinion. He has definitely been consulting with business leaders because he consulted with my CTO and this was clearly a long laundry list of meetings that day with various business leaders. I do think it's crazy to view this either 100% through public health or 100% through economic health. There has to be a balance. What I know for sure is that the full lockdowns are not sustainable. Things that aren't sustainable aren't going to work for very long. That's the definition of unsustainable. Really really frightening to hear that a government official in charge of so many people viewed research out of Columbia as a Trump talking point. WTF.
aantthony 6y ago
One of the author's points (for example) was that "Experts get things wrong for reasons that are innocent", gave a few examples why and explained how this means Facebook's process has a central problem due to its emphasis on “authoritative” opinions. Whether or not you agree with it, it is a point he made. And if you're going to strawman their entire post to "hey censorship is bad" and then say it's a poor argument, you ought to actually tell us why.
- sameers 6y ago
  Thanks for engaging - I appreciate the chance to have a discussion. Actually, that part of what he said I disagreed with the most vehemently. His logic in that paragraph is very hard to follow - it goes: 1. "Experts get things wrong for reasons that are innocent." Okay, absolutely agree with the premise. 2. "Both of the above examples point out a central problem with trying to automate the fact-checking process". Hm, okay, I agree that "automated fact checking" is a chimera, at least in the journalistic sense, but these examples are about opinions based on models, not "checking of facts." So already I am losing Taibbi in what his thread is about 3. "“Authorities” by their nature are untrustworthy." Is this a new premise? It sounds somewhat axiomatic - are we supposed to believe it follows from the flaw of "expert innocence"? Or should we believe it because Taibbi says so? Now I am starting to feel like I've been bait-and-switched. We have gone from innocent experts, to untrustworthy ones, a real escalation of rhetoric. 4. And then the conclusion: "“Elevating authoritative content” over independent or less well-known sources is an algorithmic take on the journalistic obsession with credentialing that has been slowly destroying our business for decades." -> Again, this sounds like a brand new premise that drags in the state of the journalism industry into the picture, plus a specific announcement by some large tech companies. What in the previous paragraphs prepared me to believe this? Who are these "independent, less-well known sources" that have entered the picture, and why are they implicitly being cast as the "good guys" in this picture? Do I put this together and try to believe that innocent experts, who became untrustworthy, decided to shut out more trustworthy people by erecting credentialing barriers in the profession to disguise their untrustworthiness, having made a devil's bargain with large digital media companies? That meanwhile the truth is to be found among others whose chief qualification is that they are not as well known, and/or are "independent"? And his poster child for this angel of democracy is two doctors with suspect motives, running a clinic somewhere in the middle of California? This really feels like a post facto conspiracy theory that works as a Michael Crichton plot. I love Taibbi, thoroughly enjoyed Insane Clown President, loathe the Clinton machine as much as he does, and yet, what he does with this essay totally feels like he went off the rails somehow.
JPKab 6y ago
The point he is making is that the Democratic party elite have decided after the election of Donald Trump and brexit that we have too much democracy. Part of that pattern is a sudden sense of responsibility on the part of big tech companies to only allow information that is in line with authoritative sources AKA experts. He then goes on to point out how often the experts on these things that the media references are completely wrong either willfully or structurally. He cites numerous examples in just the last few years of this including the WMD fiasco where a bunch of journalists and all the experts were just certain that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Or the Russiagate narrative which was a very specific set of allegations which were all proven to be false. He hates Trump, but he's not a partisan and therefore was capable of seeing wishful thinking and groupthink in action. The most horrifying aspect of this article was the fact that lawyers are now writing op eds in the Atlantic advocating for Chinese style censorship in the United States. I never my wildest dreams thought I would see this happen in my country. The fact that it's coming from people on the left is a gut punch. I grew up in a Christian fundamentalist environment where I was all constantly told what words I was allowed to use and what I couldn't. Saying lucky was discouraged strongly. We were blessed instead. This control of speech had a purpose which was to control how you think. It's awful and it's evil. And now the party I've always voted for has decided that that's the way to go. Yesterday Adam Schiff the Democratic congressman who is in charge of the house intelligence committee yet again sent a notice to the big tech companies telling them they needed to censor more of this. I don't know what to do or say at this point. I just know that if the cost of freedom of speech is that sometimes the masses do dumb things I'd rather live with that than be told what I can and can't say.
- mindslight 6y ago
  > The point he is making is that the Democratic party elite have decided after the election of Donald Trump ... that we have too much democracy. At its core, is this not fundamentally true? Not that this makes for a justification, but it is an explanation. AFAICT, every single President of the past four decades would have handled COVID-19 better. They still would have been full of warm air, but at the very least they would have deferred to advisers. This one has been actively undermining any reasoned approach, including intelligent debate about how some of the current measures go too far, by drowning it out with cheap bullheaded ignorance. Leaders drawn from an ordained political class get us status quo sustained corruption, but also create predictability when responding to a shared crisis. From a systematic perspective, whereby we all rely on having things administered adequately, there does appear to have been too much democracy.

