6 ms·

A lot of this is starting to remind me of the way Galileo and Darwin were treated for announcing their breakthroughs. I know nothing about this drug Maduro is t

A lot of this is starting to remind me of the way Galileo and Darwin were treated for announcing their breakthroughs. I know nothing about this drug Maduro is touting, but I can't help worrying that one of these days somebody is going to find an actual cure and the world will never know about it because big social media companies exile them for wrongthink.

dannyw 6y ago
You don't announce the discovery of a miracle cure via social media, you announce it via clinical trial papers.
- capableweb 6y ago
  You're just exemplifying the point. Who says you have to announce something a specific way first time? Back in the days it would be "you can't just publish trial papers, it has to go through the church"
  - marcosdumay 6y ago
    > Who says you have to announce something a specific way first time? Technically, at our current World state, government regulations say that. And yeah, you have to have the correct credentials and submit your paper to the correct institutions. Superficially, the system is architectured exactly like the one you are complaining, while in a deeper level every component works in a completely different way. What in practice means that it right now works quite well (could improve, but it works), but it's just a series of isolated institution failings (instead of a full system failure) away from becoming like the other. So, well, keep those institutions in check, but unless somebody comes up with a better system design, there's little point on complaining about it.
    - nradov 6y ago
      Which government regulations are those? Could you please provide a CFR citation?
      - pessimizer 6y ago
        The World Fact Check Act of 2023.
  - klyrs 6y ago
    Yes, back in the day, the church would censor evidence that it disagreed with. Today, we demand evidence to back up claims whether or not we want to believe them.
- splithalf 6y ago
  Peer review is “social media.”
- dpweb 6y ago
  The problem with that is, if it's not amplified on social media, it doesn't exist. There were trials where it was shown that sufficient Vitamin D levels (most people are deficient) is very effective in preventing COVID. It got minor attention, but no-one is pursuing it on a widespread basis. Maybe it works maybe not, but even if there were clinical trials, it gets crowded out by what's being widely circulated in the media.
  - sofixa 6y ago
    It must be your bubble/country, because in France it has been said and recommended by the Health Ministry that it probably helps, and doctors prescribe supplements with Vitamin D en masse.
  - lupire 6y ago
    Vitamin D has been recommended forever for general health and is available over the counter. Nothing is stopping people from taking and giving vitamin D in huge doses.
- appleflaxen 6y ago
  the medium you use does not establish the truth of your claim.
  - dredmorbius 6y ago
    "Peer reviewed scientific journal" is, at least in theory, a process as much as a medium, and the process at least makes an attempt to screen the worst misinformation or least rigorous scientific methodology through the mechanism of peer review. (That it often fails at this isn't a point in dispute. The fact that the medium entails a process and that the process, at least nominally, serves truth is.) There's also the reputational role that such journals serve, effectively transferring the trust bestowed on the journal to the authors appearing within it, where trust is a belief extended beyond the extent of verifiable fact though not in opposition to them (as in the case of blind faith). To that extent, and in a world in which each individual receiving a piece of information cannot independently assess and verify that information, your premise is in large part false: the medium used does serve to indicate the truth of a claim. (As someone who's made a point of publishing pseudonymousely and in numerous online, unreviewed media, I'm aware of the challenges of trying to assert facts, even those which are reasonably independently verifiable, without the benefits of a persistent and highly-established identity or other indicia of trust, reputation, or credentialing. In balance I prefer the freedoms that come with this, though the challenges are also considerable.)
- dredmorbius 6y ago
  How did Galileo and Darwin announce their discoveries?
- totony 6y ago
  >clinical trial papers There are multiple occasions in history where a landmark paper was laughed at just to be proven right later. It hardly matter the medium you use to publish.
iends 6y ago
Social media isn’t really the proper avenue for vetting science.
- Mountain_Skies 6y ago
  Social media companies aren't really the proper vetters of science.
  - crakhamster01 6y ago
    They don't claim to be. All they're doing is applying existing scientific consensus to new, unverified claims. If after going through legitimate peer review, this treatment Maduro is touting proves to be effective, you can be sure it will be allowed into the discussion as well. Social media companies take on immense legal liability when they allow high-profile figures to promote unproven medical treatments. The current approach obviously loses a lot of nuance, but the alternative is opening themselves up to litigation when, for example, users ingest fish tank cleaner after hearing from the President that there's a miracle drug which goes by the same name [1]. [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/52012242 https://www.bbc.com/news/52012242
A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
In a sense, we already had some taste of tech-powers-that-are blocking information that ended up being true ( Biden's Hunter drug issues ). edit: I am going to add some sources, since I am not certain why the downvoting is taking place on this particular comment. Not sure how the statement is controversial. [Biden himself admits issues with drugs]https://www.businessinsider.com/hunter-biden-opens-about-addiction-struggles-divorce-new-yorker-2019-7 https://www.businessinsider.com/hunter-biden-opens-about-add... [Same thing only in his book]https://people.com/politics/hunter-biden-to-release-memoir-detailing-substance-abuse-recovery/ https://people.com/politics/hunter-biden-to-release-memoir-d...
- nullserver 6y ago
  It makes Biden look bad. If the issue had gotten full press coverage if might have flipped some states. It’s also a reminder that tech companies can now decide elections. Angry denial is easier then rational thought.
- lupire 6y ago
  "Hunter Biden's drug issues" were never blocked.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
    I guess I will bite. What was blocked then?
scythe 6y ago
People promoting ivermectin have been making claims with appropriate expressed confidence. It seems to have decent evidence, too.
TulliusCicero 6y ago
They laughed at Jesus. They laughed at Ghandi. But they also laughed at Bozo the clown.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
Kalium 6y ago
It's worth bearing in mind that Galileo was not treated poorly for his scientific advances. He was treated poorly because his scientific claims tended to run in advance of what he could prove, because he made an ass of himself when his peers pointed this out, and then he went on to antagonize the temporal powers that be.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
Klinky 6y ago
Social media already reminds me of an era where the town idiot's voice is amplified louder than the Darwins' or the Galileos'.

