4 ms·

From skimming the article: * The CDC “errors” are from the early days of the COVID-19 crisis, when we didn’t know that much about COVID-19 and were still learn

From skimming the article: * The CDC “errors” are from the early days of the COVID-19 crisis, when we didn’t know that much about COVID-19 and were still learning about the virus. As just one example, the author seems to have a short memory: It was pretty hard to wear a mask all of the time when masks were not available to buy, so initially saving masks for front line medical workers until they were widely available was a sensible idea. * The allegations of corruption on Hunter Biden’s part are still considered a conspiracy theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biden%E2%80%93Ukraine_conspiracy_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biden%E2%80%93Ukraine_conspira... * Whenever I read an article which talks about the “establishment narrative”, alarm bells ring in my head. This is a common trope among conspiracy theory proponents. I’m disappointed this kind of article borderline espousing conspiracy theories made the front page of Ycombinator. @deng: I don’t think it serves Ycombinator’s interests to have this kind of article prominent. Edit: The article has been flagged. Good riddance to bad rubbish. The article used, for the CDC example, the fallacy that, in so many words, “since the CDC made some errors in the early days of COVID-19, the CDC is deliberately spreading disinformation to support a narrative”. No, COVID-19 was a new virus, there was a lot we didn’t know back in March of 2020 when we shut everything down, and the scientific consensus has changed as we got more facts to build conclusions from. Changing what we know based on new research is not evidence of spreading disinformation; that’s how science works.

