8 ms·

Some people are fine with making decisions for themselves and don't need a net nanny to say "mummy thinks you shouldn't be reading this".

bko 6y ago
I agree in general. But what if I did want to know if vaccines are dangerous, so I search "are vaccines dangerous". If I want to find an anti-vaccine site, I should be able to do so, but the search term "are vaccines dangerous" should be viewed neutrally, in which case I would find links from cdc or .gov sites to be more useful that anti-vaccines sites
- textgel 6y ago
  That's fair; I suppose it's inevitable that search engines move more in a similar direction to what we know as the main high street when it comes to high profile searches, keeping more mainstream stuff while losing the off the wall areas but it does seem a shame to loose some of the weirder side streets in the process (the sort of weirdness from the early 2000s internet for example).
  - intricatedetail 6y ago
    It's a bad idea. There are examples where mainstream was wrong. Usually when it's about big money. E.g. decades of anti-cannabis propaganda.
    - textgel 6y ago
      Now you mention it, the official position on the correct response to coronavirus flip flopping and changing from location to location is a good recent example too.
- smaryjerry 6y ago
  We go to school in the US for usually at least 12 years. Any person should already be educated on topics such as anti vaccination. In particular in my state you can’t even go to school if you haven’t had your vaccines. Not only that but we learn how to learn in school. The argument for censorship against stupidity assumes exactly that, that the majority of people are stupid which they are not.
  - lone-commenter 6y ago
    > The argument for censorship against stupidity assumes exactly that, that the majority of people are stupid which they are not. It's not censorship against stupidity. It's censorship against bullshitters who spread medical misinformation that may put people in danger; factually untenable opinions, expressed in an assertive manner, in a context which seems authoritative to the layperson. Nobody says the majority is stupid, nor it is relevant. Protecting a minority is as good an excuse as it is protecting the majority, don't you think?
    - smaryjerry 6y ago
      My point was that we should and can understand the difference between sources of bad information and good information, this is and should be taught in schools. I don’t think we should protect the minority by limiting everyone. We could make a safety vs security argument but in my opinion we should protect children only and allow adults to make stupid mistakes. This is why we have drinking age, smoking age and drivers license ages. At some point we need to assume a level of intelligence in the population and in accordance allow freedom to make mistakes.
  - mschuster91 6y ago
    > Any person should already be educated on topics such as anti vaccination. The quality of US public schools can vary immensely, especially for students in poor areas where the community can't put up much money and education budgets are the first thing to be slashed. Additionally, many states allow outright lies such as creationism or abstinence-only sex ed to be taught - both of this is further evidence that it cannot be assumed automatically that a person educated in the US is well educated.
    - smaryjerry 6y ago
      Yes there are stupid people out there but it is not the majority, even in poor areas as you are claiming. Let’s say you are even correct that poor people now are too stupid to understand anti vaccination groups are not science based. The solution is not censorship of anti vaccination groups, it is education campaigns to counter this. Education in schools, commercials, websites and social media. Not censorship of bad information.
mschuster91 6y ago
Vast parts of the population however are not, as evidenced by the results of the last election or the support rates of stuff like qanon. Please keep in mind that qanon, antivaxx etc. are active hostile infowars campaigns. It is a duty of a society to protect its citizens against such efforts.
- textgel 6y ago
  With all due respect your comment history outlines you as a progressive and the first line you have on your profile is "You call it "alt-left", I proudly call it "Antifa".". Among the many aspects of your faith that I disagree with, one of the most utilised by its followers is its enthusiastic advocacy of false accusations against heretics in the pursuit of attacking them. And so while I don't know anything about qanon or infowars, your bad mouthing them is only lending them credibility; it is also shores up my belief that whatever your implicit definition of "duty of a society to protect its citizens against such efforts" is, I can assure you, we neither need nor want it.
  - mschuster91 6y ago
    > it is also shores up my belief that whatever your implicit definition of "duty of a society to protect its citizens against such efforts" is, I can assure you, we neither need nor want it. I'm not just an antifascist, I'm German. My ancestors proved for the rest of the world where a worldview based on lies and hate (and qanon is nothing more than that) will lead. Their history is proof that a society must defend itself or it will collapse.
    - textgel 6y ago
      Again, your faith believes false accusations against perceived heretics are acceptable tactics; your word against them is less than empty. Your ancestors and plenty of other examples throughout history are proof where censorship and book burning lead. The principle of sunlight is the best disinfectant has proven time and again to be true and the only people who argue against it are those being shown to be wrong under the light. Yes it permits the odd crazies to exist on the fringe, that's fine; flat earthers anti-vaxers and the rest were pointed at and laughed at long before the recent desperate grab for censorship by authoritarians was made. Open access to information is only a problem in the eyes of those who want to misslead.