masswerk 6y ago

From the article's comments section on the Erickson and Massahi video and "stamping the discussion": > The comments section was filled with interesting discussion (I'd say as many against as for, but I didn't count). It gave people a public sphere. The point by point dissection of the doctors' presentation by many commenters expanded understanding. Many of the commenters provided refutation and data analysis. Taking the presentation down ended the discussion. > The rush to censor is fearful. At least the Erickson and Massahi video provided (for a brief few days) a forum where people of different viewpoints engaged each other.

sameers 6y ago
Thanks for engaging - I appreciate the chance to have a discussion. I haven't read any previous thread on this issue. Just from your comment, it appears that discussion of this issue is absolutely alive and well - we are discussing it right here! The question of balance between physical and economic health has hardly been suppressed - governors, mayors and public health officials across the country are engaging in it every day and are being quoted in major news outlets regularly. I too wish, like Taibbi, that we didn't have a left/right media where everyone takes a particular side and vilifies the others, but while that points to a decay in journalistic decorum, I don't see how it qualifies as censorship and suppression of free speech. If I want to know how conservatives feel, I read the WSJ and listen to Fox News. For middle-of-the-road liberals, NYT and NPR. To get mad about rich people, Red Rose Twitter. It's all out there, completely uncensored! In the face of all this abundance, I continue to be mystified at Taibbi's rage about this one particular video, whose purveyors have suspect motives to boot. Like, if I was a lawyer trying to make a case, this wouldn't be one of my top witnesses.
- masswerk 6y ago
  I think, what is discribed in that comment, is essentially what free speech is all about: a spark for a broader discussion. It also is what the Springtime Revolutions of 1848 were all about: free communications and free assembly to facilitate a discussion, which may lead to a (democratic) formation of will. Inhibiting such a discussion by any means of authority (and an appeal to common good as perceived by that authority) is much like what had been before this and what that revolution was an answer to. In a sense, we're on the best way of backtracking to before 1848. Is this really the answer? As to the discussion here, mind that it is not the discussion that was and may have been there, but a meta discussion on this discussion. The particular discussion is gone, with no traces left. Regarding bipartisan divides, mind that I am located rather far away from the US (as may be guessed from the previous context, in Europe). However, the big platforms, which have established some kind of oligopoly for virtual assembly, while mostly located in the US, are of global concern and shaping discussions and chances for them happening at all in a global manner. Politics are derailing all over the world, with regard to a second half of the 20th century context, and there's no obvious answer in place. However, inhibiting virtual assembly by silencing those controversial sparks, which may ignite them, probably isn't the way. At best, it may just further the divide. (On the other hand, having a "spark free", homogeneous conversation is probably much in the commercial interest of anyone selling targeted advertising along with providing the very platform for this conversation.) Free speech in a lonely, homogeneous (echo) chamber, maybe in company of a few friends, who are consenting anyway, isn't what free speech ought to about in a political sense. It's more than a right to verbalize.