treesprite82 6y ago
> * The allegations of corruption on Hunter Biden’s part are still considered a conspiracy theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biden%E2%80%93Ukraine_conspiracy_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biden%E2%80%93Ukraine_conspira... Breaking down Wikipedia's claims: > [...] containing purported emails of unknown authorship which suggested [...] > [...] but their authenticity and origin have not been determined [...] You can use the DKIM signature to verify that the "smoking gun" email is real - including contents, sender, and roughly when it was sent (before October 2015, when gmail changed signing key). > A reporter for The Wall Street Journal observed the PDFs' metadata showed they had been created in the fall of 2019, though the emails were supposedly from 2014 and 2015 Because a PDF compilation of emails (probably created by Mac Isaac, or NYP for their article) is not the original email file. > but once this was completed, the shop had no contact information for its owner, and nobody ever paid for it or came to pick it up [49] There are images of the quote with Hunter Biden's contact details on them, and story they cite only claims "he tried repeatedly to contact the client". > Criticism has been focused on Mac Isaac over inconsistencies in his accounts of how the laptop came into his possession and how he passed it on to Giuliani and the FBI.[49][46] The citations are Business Insider articles which both quote the same The Daily Beast article. The TDB article tries to imply contradictions with juxtaposition (like with "At one point, Mac Isaac claimed a special agent from the Baltimore office had contacted him after he alerted the FBI to the device’s existence. At another he claimed that he was emailing someone from the FBI about the laptop.") but doesn't actually present anything mutually exclusive or inconsistent with Mac Isaac's timeline of events.
- strenholme 6y ago
  Do you have a reliable source you can cite to back up your claims? If so, feel free to edit the Wikipedia article to correct any errors of fact (or statements not backed up by the sources they are citing) in the article. Wikipedia is the article anyone can edit, and, yes, they will embrace any point of view which comes from a reliable source. So far, no editors have come forward and been able to assert that Hunter Biden got a high paying job because of his father pulling strings using reliable (ideally, secondary) sources. Until such sources are found, the allegation remains a conspiracy theory.
  - treesprite82 6y ago
    > Do you have a reliable source you can cite to back up your claims? For my first claim: The "smoking gun email" and its DKIM signature are publicly available, and can be verified regardless of their original sources. I can guide you through the process if you wish. For my second claim: The fact that a PDF compilation of emails is not an original email file: http://www.pscs.co.uk/manual/email-file-types.html http://www.pscs.co.uk/manual/email-file-types.html For my third claim: Given Wikpedia's claim is already contradicted (or at the very least, not supported) by their cited article, I don't see why it's included in the first place. As far as I can tell it's just been made up by some editor. The original NYP article includes: https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/10/ComputerRepair-Invoice-Hunter-Biden-2.jpg https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/10/Comput... For my fourth claim: Again I feel it's a matter of the original source not supporting the claims made. I have no source for, and can't claim with certainty, that Mac Isaac has never said anything contradictory in any interviews (since that's akin to proving a negative) but I can point out that the original source presents no inconsistencies. > Wikipedia is the article anyone can edit, and, yes, they will embrace any point of view which comes from a reliable source. My IP range (and VPNs) are blocked, and the article is protected. If you have an existing account that meets the requirements then I'd appreciate if you could correct the article, at least on the matter of the third claim.
    - strenholme 6y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Biden%E2%80%93Ukraine_conspiracy_theory/Archive_3#DKIM_email_verification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Biden%E2%80%93Ukraine_con... The DKIM issue has been brought up, and there are legitimate reasons why that assertion is not included in the Wikipedia. Edit: If the Wikipedia article is making an assertion not backed up by the reliable source it cites, this is something which needs to be corrected. I don’t have time to look at it right now, but maybe I’ll have some time tonight to look at it and bring up the potential issue as needed.
baobabKoodaa 6y ago
> Changing what we know based on new research is not evidence of spreading disinformation; that's how science works. And how exactly is science supposed to do that when dissenting voices are censored as "disinformation"? If you want science to self-correct, you need to allow free speech around questions like "are masks useful".
- strenholme 6y ago
  Science goes through a process of peer review where they engage in a methodical process to make sure the evidence they are working with is reliable. Science is falsifiable: Any scientific theory can be contradicted by certain evidence appearing to contradict the theory. It’s not perfect, but it’s a lot better than making stuff up and posting it on the Internet without any evidence to back up the claims (which is what conspiracy theories do).
  - baobabKoodaa 6y ago
    You didn't answer my question. I don't need a condescending explanation of how science is supposed to work, I need an explanation of how science is supposed to work when dissenting voices are silenced. Remember, a year ago the "official line" in many western countries was that masks are useless and/or harmful, and there was a large-scale censorship effort against people who were claiming that masks were useful. Even though we now consider this to be a fact, it used to be labelled "disinformation" and censored. You think that science can work without freedom of speech? What a joke.
    - strenholme 6y ago
      It not a matter of censorship. It is a matter of distinguishing legitimate science from made-up conspiracy theories. People have the right to make up unscientific nonsense like “vaccines cause autism” or “masks do not help stop the spread of COVID-19”, but people also have the right to say “that’s unscientific nonsense”. Freedom of speech is not freedom from rebuttal.
      - 6y ago
tsimionescu 6y ago
> The CDC “errors” are from the early days of the COVID-19 crisis, when we didn’t know that much about COVID-19 and were still learning about the virus. As just one example, the author seems to have a short memory: It was pretty hard to wear a mask all of the time when masks were not available to buy, so initially saving masks for front line medical workers until they were widely available was a sensible idea. That's a bit of white-washing on your part (but the article in indeed pushing a bad narrative in addition to what I think is a good point in the title). The CDC and other national organizations knew very well at the time that masks were important to protect from the disease. Rather than recognizing that they were unable to provide the necessary masks to the population and had to prioritize their distribution, they knowingly lied about their effectiveness - deliberate disinformation, even if performed for a noble goal (debatable - it's also easy to see that it was convenient politically, instead of admitting the incompetence in preparing for such a pandemic ahead of time).
- strenholme 6y ago
  I’m not sure what the source for the narrative that “they knowingly lied about their effectiveness” comes from. I would need a reliable source for that. The mid-March version of the Wikipedia page states “The use of masks is recommended for those who suspect they have the virus and their caregivers but not for the general public” https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coronavirus_disease_2019&oldid=945283091 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coronavirus_disea... using CDC and WHO recommendations as a source. The WHO page from the time can be seen at https://web.archive.org/web/20200312051930/https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/when-and-how-to-use-masks https://web.archive.org/web/20200312051930/https://www.who.i... At the time, our scientific understanding was that COVID-19 mainly spread from infected surfaces, so the advice was geared towards that. As science learned more about COVID-19, we realized that it was mainly spread through the air, and could be by and large stopped with masks. Edit: This is going to be my last reply in this thread. It is unfortunate that @deng is not doing more to stop Ycombinator from being overrun by conspiracy theories. For an online forum to have a reasonable, intelligent discussion, you need to have moderation: Moderation against spam, and, yes, moderation against crank theories. Otherwise, the discussion board gets overrun with spam, or it gets overrun with unscientific notions. No, The Earth is not flat. Yes, we really landed on the moon in 1969. Yes, masks and the COVID-19 vaccine do help reduce the spread of COVID-19 and they do help save lives.