bko 6y ago

I agree in general. But what if I did want to know if vaccines are dangerous, so I search "are vaccines dangerous". If I want to find an anti-vaccine site, I should be able to do so, but the search term "are vaccines dangerous" should be viewed neutrally, in which case I would find links from cdc or .gov sites to be more useful that anti-vaccines sites

textgel 6y ago
That's fair; I suppose it's inevitable that search engines move more in a similar direction to what we know as the main high street when it comes to high profile searches, keeping more mainstream stuff while losing the off the wall areas but it does seem a shame to loose some of the weirder side streets in the process (the sort of weirdness from the early 2000s internet for example).
- intricatedetail 6y ago
  It's a bad idea. There are examples where mainstream was wrong. Usually when it's about big money. E.g. decades of anti-cannabis propaganda.
  - textgel 6y ago
    Now you mention it, the official position on the correct response to coronavirus flip flopping and changing from location to location is a good recent example too.
smaryjerry 6y ago
We go to school in the US for usually at least 12 years. Any person should already be educated on topics such as anti vaccination. In particular in my state you can’t even go to school if you haven’t had your vaccines. Not only that but we learn how to learn in school. The argument for censorship against stupidity assumes exactly that, that the majority of people are stupid which they are not.
- lone-commenter 6y ago
  > The argument for censorship against stupidity assumes exactly that, that the majority of people are stupid which they are not. It's not censorship against stupidity. It's censorship against bullshitters who spread medical misinformation that may put people in danger; factually untenable opinions, expressed in an assertive manner, in a context which seems authoritative to the layperson. Nobody says the majority is stupid, nor it is relevant. Protecting a minority is as good an excuse as it is protecting the majority, don't you think?
  - smaryjerry 6y ago
    My point was that we should and can understand the difference between sources of bad information and good information, this is and should be taught in schools. I don’t think we should protect the minority by limiting everyone. We could make a safety vs security argument but in my opinion we should protect children only and allow adults to make stupid mistakes. This is why we have drinking age, smoking age and drivers license ages. At some point we need to assume a level of intelligence in the population and in accordance allow freedom to make mistakes.
- mschuster91 6y ago
  > Any person should already be educated on topics such as anti vaccination. The quality of US public schools can vary immensely, especially for students in poor areas where the community can't put up much money and education budgets are the first thing to be slashed. Additionally, many states allow outright lies such as creationism or abstinence-only sex ed to be taught - both of this is further evidence that it cannot be assumed automatically that a person educated in the US is well educated.
  - smaryjerry 6y ago
    Yes there are stupid people out there but it is not the majority, even in poor areas as you are claiming. Let’s say you are even correct that poor people now are too stupid to understand anti vaccination groups are not science based. The solution is not censorship of anti vaccination groups, it is education campaigns to counter this. Education in schools, commercials, websites and social media. Not censorship of bad information.

mschuster91 6y ago

Vast parts of the population however are not, as evidenced by the results of the last election or the support rates of stuff like qanon. Please keep in mind that qanon, antivaxx etc. are active hostile infowars campaigns. It is a duty of a society to protect its citizens against such efforts.

textgel 6y ago
With all due respect your comment history outlines you as a progressive and the first line you have on your profile is "You call it "alt-left", I proudly call it "Antifa".". Among the many aspects of your faith that I disagree with, one of the most utilised by its followers is its enthusiastic advocacy of false accusations against heretics in the pursuit of attacking them. And so while I don't know anything about qanon or infowars, your bad mouthing them is only lending them credibility; it is also shores up my belief that whatever your implicit definition of "duty of a society to protect its citizens against such efforts" is, I can assure you, we neither need nor want it.
- mschuster91 6y ago
  > it is also shores up my belief that whatever your implicit definition of "duty of a society to protect its citizens against such efforts" is, I can assure you, we neither need nor want it. I'm not just an antifascist, I'm German. My ancestors proved for the rest of the world where a worldview based on lies and hate (and qanon is nothing more than that) will lead. Their history is proof that a society must defend itself or it will collapse.
  - textgel 6y ago
    Again, your faith believes false accusations against perceived heretics are acceptable tactics; your word against them is less than empty. Your ancestors and plenty of other examples throughout history are proof where censorship and book burning lead. The principle of sunlight is the best disinfectant has proven time and again to be true and the only people who argue against it are those being shown to be wrong under the light. Yes it permits the odd crazies to exist on the fringe, that's fine; flat earthers anti-vaxers and the rest were pointed at and laughed at long before the recent desperate grab for censorship by authoritarians was made. Open access to information is only a problem in the eyes of those who want to misslead.