4 ms·

Here's a good overview of why posts disappear: https://taibbi.substack.com/p/why-has-ivermectin-become-a-dirty https://taibbi.substack.com/p/why-has-ivermectin

Here's a good overview of why posts disappear: https://taibbi.substack.com/p/why-has-ivermectin-become-a-dirty https://taibbi.substack.com/p/why-has-ivermectin-become-a-di...

nszceta 5y ago
I would like this translated into normal English. This is the basis of the argument of why posts disappear from the article, and I don't understand what the author is trying to say at all: > One of the challenges of the pandemic period is the degree to which science has become intertwined with politics. Arguments about the efficacy of mask use or ventilators, or the viability of repurposed drugs like hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin, or even the pandemic’s origins, were quashed from the jump in the American commercial press, which committed itself to a regime of simplified insta-takes made opposite to Donald Trump’s comments. With a few exceptions, Internet censors generally tracked with this conventional wisdom, which had the effect of moving conspiracy theories and real scientific debates alike far underground.
- mikedilger 5y ago
  Matt Taibbi supposes (in that paragraph) that their motivation in censoring scientific discussion of Ivermectin's effectiveness was to be "opposite to Donald Trump's comments" and thus to conform to one's own ideological tribe ... because if you don't conform, you risk being cancelled, don't you? And he bemoans that politics has corrupted real science and driven actual scientific debate underground. Refer also to the Solomon Asch conformity experiment which occurred during a previous episode of cancel culture called "McCarthyism". There are other theories. Some people have supposed that the motivations have to do with the money that big pharma would lose if they couldn't sell their vaccines because a safe and effective alternative was already available and proven, and therefore the conditions of the emergency use authorizations for the vaccines would become void. But nobody has any smoking gun evidence here that I'm aware of, it's just a plausible motivation. Some people might believe so strongly that vaccines are the only possible savior of humanity that anything which detracts from the success of the vaccine campaign will be devastating, and so they do what they can to shut it down. Bret argues this is illogical if Ivermectin works because all forms of immunity work together to build herd immunity. But logic is unfortunately lost on far too many people. More far fetched ideas include influence campaigns from foreign powers who aim to see America defeated. If they can influence the right people in the right way at the right time, they might be able to prolong the pandemic in America. I'm sure there are even more hypotheses as to why such censorship is being attempted.
- thu2111 5y ago
  I can see how that might prove difficult for a non-native speaker. Here's a version written in less fancy English. During COVID times, scientists have become political. Many scientific arguments were not written about in the American media, because journalists assumed that the truth was the opposite of whatever Donald Trump was saying. Tech firms mostly did the same thing. This means discussion of conspiracy theories and real scientific debates have both been suppressed, and now take place "underground" i.e. in non-mainstream forums.

Here's a good overview of why posts disappear: https://taibbi.substack.com/p/why-has-ivermectin-become-a-dirty https://taibbi.substack.com/p/why-has-ivermectin-become-a-di...

nszceta 5y ago

I would like this translated into normal English. This is the basis of the argument of why posts disappear from the article, and I don't understand what the author is trying to say at all: > One of the challenges of the pandemic period is the degree to which science has become intertwined with politics. Arguments about the efficacy of mask use or ventilators, or the viability of repurposed drugs like hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin, or even the pandemic’s origins, were quashed from the jump in the American commercial press, which committed itself to a regime of simplified insta-takes made opposite to Donald Trump’s comments. With a few exceptions, Internet censors generally tracked with this conventional wisdom, which had the effect of moving conspiracy theories and real scientific debates alike far underground.

mikedilger 5y ago
Matt Taibbi supposes (in that paragraph) that their motivation in censoring scientific discussion of Ivermectin's effectiveness was to be "opposite to Donald Trump's comments" and thus to conform to one's own ideological tribe ... because if you don't conform, you risk being cancelled, don't you? And he bemoans that politics has corrupted real science and driven actual scientific debate underground. Refer also to the Solomon Asch conformity experiment which occurred during a previous episode of cancel culture called "McCarthyism". There are other theories. Some people have supposed that the motivations have to do with the money that big pharma would lose if they couldn't sell their vaccines because a safe and effective alternative was already available and proven, and therefore the conditions of the emergency use authorizations for the vaccines would become void. But nobody has any smoking gun evidence here that I'm aware of, it's just a plausible motivation. Some people might believe so strongly that vaccines are the only possible savior of humanity that anything which detracts from the success of the vaccine campaign will be devastating, and so they do what they can to shut it down. Bret argues this is illogical if Ivermectin works because all forms of immunity work together to build herd immunity. But logic is unfortunately lost on far too many people. More far fetched ideas include influence campaigns from foreign powers who aim to see America defeated. If they can influence the right people in the right way at the right time, they might be able to prolong the pandemic in America. I'm sure there are even more hypotheses as to why such censorship is being attempted.
thu2111 5y ago
I can see how that might prove difficult for a non-native speaker. Here's a version written in less fancy English. During COVID times, scientists have become political. Many scientific arguments were not written about in the American media, because journalists assumed that the truth was the opposite of whatever Donald Trump was saying. Tech firms mostly did the same thing. This means discussion of conspiracy theories and real scientific debates have both been suppressed, and now take place "underground" i.e. in non-mainstream forums.