treesprite82 6y ago

> * The allegations of corruption on Hunter Biden’s part are still considered a conspiracy theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biden%E2%80%93Ukraine_conspiracy_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biden%E2%80%93Ukraine_conspira... Breaking down Wikipedia's claims: > [...] containing purported emails of unknown authorship which suggested [...] > [...] but their authenticity and origin have not been determined [...] You can use the DKIM signature to verify that the "smoking gun" email is real - including contents, sender, and roughly when it was sent (before October 2015, when gmail changed signing key). > A reporter for The Wall Street Journal observed the PDFs' metadata showed they had been created in the fall of 2019, though the emails were supposedly from 2014 and 2015 Because a PDF compilation of emails (probably created by Mac Isaac, or NYP for their article) is not the original email file. > but once this was completed, the shop had no contact information for its owner, and nobody ever paid for it or came to pick it up [49] There are images of the quote with Hunter Biden's contact details on them, and story they cite only claims "he tried repeatedly to contact the client". > Criticism has been focused on Mac Isaac over inconsistencies in his accounts of how the laptop came into his possession and how he passed it on to Giuliani and the FBI.[49][46] The citations are Business Insider articles which both quote the same The Daily Beast article. The TDB article tries to imply contradictions with juxtaposition (like with "At one point, Mac Isaac claimed a special agent from the Baltimore office had contacted him after he alerted the FBI to the device’s existence. At another he claimed that he was emailing someone from the FBI about the laptop.") but doesn't actually present anything mutually exclusive or inconsistent with Mac Isaac's timeline of events.

strenholme 6y ago
Do you have a reliable source you can cite to back up your claims? If so, feel free to edit the Wikipedia article to correct any errors of fact (or statements not backed up by the sources they are citing) in the article. Wikipedia is the article anyone can edit, and, yes, they will embrace any point of view which comes from a reliable source. So far, no editors have come forward and been able to assert that Hunter Biden got a high paying job because of his father pulling strings using reliable (ideally, secondary) sources. Until such sources are found, the allegation remains a conspiracy theory.
- treesprite82 6y ago
  > Do you have a reliable source you can cite to back up your claims? For my first claim: The "smoking gun email" and its DKIM signature are publicly available, and can be verified regardless of their original sources. I can guide you through the process if you wish. For my second claim: The fact that a PDF compilation of emails is not an original email file: http://www.pscs.co.uk/manual/email-file-types.html http://www.pscs.co.uk/manual/email-file-types.html For my third claim: Given Wikpedia's claim is already contradicted (or at the very least, not supported) by their cited article, I don't see why it's included in the first place. As far as I can tell it's just been made up by some editor. The original NYP article includes: https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/10/ComputerRepair-Invoice-Hunter-Biden-2.jpg https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/10/Comput... For my fourth claim: Again I feel it's a matter of the original source not supporting the claims made. I have no source for, and can't claim with certainty, that Mac Isaac has never said anything contradictory in any interviews (since that's akin to proving a negative) but I can point out that the original source presents no inconsistencies. > Wikipedia is the article anyone can edit, and, yes, they will embrace any point of view which comes from a reliable source. My IP range (and VPNs) are blocked, and the article is protected. If you have an existing account that meets the requirements then I'd appreciate if you could correct the article, at least on the matter of the third claim.
  - strenholme 6y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Biden%E2%80%93Ukraine_conspiracy_theory/Archive_3#DKIM_email_verification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Biden%E2%80%93Ukraine_con... The DKIM issue has been brought up, and there are legitimate reasons why that assertion is not included in the Wikipedia. Edit: If the Wikipedia article is making an assertion not backed up by the reliable source it cites, this is something which needs to be corrected. I don’t have time to look at it right now, but maybe I’ll have some time tonight to look at it and bring up the potential issue as needed.