nicodjimenez 6y ago

Chastising a man that’s complaining about our loss of freedom of speech? The irony! Censor him! He’s pointing out a disturbing trend, if you are pro democracy and pro freedom of speech. What’s wrong with that? Not everyone believes in democracy / freedom of speech, but these two things go hand in hand. You can’t have democracy without freedom of speech and vice versa. The disturbing trend towards censorship is the first step towards totalitarianist dictatorships. A lot of people will argue this state is “inevitable” but resisting the urge towards tyranny is an ongoing fight.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
TomMarius 6y ago
Of course you can have freedom of speech without democracy. Why do you think you need democracy for that? There are many not democratic countries with freedom of speech, and many democratic countries without freedom of speech; and many ideological directions that don't even allow to control a person whatsoever.
- nicodjimenez 6y ago
  Please provide examples of totalitarian dictatorships with freedom of speech.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
ztjio 6y ago
The article doesn't cite even one sample of a violation of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech doesn't entitle you to a presence on someone else's platform. Freedom of speech protects you from oppression of your voice from the government, and even then it's heavily qualified to disallow incitement and such. As far as I can tell there is no violation at all. In fact, I applaud the non-government organizations taking on the absolutely critical and necessary act of moderating their platforms, they should be doing it vastly more than they are. The whole point of the internet is you can go and put up your own thing. Thinking the Googles and Facebooks have an obligation to amplify your voice no matter what you say is asinine and flat out wrong. If platforms were responsible for what they actually distribute there would be fewer of these mega platforms and the world would be dramatically better off for it. Let these doctors put their own video on their own website on their own computers. If ISPs decided to censor that then I'll start to see your side because ISP choice is limited at least in part by government restriction. But even then, the constitution doesn't ever mention the internet or anything like it. These people can all go out in public and say what they like still. They have not had any rights violated.

carapace 6y ago

Here's my take: stupid people need to be managed, but if you think you're smart enough to do the job you're one of the stupid people. "With the best leaders / When the work is finished / The people all say / We did it ourselves." ~Tao Te Ching

runawaybottle 6y ago

I just did some back of the napkin Googling: https://rsf.org/en/news/time-magazine-censored-twice-over-coverage-radical-buddhists https://rsf.org/en/news/time-magazine-censored-twice-over-co... I always remember these things but never take heed because it just doesn’t happen much in the West. Look up some magazines you know of and see what countries censored them and why. You’ll see how benign some of the triggers are. It’s the benign censorship that will catch up to us.

iibjisjhdj 6y ago

It's so funny you talk about how censorship is bad and yet you enjoy the privilege of being top comment on one of the heaviest censored sites on the internet. My comment will never be seen. I'm not allowed to speak openly about m o d eration here.

kragen 6y ago
Oddly enough, I see your comment.
goodcanadian 6y ago
Discussions about moderation are rarely on topic. It is only marginally on topic, here.

roenxi 6y ago

> Does taking down a video of a couple of charlatans, "stamp out discussion of things that do actually need to be discussed"? I pose the question, to which I don't actually know the answer, were the people who decided they were charlatans better qualified than the two doctors in question? More than stamping out discussion, I don't see how YouTube can authoritatively enforce their own guidelines. They lack the the technical competence to make consistently good decisions. And yes this stamps out the issues that need to be discussed. The censors will be working on behalf of the 'don't do anything that might cause panic' types who were offering consistently bad advice until this pandemic was completely out of control. Possibly even clamping down on 'racists' who supported border closures and quarantines early when that would have helped. The 'shut down the borders now' types would all have been censored under this policy if it were in place 6 months ago and we'd all be sitting around arguing questions like 'could this risk have been foreseen' rather than 'why weren't the people who saw this coming taken credibly' which is a much more important question. If we are censoring things on behalf of the UN we might also end up asking other questions, like 'why are you talking like Taiwan is independent of China?'. YouTube have started to enter dangerous territory using government agencies as a source of truth. Government is known to lie and mislead people from time to time, such as during press conferences or when politicians are involved.

krainboltgreene 6y ago
> were the people who decided they were charlatans better qualified than the two doctors in question? Yes.
- nicodjimenez 6y ago
  ^ totalitarian mindset! Love how you don’t leave a shred of doubt. You’re 100 percent sure you’re right, you have 0 doubt. That’s really the mark of an intelligent and moral person! You’re just being honest that you’re 100 sure, since you must be very intelligent. I get it! “If only me or my group of people I like controlled everything, we would achieve the utopia!” -> mindset that leads to totalitarianism Truth is that it takes a really evolved mindset to support the two party state. A lot of people don’t get this. You actually have to want to stand for people who you might hate, or at least disagree with. When people stop protecting the views of people they disagree with / think are stupid, that’s when we descend into tyranny.

