4 ms·

Easy fix for matters like this: citation. If you want to remove a video or other social media post, do so temporarily pending citation. Give people a way to bac

Easy fix for matters like this: citation. If you want to remove a video or other social media post, do so temporarily pending citation. Give people a way to back up their point of view with real data/research. If there is a conflict, put one of those warning banners beneath the video and link to the cited resource. Done. Otherwise, these companies look like oligarchs participating in low-key fascism.

__blockcipher__ 5y ago
The problem is that you still need someone to evaluate the research. I can find a citation that says thing X, and then a different citation that says !X. This is twice as much of a problem when public health authorities like the CDC will issue statements or guidance that is directly contrary to the clinical research, as has been done repeatedly in claiming that masks work to slow community transmission of SARS-2 despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary
- rglover 5y ago
  Then an anarchist approach is preferred. Leave everything up, link to the citation, and be done with it. The problem here is the drive to babysit people's minds. There's an arrogance of "who knows best" which creates this exact problem we're seeing. People need to put a bullet in their ego and shut up.
  - __blockcipher__ 5y ago
    Yes, I agree, and that's the world I want as well. One where we don't have this notion of centralized authorities who serve as sources of truth.
- fitzie 5y ago
  I disagree. for example, a journalist could simply ask the CDC about page 20, in this leaked presentation here:. https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/cdc-breakthrough-infections/94390e3a-5e45-44a5-ac40-2744e4e25f2e/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/cdc-breakthrough-infe... where it uses metrics of ~20% effective in protecting masks wearers from catching the disease in a model. instead, we have the media saying that rand is wrong, and CNN chasing doctors that dare say that masks don't prevent all spread. the media has long decided that some facts are best not shared, but now they are complicit with a censorship regime where we all know that masks don't work 100%, but we also know that we will get punished for saying it out loud. things that were called misinformation from CNN: - masks don't always work - vaccines sometimes have side effects - you will most likely survive covid - vitamin c and d will help you fight covid.
  - __blockcipher__ 5y ago
    To be clear I’m not saying there should be a centralized authority. I’m just saying that a “use citations” rule doesn’t get around the conundrum that somebody has to evaluate the citations.
aeternum 5y ago
The problem with this is there often is some shred of truth in any extreme claim that is pulled far out of context. A better approach might be to leave it up but flag it and link to a page that explains what parts of the claim are true and which are misconstrued or embellished. Social media excels at optimizing that one more engagement, leverage it here to lead people closer to the truth.
- rglover 5y ago
  > A better approach might be to leave it up but flag it and link to a page that explains what parts of the claim are true and which are misconstrued or embellished. No. That leads to potential for editorializing and taking us right back to square one. Treat people like sensible, intelligent adults.
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  That doesn't scale, though. Who's going to do the research as to what parts of the claim are true? Does YouTube have people with the medical research knowledge to do this? Do they have people with the knowledge who don't already have firmly entrenched positions on this question?
  - aeternum 5y ago
    It definitely scales. Snopes does a great job. People aren't all that creative when it comes to embellishing facts or perpetuating rumors.
    - aeternum 5y ago
      Well this didn't age well
djrogers 5y ago
Did you read the article or watch the offending video? Because he did cite research. Now you start requiring YouTube to decide what research is ok and which isn’t. [1] “YouTube banning me for 7 days for a video that quotes 2 peer reviewed articles saying cloth masks don’t work”
- rglover 5y ago
  Yes and I agree with Rand Paul for that very reason. He's not just foaming at the mouth like most politicians; he's an actual professional with decades of experience and backs his points up with real data.
  - atatatat 5y ago
    Can we get back to electing him President now?
  - atatatat 5y ago
    To my sibling comment: just kidding, first read this as Ron Paul.
keypusher 5y ago
I think this is a good idea, but even if they were to require a peer-reviewed citation in such cases, it's possible to find examples that somewhat support his view. Especially if you cherry pick quotes. For instance: > Novel coronavirus is believed to be tiny enough (0.08–0.14 μm) to penetrate through face mask, thus protection offered by cloth mask may be too low. > The efficacy of cloth face masks filtration varies and depends on the type of material used, number of layers, and degree of moisture in mask and fitting of mask on face. > Cloth face masks have limited efficacy in combating viral infection transmission. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7497125/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7497125/
ravenstine 5y ago
Where exactly would anyone get the time to read citations? That doesn't sound scalable for even a tiny website, but maybe I'm misunderstanding.
- rglover 5y ago
  That's up to the individual. The whole point is to go hands off but to provide the necessary information to aid people's thinking. The entire problem we face right now is due to meddling in the truth. Leave people alone, let them figure it (or not), and be done with it. Nature will take care of the rest.

__blockcipher__ 5y ago

The problem is that you still need someone to evaluate the research. I can find a citation that says thing X, and then a different citation that says !X. This is twice as much of a problem when public health authorities like the CDC will issue statements or guidance that is directly contrary to the clinical research, as has been done repeatedly in claiming that masks work to slow community transmission of SARS-2 despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary

rglover 5y ago
Then an anarchist approach is preferred. Leave everything up, link to the citation, and be done with it. The problem here is the drive to babysit people's minds. There's an arrogance of "who knows best" which creates this exact problem we're seeing. People need to put a bullet in their ego and shut up.
- __blockcipher__ 5y ago
  Yes, I agree, and that's the world I want as well. One where we don't have this notion of centralized authorities who serve as sources of truth.
fitzie 5y ago
I disagree. for example, a journalist could simply ask the CDC about page 20, in this leaked presentation here:. https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/cdc-breakthrough-infections/94390e3a-5e45-44a5-ac40-2744e4e25f2e/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/cdc-breakthrough-infe... where it uses metrics of ~20% effective in protecting masks wearers from catching the disease in a model. instead, we have the media saying that rand is wrong, and CNN chasing doctors that dare say that masks don't prevent all spread. the media has long decided that some facts are best not shared, but now they are complicit with a censorship regime where we all know that masks don't work 100%, but we also know that we will get punished for saying it out loud. things that were called misinformation from CNN: - masks don't always work - vaccines sometimes have side effects - you will most likely survive covid - vitamin c and d will help you fight covid.
- __blockcipher__ 5y ago
  To be clear I’m not saying there should be a centralized authority. I’m just saying that a “use citations” rule doesn’t get around the conundrum that somebody has to evaluate the citations.

aeternum 5y ago

The problem with this is there often is some shred of truth in any extreme claim that is pulled far out of context. A better approach might be to leave it up but flag it and link to a page that explains what parts of the claim are true and which are misconstrued or embellished. Social media excels at optimizing that one more engagement, leverage it here to lead people closer to the truth.

rglover 5y ago
> A better approach might be to leave it up but flag it and link to a page that explains what parts of the claim are true and which are misconstrued or embellished. No. That leads to potential for editorializing and taking us right back to square one. Treat people like sensible, intelligent adults.
AnimalMuppet 5y ago
That doesn't scale, though. Who's going to do the research as to what parts of the claim are true? Does YouTube have people with the medical research knowledge to do this? Do they have people with the knowledge who don't already have firmly entrenched positions on this question?
- aeternum 5y ago
  It definitely scales. Snopes does a great job. People aren't all that creative when it comes to embellishing facts or perpetuating rumors.
  - aeternum 5y ago
    Well this didn't age well

djrogers 5y ago

Did you read the article or watch the offending video? Because he did cite research. Now you start requiring YouTube to decide what research is ok and which isn’t. [1] “YouTube banning me for 7 days for a video that quotes 2 peer reviewed articles saying cloth masks don’t work”

rglover 5y ago
Yes and I agree with Rand Paul for that very reason. He's not just foaming at the mouth like most politicians; he's an actual professional with decades of experience and backs his points up with real data.
- atatatat 5y ago
  Can we get back to electing him President now?
- atatatat 5y ago
  To my sibling comment: just kidding, first read this as Ron Paul.

keypusher 5y ago

I think this is a good idea, but even if they were to require a peer-reviewed citation in such cases, it's possible to find examples that somewhat support his view. Especially if you cherry pick quotes. For instance: > Novel coronavirus is believed to be tiny enough (0.08–0.14 μm) to penetrate through face mask, thus protection offered by cloth mask may be too low. > The efficacy of cloth face masks filtration varies and depends on the type of material used, number of layers, and degree of moisture in mask and fitting of mask on face. > Cloth face masks have limited efficacy in combating viral infection transmission. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7497125/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7497125/

ravenstine 5y ago

Where exactly would anyone get the time to read citations? That doesn't sound scalable for even a tiny website, but maybe I'm misunderstanding.

rglover 5y ago
That's up to the individual. The whole point is to go hands off but to provide the necessary information to aid people's thinking. The entire problem we face right now is due to meddling in the truth. Leave people alone, let them figure it (or not), and be done with it. Nature will take care of the rest.