3 ms·

Not for lack of trying however. Bear in mind the big tech companies all adopted an explicit policy of, "information that disagrees with the WHO is forbidden" an

Not for lack of trying however. Bear in mind the big tech companies all adopted an explicit policy of, "information that disagrees with the WHO is forbidden" and proceeded to ban lots of qualified commentators for trying to present non WHO approved information. They did this with the full approval and encouragement of the WHO itself. I'm slightly disturbed by the casualness of this thread actually. The WHO is not merely some random organisation, one of many providing information in an open environment. It commands the loyalty of many powerful people who just automatically assume it is correct, and as such has proven basically unkillable. Trump realised it was corrupted and tried to defund it, that lasted right up until Biden rolled everything back. Other countries have also been defunding it which is why the Gates Foundation is now such a large donor. How should society handle an organisation that is so clearly inadequate and even dangerous yet which commands blind adherence from the richest and most powerful people in the world, people who can and do seriously interfere with the flow of information?

mistermann 5y ago
Historically you could maybe fight back with better speech, except now you're also up against internet platform moderation, and the powerful conspiracy theory heuristic that's been installed into hundreds of millions (billions?) of minds, that is frequently invoked in a (coincidentally) coordinated manner by independent journalism organizations (followed by responsible, scientific thinking citizens) when epistemic normalization is called for.
SllX 5y ago
I read the narrative a bit differently than you: in the face of misinformation from an international health organization and friends, private society prevailed in figuring out WTF was actually going on, eventually, and WHO critics were able to get their message out. This is also one of the reasons I have argued vigorously against over-regulating tech companies and their moderation practices: they deserve the chance to shoot themselves in the foot with gusto, and lose or win credibility with their user base dependent upon how they react to societal changes. It is a slow painful process, but society is developing antibodies to their practices and there are no shortcuts, no regulatory equivalent of an mRNA vaccine that won’t just turn a privileged few into quasi-public entities. If we can avoid doing that, social networks will likely go through a cycle of fragmentation over time that will counteract any kind of centralized planning or coordination between a few big giants. So what do we do about the WHO? You’re asking the wrong question there. Do what you did to protect yourself and your loved ones this time and recognize, as was obvious since at least February 2020, that the WHO isn’t to be taken as the source of truth on anything. It’s an offshoot of a diplomatic forum and acts like it because that is its nature. Even if the rank and file are doing good work, the officers are from countries that don’t trust each other, and have interests other than what their official role is. That doesn’t render it completely useless, but it isn’t completely useful either. You can’t control what allegiances other people have, only account for them.
- thu2111 5y ago
  For what it's worth, I agree with you w.r.t. tech firms. We can observe the unsatisfactory nature of their practices without concluding regulation is the answer. As for the WHO, I wish I could simply ignore them as easily as I ignore what Facebook do. Facebook's power is limited to doing stuff on their platforms, more or less, and whoever they can influence via that. The WHO directly commands national governments who then command the rest of us. Dysfunction at that level filters down to the whole world.
tinus_hn 5y ago
As far as I have seen the problem with this kind of institutions, and there are many also at the national level of countries is that the community appears to have forgotten that science demands that not everyone agrees on everything. Instead blind adherence has been enforced with dissidents dismissed as loons. That all sounds like a great idea but inevitably it turns out the purportedly enlightened organizations, like everyone, are not always right. Perhaps it’s an insight into how life must have been when religious dogma ruled the world.

mistermann 5y ago

Historically you could maybe fight back with better speech, except now you're also up against internet platform moderation, and the powerful conspiracy theory heuristic that's been installed into hundreds of millions (billions?) of minds, that is frequently invoked in a (coincidentally) coordinated manner by independent journalism organizations (followed by responsible, scientific thinking citizens) when epistemic normalization is called for.

SllX 5y ago

I read the narrative a bit differently than you: in the face of misinformation from an international health organization and friends, private society prevailed in figuring out WTF was actually going on, eventually, and WHO critics were able to get their message out. This is also one of the reasons I have argued vigorously against over-regulating tech companies and their moderation practices: they deserve the chance to shoot themselves in the foot with gusto, and lose or win credibility with their user base dependent upon how they react to societal changes. It is a slow painful process, but society is developing antibodies to their practices and there are no shortcuts, no regulatory equivalent of an mRNA vaccine that won’t just turn a privileged few into quasi-public entities. If we can avoid doing that, social networks will likely go through a cycle of fragmentation over time that will counteract any kind of centralized planning or coordination between a few big giants. So what do we do about the WHO? You’re asking the wrong question there. Do what you did to protect yourself and your loved ones this time and recognize, as was obvious since at least February 2020, that the WHO isn’t to be taken as the source of truth on anything. It’s an offshoot of a diplomatic forum and acts like it because that is its nature. Even if the rank and file are doing good work, the officers are from countries that don’t trust each other, and have interests other than what their official role is. That doesn’t render it completely useless, but it isn’t completely useful either. You can’t control what allegiances other people have, only account for them.

thu2111 5y ago
For what it's worth, I agree with you w.r.t. tech firms. We can observe the unsatisfactory nature of their practices without concluding regulation is the answer. As for the WHO, I wish I could simply ignore them as easily as I ignore what Facebook do. Facebook's power is limited to doing stuff on their platforms, more or less, and whoever they can influence via that. The WHO directly commands national governments who then command the rest of us. Dysfunction at that level filters down to the whole world.

tinus_hn 5y ago

As far as I have seen the problem with this kind of institutions, and there are many also at the national level of countries is that the community appears to have forgotten that science demands that not everyone agrees on everything. Instead blind adherence has been enforced with dissidents dismissed as loons. That all sounds like a great idea but inevitably it turns out the purportedly enlightened organizations, like everyone, are not always right. Perhaps it’s an insight into how life must have been when religious dogma ruled the world.