cmroanirgo 6y ago

> Does taking down a video of a couple of charlatans Having watched the video, the main things that actually stuck with me was when they mentioned the impact of isolation on the community. Explicitly he mentions how molestation, spousal abuse were "up" and suicides were "spiking", and that for those affected by these problems "will be with them forever rather than a season". He asked the question, at what cost does a few deaths outweigh all these other social issues? The other impact that isolation had (according to the Drs) is that it weakens your immune system. One of their arguments is that a few months could have a devastating effect on the immune system of healthy people and they were worried about the effects on the hospital system when isolation ended several months down the road. Whether or not the Drs have ulterior motives on re-openinig their hospitals, shouldn't be a primo cause of calling someone a 'charlatan'. They also explicitly mention how West Coast and East Coast was very different. They were very explicit in mentioning how isolation was a correct course of action: Initially the virus was unknown & there was fear of it's effects and that all they had were models available. They cited sources that changed their projections downwards significantly just a few days after initial projections were released (I forget exactly who 'they' were) They were explicit in mentioning that the data was now available on the spread rates and the death rates. They also mentioned how the Drs everywhere were being encouraged to add cv19 as a cause of death to issues of "Co-morbidity". That is, in their experience, that all the deaths they saw were with people with serious health issues already. Again, they were ok in mentioning how East and West were different. They also mentioned how Lowes was open, but a coffee shop was closed, which to them made no sense. So, I while I understand that other Drs might be mortified by the testament made in the video, people should have the right to be heard. At the worst, it certainly made for interesting viewing while isolating!

Hokusai 6y ago
> few deaths 60,000 deaths in just the USA and counting. That guy needs to revise what 'few' means. > people should have the right to be heard. That is an oversimplification of the situation. To allow videos to mislead the public into thinking that there has been just a 'few' deaths may cause more harm. Like screaming fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire is wrong, the same applies to call over 60,000 deaths 'few'. It's a lie and it is a harmful one.

CodeWriter23 6y ago

> At the end he writes, "From everything I’ve heard, talking to doctors and reading the background material, the Bakersfield doctors are probably not to be trusted. But the functional impact of removing their videos (in addition to giving them press they wouldn’t otherwise have had) is to stamp out discussion of things that do actually need to be discussed, like when the damage to the economy..." With all due respect to Taibbi as an outstanding Journalist, in making that statement, he employed the flawed “crash course in relying on the opinions of others” he illustrated in the beginning of the article. From my own experience, I have been unable to engage in meaningful discussion about economic impact or death rates associated with poverty with anyone. It’s either “fu reopen now” or “are you crazy you selfish murderer?”. The most concerning discussion I had was with a friend who is County Counsel in one of the Big 6 NorCal Counties that initiated the first lockdown. He’s writing the orders but not setting policy. I asked him why we aren’t talking about opening non-essential businesses with social distancing? He said “the medical experts haven’t green lit that yet”. So I further inquired “are there any economists or sociologists at the table”. He said no. When I said “poverty has a death rate too”, his response was “that’s just a Trump talking point”. I made sure he understood I had read a study by Columbia University in 2001 when unemployment was 4%, and they pinned the death toll from poverty at about 3x the current CV-19 death toll. Like, I said he’s not setting policy but this type of blindness based on politics mentioned by Taibbi is very apparent to me with the lack of experts other than medical experts at the policy making table. That’s pretty fucking scary to me when at a time like this we need to remain objective. To analyze data. To consider all conclusions may be incorrect or may not be as optimal as others. And bottom line, if the goal is to save lives, then the death toll of the disease must be weighed against the death toll of any mitigations.

JPKab 6y ago
Extremely well said. I agree with you it's very hard to have a conversation about this because the science has been politicized. We tend to think of politicization of science as a GOP thing for global warming denial. And that's definitely a massive reason that I really don't like the GOP. It's interesting because nuclear power has a similar paradigm with the Democratic party. And now here we are at these silly extremes on opening versus keeping everything locked down. Neither of which are remotely reasonable. I'm lucky that I live in Colorado. unlike a lot of the Democratic politicians in other parts of the country Colorado has a tradition of business savvy leaders. Our governor has been excellent on this so far and very balanced in my opinion. He has definitely been consulting with business leaders because he consulted with my CTO and this was clearly a long laundry list of meetings that day with various business leaders. I do think it's crazy to view this either 100% through public health or 100% through economic health. There has to be a balance. What I know for sure is that the full lockdowns are not sustainable. Things that aren't sustainable aren't going to work for very long. That's the definition of unsustainable. Really really frightening to hear that a government official in charge of so many people viewed research out of Columbia as a Trump talking point. WTF.