dannyw 6y ago

You don't announce the discovery of a miracle cure via social media, you announce it via clinical trial papers.

capableweb 6y ago
You're just exemplifying the point. Who says you have to announce something a specific way first time? Back in the days it would be "you can't just publish trial papers, it has to go through the church"
- marcosdumay 6y ago
  > Who says you have to announce something a specific way first time? Technically, at our current World state, government regulations say that. And yeah, you have to have the correct credentials and submit your paper to the correct institutions. Superficially, the system is architectured exactly like the one you are complaining, while in a deeper level every component works in a completely different way. What in practice means that it right now works quite well (could improve, but it works), but it's just a series of isolated institution failings (instead of a full system failure) away from becoming like the other. So, well, keep those institutions in check, but unless somebody comes up with a better system design, there's little point on complaining about it.
  - nradov 6y ago
    Which government regulations are those? Could you please provide a CFR citation?
    - pessimizer 6y ago
      The World Fact Check Act of 2023.
- klyrs 6y ago
  Yes, back in the day, the church would censor evidence that it disagreed with. Today, we demand evidence to back up claims whether or not we want to believe them.
splithalf 6y ago
Peer review is “social media.”
dpweb 6y ago
The problem with that is, if it's not amplified on social media, it doesn't exist. There were trials where it was shown that sufficient Vitamin D levels (most people are deficient) is very effective in preventing COVID. It got minor attention, but no-one is pursuing it on a widespread basis. Maybe it works maybe not, but even if there were clinical trials, it gets crowded out by what's being widely circulated in the media.
- sofixa 6y ago
  It must be your bubble/country, because in France it has been said and recommended by the Health Ministry that it probably helps, and doctors prescribe supplements with Vitamin D en masse.
- lupire 6y ago
  Vitamin D has been recommended forever for general health and is available over the counter. Nothing is stopping people from taking and giving vitamin D in huge doses.
appleflaxen 6y ago
the medium you use does not establish the truth of your claim.
- dredmorbius 6y ago
  "Peer reviewed scientific journal" is, at least in theory, a process as much as a medium, and the process at least makes an attempt to screen the worst misinformation or least rigorous scientific methodology through the mechanism of peer review. (That it often fails at this isn't a point in dispute. The fact that the medium entails a process and that the process, at least nominally, serves truth is.) There's also the reputational role that such journals serve, effectively transferring the trust bestowed on the journal to the authors appearing within it, where trust is a belief extended beyond the extent of verifiable fact though not in opposition to them (as in the case of blind faith). To that extent, and in a world in which each individual receiving a piece of information cannot independently assess and verify that information, your premise is in large part false: the medium used does serve to indicate the truth of a claim. (As someone who's made a point of publishing pseudonymousely and in numerous online, unreviewed media, I'm aware of the challenges of trying to assert facts, even those which are reasonably independently verifiable, without the benefits of a persistent and highly-established identity or other indicia of trust, reputation, or credentialing. In balance I prefer the freedoms that come with this, though the challenges are also considerable.)
dredmorbius 6y ago
How did Galileo and Darwin announce their discoveries?
totony 6y ago
>clinical trial papers There are multiple occasions in history where a landmark paper was laughed at just to be proven right later. It hardly matter the medium you use to publish.

