9 ms·

> Thank you, Linus for standing up to the wealth of misinformation out there and holding his ground. Being a pompous ass might feel good, especially when you t

• seattle_spring 5y ago
  Maybe so, but I've observed that attitude to be far more prevalent on the anti-vax side than the pro-science side. You don't really see people who advocate for the vaccine calling anyone who disagrees "sheeple," "NPCs," etc., nor do they whine about downvotes or "being silenced," or misattribute moderation to first amendment violations.
  • AndrewBissell 5y ago
    > You don't really see people who advocate for the vaccine calling anyone who disagrees "sheeple," "NPCs," etc No, the rough equivalents are "anti-vaxxer" or "crazy," there's even an "insane" right at the top of the Torvalds email. And they don't tend to complain about being silenced because that's a treatment they are often advocating for others and rarely if ever see applied to themselves.
  • mandmandam 5y ago
    Not all vaccines are the same, so pro science and anti vaxx are not always opposed. I am pro science, but science doesn't claim that all vaccines are safe. And let's not forget that pharma co's have tried very hard to make vaccines mandatory, to the point of bribing academics and officials, forming unaccountable PR groups, and in the not so distant past they've done truly horrific and inhuman things. After the lab-leak theory has gained traction recently, after being told for a year by Lancet and politicians and academics that it was "impossible", I would have thought that the idea of there being some "pro-science" monolith would have lost ground.
    • kaba0 5y ago
      > I am pro science, but science doesn't claim that all vaccines are safe Indeed. But science does claim that Pfizer, Moderna, etc COVID-vaccines are safe and you are un-scientific if you claim otherwise. They went through proper trials, and were accepted independently* by many countries. * not completely independently I’m sure, but my point is that even if you don’t trust your country at all, several other ones decided univocally that it is safe
      • ghoward 5y ago
        How can science claim they are safe when we haven't even had the chance to do tests for long-term effects yet?
        • kaba0 5y ago
          The vaccine’s matter is in your body for a day at most. The immune system is known for quite some time, and the immunization do happen. In what way could someone develop a side effect long after the vaccine? Of course medicine is data based, not necessarily about mechanisms, but at a point Occam’s razor has to apply. And either way, we would have seen by now any side effect since it has been injected into many millions for quite some time now.
          • ghoward 5y ago
            Long-term effects are just that: long-term. We can't know what long-term effects the vaccines have until they have been used for a long time, even if millions have had them.
      • jimmydorry 5y ago
        Claims != science. Any company is free to make any claim they want, and they can offer proof in the form of trials. These trials help us form opinions on the safety of a product, however, the long-term safety profile of novel innovations takes time to verify and trials can be manipulated in many subtle ways. The FDA and other bodies dictate what kind of testing and certification must happen before allowing the sale of such products. And in very rare cases will offer emergency approval that bypasses quite a lot of the trialing or cut short the standards that must be met. To claim any treatment is safe and that any skepticism prior to long-term trials is unscientific... flies in the face of all reason. Did we learn anything from: cigarrettes, Fen-Phen, Valdecoxib (Bextra), Pemoline (Cylert), Bromfenac (Duract), Levamisole (Ergamisol), Rofecoxib (Vioxx), Isotretinoin (Accutane), and many many more. All of these products were FDA approved, a feat these vaccines are yet to achieve.
• weatherlight 5y ago
  Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice. (Greys Law.) At this point in the pandemic, people really ought to know better, it's assumed they are bad actors. knowing that, It's hard to "be kind, be patient, and have a calm, productive discussion."
• JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > If you're seriously trying to convince someone they're wrong, you need to be kind, be patient, and have a calm, productive discussion I am doubtful someone spreading anti-vax nonsense can be convinced they’re wrong. (Emphasis on spreading, not just believing or questioning.) What one can do is inhibit the spread of their misinformation. For that purpose, given the stakes, being direct to the point of roughness can be warranted.
  • aantix 5y ago
    He just screamed at them. Getting angry is easy. Persuasion is the hard part.
    • m0llusk 5y ago
      You would need to consult with the original poster to be certain of that. What Linus posted included important facts such as the large number of lives saved and the shared nature of viral immunity. You are reacting primarily to tone as if health in a social context is purely about good feelings.
      • aantix 5y ago
        When Linus starts out with "Please keep your insane" - the reader/original poster will enter a defensive mode. Imagine that internal monologue - "Am I insane? I'm smart? I'm an analytic person. Why is he calling me insane? HE'S the insane one!" Because Linus thinks this is a logical fight. But it's not. Information is _not_ all that's needed to be persuaded. And if he really care about the vax effort, his efforts would be focused on pulling others over to the vax side, not drawing the line thicker by belittling comments.