aantthony 6y ago

One of the author's points (for example) was that "Experts get things wrong for reasons that are innocent", gave a few examples why and explained how this means Facebook's process has a central problem due to its emphasis on “authoritative” opinions. Whether or not you agree with it, it is a point he made. And if you're going to strawman their entire post to "hey censorship is bad" and then say it's a poor argument, you ought to actually tell us why.

sameers 6y ago
Thanks for engaging - I appreciate the chance to have a discussion. Actually, that part of what he said I disagreed with the most vehemently. His logic in that paragraph is very hard to follow - it goes: 1. "Experts get things wrong for reasons that are innocent." Okay, absolutely agree with the premise. 2. "Both of the above examples point out a central problem with trying to automate the fact-checking process". Hm, okay, I agree that "automated fact checking" is a chimera, at least in the journalistic sense, but these examples are about opinions based on models, not "checking of facts." So already I am losing Taibbi in what his thread is about 3. "“Authorities” by their nature are untrustworthy." Is this a new premise? It sounds somewhat axiomatic - are we supposed to believe it follows from the flaw of "expert innocence"? Or should we believe it because Taibbi says so? Now I am starting to feel like I've been bait-and-switched. We have gone from innocent experts, to untrustworthy ones, a real escalation of rhetoric. 4. And then the conclusion: "“Elevating authoritative content” over independent or less well-known sources is an algorithmic take on the journalistic obsession with credentialing that has been slowly destroying our business for decades." -> Again, this sounds like a brand new premise that drags in the state of the journalism industry into the picture, plus a specific announcement by some large tech companies. What in the previous paragraphs prepared me to believe this? Who are these "independent, less-well known sources" that have entered the picture, and why are they implicitly being cast as the "good guys" in this picture? Do I put this together and try to believe that innocent experts, who became untrustworthy, decided to shut out more trustworthy people by erecting credentialing barriers in the profession to disguise their untrustworthiness, having made a devil's bargain with large digital media companies? That meanwhile the truth is to be found among others whose chief qualification is that they are not as well known, and/or are "independent"? And his poster child for this angel of democracy is two doctors with suspect motives, running a clinic somewhere in the middle of California? This really feels like a post facto conspiracy theory that works as a Michael Crichton plot. I love Taibbi, thoroughly enjoyed Insane Clown President, loathe the Clinton machine as much as he does, and yet, what he does with this essay totally feels like he went off the rails somehow.

JPKab 6y ago

The point he is making is that the Democratic party elite have decided after the election of Donald Trump and brexit that we have too much democracy. Part of that pattern is a sudden sense of responsibility on the part of big tech companies to only allow information that is in line with authoritative sources AKA experts. He then goes on to point out how often the experts on these things that the media references are completely wrong either willfully or structurally. He cites numerous examples in just the last few years of this including the WMD fiasco where a bunch of journalists and all the experts were just certain that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Or the Russiagate narrative which was a very specific set of allegations which were all proven to be false. He hates Trump, but he's not a partisan and therefore was capable of seeing wishful thinking and groupthink in action. The most horrifying aspect of this article was the fact that lawyers are now writing op eds in the Atlantic advocating for Chinese style censorship in the United States. I never my wildest dreams thought I would see this happen in my country. The fact that it's coming from people on the left is a gut punch. I grew up in a Christian fundamentalist environment where I was all constantly told what words I was allowed to use and what I couldn't. Saying lucky was discouraged strongly. We were blessed instead. This control of speech had a purpose which was to control how you think. It's awful and it's evil. And now the party I've always voted for has decided that that's the way to go. Yesterday Adam Schiff the Democratic congressman who is in charge of the house intelligence committee yet again sent a notice to the big tech companies telling them they needed to censor more of this. I don't know what to do or say at this point. I just know that if the cost of freedom of speech is that sometimes the masses do dumb things I'd rather live with that than be told what I can and can't say.

mindslight 6y ago
> The point he is making is that the Democratic party elite have decided after the election of Donald Trump ... that we have too much democracy. At its core, is this not fundamentally true? Not that this makes for a justification, but it is an explanation. AFAICT, every single President of the past four decades would have handled COVID-19 better. They still would have been full of warm air, but at the very least they would have deferred to advisers. This one has been actively undermining any reasoned approach, including intelligent debate about how some of the current measures go too far, by drowning it out with cheap bullheaded ignorance. Leaders drawn from an ordained political class get us status quo sustained corruption, but also create predictability when responding to a shared crisis. From a systematic perspective, whereby we all rely on having things administered adequately, there does appear to have been too much democracy.