iends 6y ago

Social media isn’t really the proper avenue for vetting science.

Mountain_Skies 6y ago
Social media companies aren't really the proper vetters of science.
- crakhamster01 6y ago
  They don't claim to be. All they're doing is applying existing scientific consensus to new, unverified claims. If after going through legitimate peer review, this treatment Maduro is touting proves to be effective, you can be sure it will be allowed into the discussion as well. Social media companies take on immense legal liability when they allow high-profile figures to promote unproven medical treatments. The current approach obviously loses a lot of nuance, but the alternative is opening themselves up to litigation when, for example, users ingest fish tank cleaner after hearing from the President that there's a miracle drug which goes by the same name [1]. [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/52012242 https://www.bbc.com/news/52012242

A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago

In a sense, we already had some taste of tech-powers-that-are blocking information that ended up being true ( Biden's Hunter drug issues ). edit: I am going to add some sources, since I am not certain why the downvoting is taking place on this particular comment. Not sure how the statement is controversial. [Biden himself admits issues with drugs]https://www.businessinsider.com/hunter-biden-opens-about-addiction-struggles-divorce-new-yorker-2019-7 https://www.businessinsider.com/hunter-biden-opens-about-add... [Same thing only in his book]https://people.com/politics/hunter-biden-to-release-memoir-detailing-substance-abuse-recovery/ https://people.com/politics/hunter-biden-to-release-memoir-d...

nullserver 6y ago
It makes Biden look bad. If the issue had gotten full press coverage if might have flipped some states. It’s also a reminder that tech companies can now decide elections. Angry denial is easier then rational thought.
lupire 6y ago
"Hunter Biden's drug issues" were never blocked.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
  I guess I will bite. What was blocked then?

scythe 6y ago

People promoting ivermectin have been making claims with appropriate expressed confidence. It seems to have decent evidence, too.

TulliusCicero 6y ago

They laughed at Jesus. They laughed at Ghandi. But they also laughed at Bozo the clown.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

Kalium 6y ago

It's worth bearing in mind that Galileo was not treated poorly for his scientific advances. He was treated poorly because his scientific claims tended to run in advance of what he could prove, because he made an ass of himself when his peers pointed this out, and then he went on to antagonize the temporal powers that be.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

Klinky 6y ago

Social media already reminds me of an era where the town idiot's voice is amplified louder than the Darwins' or the Galileos'.