        • JumpCrisscross 5y ago
          > When Linus starts out with "Please keep your insane" - the reader/original poster will enter a defensive mode You're assuming the goal is convincing the original poster. Given that goal, you are correct. The counterargument: OP doesn't matter. Their effect on third parties is key. Reasonably engaging with OP validates their thinking. (Which, to reiterate, is nonsense.) Yes– calm, patient rhetoric has a higher chance of succeeding with them. But it's also likely to leave bystanders neutral or open to OP's arguments. Excoriating OP guarantees they'll hate you. But it increases the chance that third parties get the message. You're a good soul. You care about OP. We're...well, we're bastards. To us, OP is beyond saving. What matters is the people around her. The people on the internet, who might passively read her drivel and believe it and skip vaccination. There are more of them than there are her, and they–unlike her–didn't choose to be in their position.
• tux3 5y ago
  > Social IQ isn't really HN's forte. Rude and uncalled for, even after your edit. Patient discussion is ineffective on people who are acting in bad faith. It is counterproductive. There is no debate to be had. No one is genuinely trying to learn anything here. By giving con artists and dangerous vaccine conspiracies a space, you legitimize their line of questionning. LKML is not a place to send anti-vax emails or to be "just asking questions". Deplatforming works.
  • dvt 5y ago
    > Rude and uncalled for, even after your edit. I was just correcting the term in the edit, but I agree I'm being a bit inflammatory. > Deplatforming works. No it doesn't. The entire history of Western Liberalism—since the Magna Carta onwards—teaches us that censorship is quite literally never the answer.
    • Nursie 5y ago
      If anything, social media and the modern world have show us repeatedly that the marketplace of ideas is a fallacy.
    • kaba0 5y ago
      > No it doesn't. The entire history of Western Liberalism—since the Magna Carta onwards—teaches us that censorship is quite literally never the answer. There is basically almost no precedent to todays problem of misinformation spread, so historical examples are near useless. Censorship is a trivial problem to overcome in the modern world contrary to the last century’s vision, one can’t really hide anything on the internet. The censored information itself will be available in some way. What is much more effective in preventing information flow is the other direction, obfuscation or overloading of information. A great example of it is an older Russian voting fraud, where video footage leaked of a man repeatedly throwing in ballots. It got quickly shared over Twitter with the name of the town in hashtags — there was no chance of censoring that. The solution was to spam twitter with unrelated bullshit with #NameOfTown, effectively putting out the flame. And unfortunately bullshit like antivaxx, anti-climatechange, and political campaigns do use this technique very effectively to counter the usually more complex scientific arguments. People prefer taking only a few logical steps instead of the whole “we create the replica of parts of the virus by injecting the …”. Unfortunately I don’t know what would be a solution to this. Perhaps better education..
• Nursie 5y ago
  So what is the right way to deal with people using a technical mailing list to spread misinformation about vaccines in the midst of a pandemic? Kittens and sweet tea?
• outworlder 5y ago
  Linus is not in the wrong here. You have an anti-vax spouting BS on the Linux Kernel dev list of all places. It's absolutely not the right venue for that. He could have just expelled the idiot from the list. He chose not to do that. Some people will listen to (perceived) authority. Linus has a large following. It's fair to say that a non-zero number of individuals may be persuaded by his strong stance. I doubt the person that he was replying to will listen to anything, but if anyone else does, it's a win. If someone is claiming that a person is "shedding" mRNA, the point of education is gone. It's ok if someone says they are unsure about this 'new' technology - you can then sit down with them calmly and explain how all of this works. However, if they are just parroting anti-vax talking points, they should be shutdown and quick. They have long stopped listening to reason, and are on the "vaccines cause magnetism" territory. They are actively trying to spread even more misinformation. This should be contained just like we contain viruses. It's not really up for debate. Don't like a particular vaccine? Try to get another one if you can. Don't try to prevent others from getting it based on superstition.
  • slowmovintarget 5y ago
    > They are actively trying to spread even more misinformation. This should be contained just like we contain viruses. This is the original definition of "meme" rooted in evolutionary biology. Disinfecting with liberal doses of reason, frequently, and vehemently is certainly warranted.
  • fomine3 5y ago
    Anti-vax on LKML... I wish it's just dislike about DEC VAX.
  • tekknik 5y ago
    > They are actively trying to spread even more misinformation. This should be contained just like we contain viruses. It's not really up for debate. Don't like a particular vaccine? Try to get another one if you can. Here we are again with the force and control. Shutting down “misinformation” means you must be able to define what “misinformation” is. We’ve made mistakes on this many times historically and we still have groups of people running around and saying “shut up and listen”. nothing will get accomplished like this. > Don't try to prevent others from getting it based on superstition. This I actually agree with.
