4 ms·

I can see how information that contradicts the CDC falls under "Misleading content related to harmful health practices: Misleading health or medical content tha

by Jiro 5y ago

I can see how information that contradicts the CDC falls under "Misleading content related to harmful health practices: Misleading health or medical content that promotes or encourages others to engage in practices that may lead to serious physical or emotional harm to individuals, or serious public health harm." Of course, it wouldn't actually fall under anything since it's not misleading, but such things get interpreted by social media censorship boards as misleading. Also, the gun violence one may fall under "serious public health harm". There have been plenty of attempts to control guns using public health claims. https://www.apha.org/topics-and-issues/gun-violence https://www.apha.org/topics-and-issues/gun-violence

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
tablespoon 5y ago
Both interpretations seem like mighty big stretches to find this particular content as noncomplaiant with that policy. IMHO, if the policy gets stretched like that, then the issue isn't with the policy itself. I mean, you could make similar stretches to hypothetically ban discussion of tax increases, because of the serious emotional harm that would cause to wealthy people fearing the loss of their money. Honestly, the only issue with the actual text that I see is the reference to "emotional harm," given how subjective that is and how certain ideological propositions can be medicalized via that route. The rest of it is very reasonable, especially the paragraphs about civic processes and manipulated media.
- Jiro 5y ago
  Numerous prominent organizations have called gun control a public health issue including the Biden administration (https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/04/07/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administration-announces-initial-actions-to-address-the-gun-violence-public-health-epidemic/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases... , the Center for Disease Control (https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/firearms/fastfact.html https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/firearms/fastfact.htm... ), and the American Medical Association (https://www.ama-assn.org/topics/gun-violence https://www.ama-assn.org/topics/gun-violence ). It's not a stretch because it's already being done. The reason that it seems absurd that Google would ban discussion of tax increases as a public health issue is that there aren't anti-tax groups who are already (as in right now independently of Google) calling tax increases a public health issue. Calling gun control a public health issue may be absurd, but it's an absurdity which is in active use in the real world. If the Biden administration put out a press release stating that taxes were a public health issue, there might be more reason to worry that Google would use "public health" to censor "misinformation" about taxes.
- inglor_cz 5y ago
  "mighty big stretches" are actually fairly common. Ever been in hostile contact with, say, law enforcement? Marijuana in the US is federally banned because the Supreme Court ruled (in Gonzales vs. Raich [0]) that planting cannabis privately for your own use can have impact on interstate trade and thus is a matter for the Feds. If this isn't a mighty big stretch, then what? And if SCOTUS can do that, Google can do that as well. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich

by Jiro 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

tablespoon 5y ago

Both interpretations seem like mighty big stretches to find this particular content as noncomplaiant with that policy. IMHO, if the policy gets stretched like that, then the issue isn't with the policy itself. I mean, you could make similar stretches to hypothetically ban discussion of tax increases, because of the serious emotional harm that would cause to wealthy people fearing the loss of their money. Honestly, the only issue with the actual text that I see is the reference to "emotional harm," given how subjective that is and how certain ideological propositions can be medicalized via that route. The rest of it is very reasonable, especially the paragraphs about civic processes and manipulated media.

Jiro 5y ago
Numerous prominent organizations have called gun control a public health issue including the Biden administration (https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/04/07/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administration-announces-initial-actions-to-address-the-gun-violence-public-health-epidemic/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases... , the Center for Disease Control (https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/firearms/fastfact.html https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/firearms/fastfact.htm... ), and the American Medical Association (https://www.ama-assn.org/topics/gun-violence https://www.ama-assn.org/topics/gun-violence ). It's not a stretch because it's already being done. The reason that it seems absurd that Google would ban discussion of tax increases as a public health issue is that there aren't anti-tax groups who are already (as in right now independently of Google) calling tax increases a public health issue. Calling gun control a public health issue may be absurd, but it's an absurdity which is in active use in the real world. If the Biden administration put out a press release stating that taxes were a public health issue, there might be more reason to worry that Google would use "public health" to censor "misinformation" about taxes.
inglor_cz 5y ago
"mighty big stretches" are actually fairly common. Ever been in hostile contact with, say, law enforcement? Marijuana in the US is federally banned because the Supreme Court ruled (in Gonzales vs. Raich [0]) that planting cannabis privately for your own use can have impact on interstate trade and thus is a matter for the Feds. If this isn't a mighty big stretch, then what? And if SCOTUS can do that, Google can do that as well. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich