6 ms·

I think how we got to this position is key - people did try and explain why vaccines are safe and you should take them. And it didn’t work. The thing that doe

by Ardon 5y ago

I think how we got to this position is key - people did try and explain why vaccines are safe and you should take them. And it didn’t work. The thing that does lover vaccine hesitancy is banning people spreading misinformation. It’s unfortunate, but it’s the discovered strategy for saving lives.

commandlinefan 5y ago
> people did try and explain why vaccines are safe When? Where? I avoid vaccine debates and even so I can't help but come across all the conspiracy theories about the effectiveness of mRNA vaccines. The only counterpoint I've ever seen is "the science is too complicated for your feeble brain to comprehend, take the vaccine".
12elephant 5y ago
On the contrary, banning people makes people seek out their narrative even more. This idea that people aren't smart enough to make their own decisions and need you to spoon feed them the "right" information is the real problem here.
- evgen 5y ago
  No it really doesn’t. This has been demonstrated repeatedly online and the research so far is quite clear: if you make it harder to disseminate and discuss disinformation and hate speech then fewer people engage in the discussion or share the information. People may believe in stupid things, but lazy is even more powerful than stupid.
  - 12elephant 5y ago
    > fewer people engage in the discussion or share the information More like fewer people engage in the discussion or share the information _where those researchers are looking_. In reality, you're going to push people off Twitter and onto Gab, Parler, and Stormfront. You can cite all the research you want. I've seen these effects of censorship first hand. Just makes matters way worse. If you believe all these people with different opinions are simply stupid, you're going to have a bad time. And, in my experience, such statements are a good proxy for middling intelligence on the part of the speaker.
- commandlinefan 5y ago
  I'm more inclined to pay attention to the skeptics because they're the only ones saying anything. Their opponents are just saying "obey".
  - wait_a_minute 5y ago
    Yup, when you tear out someone’s tongue that just makes the skeptic community more adamant about finding out what they have to say and why they are saying it. The people who are just saying “obey” are the ones who want power over everyone else.
chasd00 5y ago
if you're going to ban information then you better be right 100% of the time. The bans on the lab leak thing blew all censorship credibility. That's the problem, if you're going to claim to be a "truth expert" then you better be right 100% of the time because the moment you're wrong you become part of the conspiracy.

by Ardon 5y ago

commandlinefan 5y ago

> people did try and explain why vaccines are safe When? Where? I avoid vaccine debates and even so I can't help but come across all the conspiracy theories about the effectiveness of mRNA vaccines. The only counterpoint I've ever seen is "the science is too complicated for your feeble brain to comprehend, take the vaccine".

12elephant 5y ago

On the contrary, banning people makes people seek out their narrative even more. This idea that people aren't smart enough to make their own decisions and need you to spoon feed them the "right" information is the real problem here.

evgen 5y ago
No it really doesn’t. This has been demonstrated repeatedly online and the research so far is quite clear: if you make it harder to disseminate and discuss disinformation and hate speech then fewer people engage in the discussion or share the information. People may believe in stupid things, but lazy is even more powerful than stupid.
- 12elephant 5y ago
  > fewer people engage in the discussion or share the information More like fewer people engage in the discussion or share the information _where those researchers are looking_. In reality, you're going to push people off Twitter and onto Gab, Parler, and Stormfront. You can cite all the research you want. I've seen these effects of censorship first hand. Just makes matters way worse. If you believe all these people with different opinions are simply stupid, you're going to have a bad time. And, in my experience, such statements are a good proxy for middling intelligence on the part of the speaker.
commandlinefan 5y ago
I'm more inclined to pay attention to the skeptics because they're the only ones saying anything. Their opponents are just saying "obey".
- wait_a_minute 5y ago
  Yup, when you tear out someone’s tongue that just makes the skeptic community more adamant about finding out what they have to say and why they are saying it. The people who are just saying “obey” are the ones who want power over everyone else.

chasd00 5y ago

if you're going to ban information then you better be right 100% of the time. The bans on the lab leak thing blew all censorship credibility. That's the problem, if you're going to claim to be a "truth expert" then you better be right 100% of the time because the moment you're wrong you become part of the conspiracy.