4 ms·

The comments here on HN are borderline irresponsible. All we know is that someone was removed for what they perceived be 'censoring some data' - and we really

by jariel 6y ago

The comments here on HN are borderline irresponsible. All we know is that someone was removed for what they perceived be 'censoring some data' - and we really have almost no context or material facts. It continues to amaze me how people jump to conclusions and can't fathom how power, information, and communications work within any organization and that it's always complicated. Having responsibility is almost 100% 'making sausage' and there is literally no situation in which the public will have access to 100% of the information, and when they do, it will be communicated in a specific way, hopefully for the public good. For example, someone could feel that it's 'really important' to publish the latest finding on Hyrcoxychloroquine, or Remdesevir or whatever, when from a public communications perspective, it may not be helpful at all to be a focus on this information. Some might call this censorship, some might call it suppression, others might call it responsible. How about hospital vacancy rates? Because all over North America, the vast majority of Hospitals are sitting idle, and medical staff are being laid off. Funny we don't see that on CNN. Obviously, from a public health policy, maybe this wouldn't be such a good set of data to focus on because people might get the impression that there is materially no pandemic, unable to grasp that in fact, the low rates of hospitalization are due to social distancing measures. My gosh man this is everyday life in so many fields. If some Florida politician was trying to literally get numbers manipulated, hopefully, this will be dealt with in the criminal justice system, but this may not be the case. COVID is a sausage-making communications nightmare for everyone involved, there are massive legal issues, massive economic consequences, existential life and death concerns, literally geopolitical realignment happening in real-time. Let's try to get more information. Edit - a relevant example from Miami Herald: [1] "But since the state’s first confirmed coronavirus case, officials have kept some basic information confidential. Most notable: DeSantis has chosen not to reveal the names of nursing homes experiencing outbreaks — cases that, according to Florida Department of Health data, have resulted in at least 126 deaths." This is exactly the same in Quebec - they don't want to release the individual names of the homes (they are of course known to the occupants and relatives) because it's not meaningful information for the public to have. They've made a reasonable case for not doxxing the homes with problems. So this is a pretty good example of where public information is managed for the public good. It happens everywhere. What troubles me specifically about the whistleblower complaint is that there were no specifics at all - no actual articulation of malfeasance. 'Censorship' is a pretty vague term. [1] https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article242050696.html https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article24205069...

mlvljr 6y ago
Not afraid of the hivemind, I presume? :)
titzer 6y ago
> Let's try to get more information. The irony of this part. We need to hold leaders accountable, and we need to make good decisions. They are actively undermining that ability by censoring data and trying to cover their asses. The rest of your comment trots out a truckload of red herrings about information we might not want to look at right now, or some disgruntled or misguided person not following proper channels and rushing to get out crap information about drugs or something. These things could not be less related to what we are talking about here. FFS they fired the person whose official job it was to make information available to the public and she reports it was because they wanted to censor it. I mean, does that not strike you as something she should absolutely blow the whistle on?
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  Absolutely she should blow the whistle. Then the journalists should ask followup questions like "which specific changes were you ordered to make", so they can dig in and confirm whether those changes would be dishonest. A story with little context and no details is useless; the state will soon announce something along the lines of "nuh-uh she's a liar", and then how's anyone supposed to decide who's right except by applying preconceived biases?
- jariel 6y ago
  "FFS they fired the person whose official job it was to make information available to the public and she reports it was because they wanted to censor it. " I think you are misreading my point and definitely misunderstanding the nature of the person's job. We don't know what happened and 'censored' can mean a lot of things. My quotes are not 'red herrings' - they are examples of what is happening right now. The Miami Herald is upset that Flordia would not publish the names of retirement homes? What if this is literally the issue in question? What if this 'whistleblower' wanted to publish said names, but the Gov. didn't want her to? Is this worthy of whistle-blowing? I don't think so. What if she wanted to make a graph where the landing page highlighted 'total new cases' (which looks bad because it's always rising) but the state wants 'daily new cases' (which looks better because it's ostensibly flat. Is that censorship? And by the way - disgruntled people are fired all the time. What we need is more information, and it's odd that the state employee did not actually give more specifics, it would validate the cause a little better. Finally - it's not her job to decide what goes out and whatnot. Definitely not, that's a fairly high-level decision. Her job is to communicate and coordinate it effectively. But again, using my example the decision as to 'do we name the long term care homes or not?' is definitely above her pay grade. That's a communications job it will touch the highest levels. So again - we need more information in order to determine the severity of what happened here. Maybe there is fraud rising to criminality, in which case I hope someone goes to jail, but it may not be that.

by jariel 6y ago

mlvljr 6y ago

Not afraid of the hivemind, I presume? :)

titzer 6y ago

> Let's try to get more information. The irony of this part. We need to hold leaders accountable, and we need to make good decisions. They are actively undermining that ability by censoring data and trying to cover their asses. The rest of your comment trots out a truckload of red herrings about information we might not want to look at right now, or some disgruntled or misguided person not following proper channels and rushing to get out crap information about drugs or something. These things could not be less related to what we are talking about here. FFS they fired the person whose official job it was to make information available to the public and she reports it was because they wanted to censor it. I mean, does that not strike you as something she should absolutely blow the whistle on?

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
Absolutely she should blow the whistle. Then the journalists should ask followup questions like "which specific changes were you ordered to make", so they can dig in and confirm whether those changes would be dishonest. A story with little context and no details is useless; the state will soon announce something along the lines of "nuh-uh she's a liar", and then how's anyone supposed to decide who's right except by applying preconceived biases?
jariel 6y ago
"FFS they fired the person whose official job it was to make information available to the public and she reports it was because they wanted to censor it. " I think you are misreading my point and definitely misunderstanding the nature of the person's job. We don't know what happened and 'censored' can mean a lot of things. My quotes are not 'red herrings' - they are examples of what is happening right now. The Miami Herald is upset that Flordia would not publish the names of retirement homes? What if this is literally the issue in question? What if this 'whistleblower' wanted to publish said names, but the Gov. didn't want her to? Is this worthy of whistle-blowing? I don't think so. What if she wanted to make a graph where the landing page highlighted 'total new cases' (which looks bad because it's always rising) but the state wants 'daily new cases' (which looks better because it's ostensibly flat. Is that censorship? And by the way - disgruntled people are fired all the time. What we need is more information, and it's odd that the state employee did not actually give more specifics, it would validate the cause a little better. Finally - it's not her job to decide what goes out and whatnot. Definitely not, that's a fairly high-level decision. Her job is to communicate and coordinate it effectively. But again, using my example the decision as to 'do we name the long term care homes or not?' is definitely above her pay grade. That's a communications job it will touch the highest levels. So again - we need more information in order to determine the severity of what happened here. Maybe there is fraud rising to criminality, in which case I hope someone goes to jail, but it may not be that.