• version_five 5y ago
  This is a good point. Such comments (Linus') are much more for preaching to the choir than to try and change people's minds. One thing I'd add (or hypothesize anyway) is that in these kind of debates, I don't believe the crux of the disagreement is a misunderstanding of the technical points of why it works. It's more a natural reaction to people being told they have to do something, that causes an adverse reaction in many people (for clarity, being told causes the reaction, I'm not talking about the vaccine). So people end up pushing back, which includes aggressively and sometimes even ridiculously questioning the underlying facts. The same holds for climate change for example. People get caught, often untenably, in the minutia of the technical arguments, when it has much more to do imo with a debate over wealth redistribution or rolling back standard of living. Decoupling the political aspects about what we should do as a response, from the scientific aspects of cause and effect would go a long way. The problem though would be in that case, politicians would lose the "science tells us" rhetorical device, and actually have to have an adult conversation with their constituents about how we move forward
  • stjohnswarts 5y ago
    It's not Linus job to give anti-vax people a platform on a kernel mailing list. It's his job to nip it in the bud and let them know why he will cut them from the list if they keep up the garbage antivax rhetoric.
• faitswulff 5y ago
  Actually, deplatforming, shaming trolls, and shifting the Overton window back probably works [0] [0]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/16/misinformation-trump-twitter/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/16/misinfo...
  • ttt0 5y ago
    Yes, and don't forget about gaslighting that this isn't actually happening.
• bsder 5y ago
  > explaining how traditional vaccines work, how mRNA works, how DNA works, and so on. 1) You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into. 2) Lots of people do not have the brain power to understand vaccines and they will simply follow the herd. Part of the reason anti-vax gets such a boost is because it is considered an "acceptable" position to follow by "respectable" people like the "natural is the only good stuff" dipshits in Marin county (who regularly give us Measles and Pertussis outbreaks). Yes, you can try to reason with individuals. However, you also need to make stupid positions socially unacceptable so that the part of the herd who don't have the capacity to understand don't go following people willing to lead them off a cliff.
• qpwoeirut 5y ago
  I agreed with you until the last paragraph, where it seems to me like you just fell into the trap you were warning us about. Not sure if that was your intention, but that's what it looks like. The first part is definitely true though. Calling somebody an idiot is probably one of the worst ways to get them to agree with you, even if they are spouting idiocy. I won't pretend I have a solution to anti-vax beliefs, but simply calling them stupid won't make them disappear.
• moraziel 5y ago
  What other options does Linus have by your logic, then? 1) remove the person's comments 2) let the person's comments stand unchallenged 3) engage in a lengthy, potentially endless discussion with this person who is highly unlikely to change their mind None of these seem like great options. Linus probably recognizes that he has virtually zero chance of persuading this person's opinion. He probably also recognizes that a reader who comes across these outlandish claims unchallenged may get the wrong impression that these views are somehow being embraced by the community. As such he is absolutely correct in briefly explaining that the vaccines are safe and effective. And being a pompous ass is kinda Linus' thing. :shrug:
• alkonaut 5y ago
  That person may or may not be s lost cause but in that particular forum, Linus has all the authority he needs. He might have made an antivaxxer an even stauncher antivaxxer but the message is received by hundreds of others. I absolutely agree that this tone isn’t how you persuade someone. It’s not how you’d talk in private. But that’s not what happens here. This is hopefully a net positive despite not persuading the poster he replied to.
• splithalf 5y ago
  He doesn’t need to because as he notes, the virus is waning because better people are getting the mRNA version, not just full blown covid which the non-vaccinated will be getting on random occasions many months or even years from now.
• jamal-kumar 5y ago
  I like just getting up and leaving without saying anything as soon as I realize someone's position on this, even if there is social obligations involved. It's a good way to send a signal without any real drama and these people are arrogant and grating to be around anyways
• Klonoar 5y ago
  Have we watched the same Linus for the past few decades? This is very tame, all things considered, and he does take the time to try and educate the individual on the matter. I for one appreciate him doing this.
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• stjohnswarts 5y ago
  No he is shaming a person who needs shaming, they think they can project their BS without getting fact checked. It doesn't work like that, you are gonna have to have a thick skin if you want STEM people to listen to your anti-vax crap if that's the way you lean, that's life. Being an idiot isn't a protected group.
• raindropm 5y ago
  He actually explain things in details after bashing him, so yeah,.. also it's Linus we're talking about, people used to his direct-and-borderline-rude style already anyway. I agree that the ideal approach is talking like grown-up, educated people and not just shouting in face, but it also depends on who're you talking to and how firm their belief in something are, too. Some require a good beating with virtual baseball bat a few times for them to start listen.. :p