3 ms·

I haven’t opened your first link, second looks like pure conspiracy theories. Covid, China, Bill Gates, Epstein!!11 If you’re afraid of getting your DNA sequen

by murkt 5y ago

I haven’t opened your first link, second looks like pure conspiracy theories. Covid, China, Bill Gates, Epstein!!11 If you’re afraid of getting your DNA sequenced while doing PCR test, please read up on the process of test, equipment, materials and costs involved.

aww_dang 5y ago
The source is CBS news. >"I haven't bothered to read, but I'm dismissing it as a conspiracy theory" I hope you can appreciate the problems with that reasoning. Yes, there are costs involved in data collection. If the data is valuable, organizations will foot those costs. We've seen this in the tech sphere. Why is it hard to imagine it in the health/biosecurity realm?
- hanselot 5y ago
  Because he is paid to shill that view. Want proof? Go say the same thing somewhere else, on another public forum, you will get the same script (variations of it).
  - murkt 5y ago
    I am paid for expressing my opinion? How very nice of someone. Please wire me my moneys, haven’t received them yet!
    - hanselot 5y ago
      Its much cheaper to pay someone in the form of controversy, so they can virtue signal in public that they belong to tribe X, and that way they think it was their own idea. In your case, this would be, "Look at me, I have a unique perspective that just happens to align with what my tribe's think-tank has assigned for this topic". That is, if it is not just a pure monetary compensation, which I believe to be more likely, given how similar this shilling is to the shilling on 4chan.
  - aww_dang 5y ago
    Even if this were true, the accusation only derails the conversation. We are attempting to discuss the topic. Dismissing the speaker out of hand because he sounds a certain way isn't helpful. Similarly, dismissing an article because it "sounds like conspiracy theory" isn't helpful. There's a bit irony there.
    - hanselot 5y ago
      Why are you arguing with that rock? Well, we can't dismiss it's arguments purely based on its appearance, we must assume each rock to have agency and a valid point of view. How does a spam filter know which records are spam? Is it that it understands the inherent complexities of language, or perhaps it just learned that certain types of things resemble each other? I wonder. inb4 - Why bayesian spam filters are racist.

by murkt 5y ago

aww_dang 5y ago

The source is CBS news. >"I haven't bothered to read, but I'm dismissing it as a conspiracy theory" I hope you can appreciate the problems with that reasoning. Yes, there are costs involved in data collection. If the data is valuable, organizations will foot those costs. We've seen this in the tech sphere. Why is it hard to imagine it in the health/biosecurity realm?

hanselot 5y ago
Because he is paid to shill that view. Want proof? Go say the same thing somewhere else, on another public forum, you will get the same script (variations of it).
- murkt 5y ago
  I am paid for expressing my opinion? How very nice of someone. Please wire me my moneys, haven’t received them yet!
  - hanselot 5y ago
    Its much cheaper to pay someone in the form of controversy, so they can virtue signal in public that they belong to tribe X, and that way they think it was their own idea. In your case, this would be, "Look at me, I have a unique perspective that just happens to align with what my tribe's think-tank has assigned for this topic". That is, if it is not just a pure monetary compensation, which I believe to be more likely, given how similar this shilling is to the shilling on 4chan.
- aww_dang 5y ago
  Even if this were true, the accusation only derails the conversation. We are attempting to discuss the topic. Dismissing the speaker out of hand because he sounds a certain way isn't helpful. Similarly, dismissing an article because it "sounds like conspiracy theory" isn't helpful. There's a bit irony there.
  - hanselot 5y ago
    Why are you arguing with that rock? Well, we can't dismiss it's arguments purely based on its appearance, we must assume each rock to have agency and a valid point of view. How does a spam filter know which records are spam? Is it that it understands the inherent complexities of language, or perhaps it just learned that certain types of things resemble each other? I wonder. inb4 - Why bayesian spam filters are racist.