baobabKoodaa 6y ago

> Changing what we know based on new research is not evidence of spreading disinformation; that's how science works. And how exactly is science supposed to do that when dissenting voices are censored as "disinformation"? If you want science to self-correct, you need to allow free speech around questions like "are masks useful".

strenholme 6y ago
Science goes through a process of peer review where they engage in a methodical process to make sure the evidence they are working with is reliable. Science is falsifiable: Any scientific theory can be contradicted by certain evidence appearing to contradict the theory. It’s not perfect, but it’s a lot better than making stuff up and posting it on the Internet without any evidence to back up the claims (which is what conspiracy theories do).
- baobabKoodaa 6y ago
  You didn't answer my question. I don't need a condescending explanation of how science is supposed to work, I need an explanation of how science is supposed to work when dissenting voices are silenced. Remember, a year ago the "official line" in many western countries was that masks are useless and/or harmful, and there was a large-scale censorship effort against people who were claiming that masks were useful. Even though we now consider this to be a fact, it used to be labelled "disinformation" and censored. You think that science can work without freedom of speech? What a joke.
  - strenholme 6y ago
    It not a matter of censorship. It is a matter of distinguishing legitimate science from made-up conspiracy theories. People have the right to make up unscientific nonsense like “vaccines cause autism” or “masks do not help stop the spread of COVID-19”, but people also have the right to say “that’s unscientific nonsense”. Freedom of speech is not freedom from rebuttal.
    - 6y ago

tsimionescu 6y ago

> The CDC “errors” are from the early days of the COVID-19 crisis, when we didn’t know that much about COVID-19 and were still learning about the virus. As just one example, the author seems to have a short memory: It was pretty hard to wear a mask all of the time when masks were not available to buy, so initially saving masks for front line medical workers until they were widely available was a sensible idea. That's a bit of white-washing on your part (but the article in indeed pushing a bad narrative in addition to what I think is a good point in the title). The CDC and other national organizations knew very well at the time that masks were important to protect from the disease. Rather than recognizing that they were unable to provide the necessary masks to the population and had to prioritize their distribution, they knowingly lied about their effectiveness - deliberate disinformation, even if performed for a noble goal (debatable - it's also easy to see that it was convenient politically, instead of admitting the incompetence in preparing for such a pandemic ahead of time).

strenholme 6y ago
I’m not sure what the source for the narrative that “they knowingly lied about their effectiveness” comes from. I would need a reliable source for that. The mid-March version of the Wikipedia page states “The use of masks is recommended for those who suspect they have the virus and their caregivers but not for the general public” https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coronavirus_disease_2019&oldid=945283091 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coronavirus_disea... using CDC and WHO recommendations as a source. The WHO page from the time can be seen at https://web.archive.org/web/20200312051930/https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/when-and-how-to-use-masks https://web.archive.org/web/20200312051930/https://www.who.i... At the time, our scientific understanding was that COVID-19 mainly spread from infected surfaces, so the advice was geared towards that. As science learned more about COVID-19, we realized that it was mainly spread through the air, and could be by and large stopped with masks. Edit: This is going to be my last reply in this thread. It is unfortunate that @deng is not doing more to stop Ycombinator from being overrun by conspiracy theories. For an online forum to have a reasonable, intelligent discussion, you need to have moderation: Moderation against spam, and, yes, moderation against crank theories. Otherwise, the discussion board gets overrun with spam, or it gets overrun with unscientific notions. No, The Earth is not flat. Yes, we really landed on the moon in 1969. Yes, masks and the COVID-19 vaccine do help reduce the spread of COVID-19 and they do help save lives.