14 ms·

Of course it will. Welcome to the new propaganda. Same as the old propaganda. Free speech is the act of standing up for those who you disagree with simply beca

Of course it will. Welcome to the new propaganda. Same as the old propaganda. Free speech is the act of standing up for those who you disagree with simply because you believe they have the right to be heard. In today's world of "woke" content creators, everyone seems to miss this point. What started out as fairly clear cut issues such as racism and homophobia has now bled into grey areas around vaccines and gain of function research. On the latter, should we not be concerned about this? We're in the middle of a global pandemic and we're not allowed to discuss whether GoF research is too risky? We're not allowed to discuss the nuances of what a "lab leak" may really entail? For example, I think the theory that a researcher collecting specimens from the wild accidentally infecting people in wuhan or themselves holds a lot of merit. Yet, it cannot be discussed. We should be outraged. And, back on the topic of anti-vaxers. They kind of have a point. Why should they trust the government, the CDC, the WHO and the like? What have they done to prove they are trustworthy at this point? Shutting down open discussion around this topic will only make the situation worse, not better.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
EL_Loco 5y ago
Well, in the field of immunization, the WHO has done quite a lot since its creation.
- artificialLimbs 5y ago
  In the field of rape as well. https://www.mypanhandle.com/health/panel-finds-80-alleged-abuse-cases-tied-to-whos-congo-work/ https://www.mypanhandle.com/health/panel-finds-80-alleged-ab...
swader999 5y ago
Censoring discussion in an environment of coercive mandates. Anyone working for Google - how do you justify this? You have great options out there you know?
- fridif 5y ago
  By ignoring it and buying new houses and cars
- pjc50 5y ago
  There's still people dying in large numbers, unvaccinated? Eventually people notice the body count against a point of principle. That's how we got to this point.
  - swader999 5y ago
    They'll notice it if the data can be discussed freely.
    - raisedbyninjas 5y ago
      This is Youtube, not SciHub.
  - ashleyn 5y ago
    This ignores the aspect of personal responsibility. Nobody is forcing these people to refuse the free and widely-available vaccine - they do so by choice and an adult consciousness, and it follows that you bear the consequences for your personal decisions.
    - swader999 5y ago
      How can you make a responsible informed choice when censorship and access to information is restricted? Trust the experts then? Why would you if they don't let you freely talk about it?
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - duhast 5y ago
        I'm assuming you're getting your health advice on YouTube and Facebook? How are random fearmongers on YouTube more credible than CDC or FDA?
reilly3000 5y ago
Ir hardly "cannot be discussed". I've participated in several online discussions about it, and cited several major news outlets covering the story. The White House is openly investigating the topic. Defending free speech is very important, but crying wolf about censorship is counterproductive to the cause.
- josephcsible 5y ago
  How much content needs to be censored before we can talk about censorship without "crying wolf"?
  - chefkoch 5y ago
    How many people have to die because of misinformation before it's OK to take it down?
    - hunterb123 5y ago
      Big bad "misinformation". The CCP also use that word as an excuse for censorship. You fight misinformation with more information, not censorship. > These peasants can't think for themselves, we have to tell them what to think! Especially if they disagree or dissent! First it was "think of the children!" Then it was "think of grandma!" Now it's "think of the gullible!"
      - chefkoch 5y ago
        Ah, so how do you do that, because the current approach does not seem to work. And when do you as platform owner think enough people died because of the content you host?
        hunterb123 5y ago
        The current approach is to ban dissent for sanctioned topics (lab leak, hunter's laptop, vaccinations, etc.) and I agree that it's not working, because you get an echo chamber and force critics into the darkness whether they are right or wrong. The right approach is always more information. People can think for themselves, $5000 of Russian ads didn't do anything more or have any more lies a D or R campaign ad did, so stop pretending it did. If you want to ban foreign actors, that's fine. Targeting citizens with legit concerns and ideas is wrong and violates their rights, even if you launder your tyranny through private companies.
ghuin 5y ago
The problem is people who thought there were "clear cut issues". Now there are more issues that are considered clear cut. Disagree? Bad for you.
- hammock 5y ago
  Related to consolidation and centralization of power
kiba 5y ago
While I agree that free speech is important, misinformation is nonetheless an important topic to discuss. Public policy debates are important because it leads to a more accurate state and more informed decision, but not when anti-vaccine opponents continue to undermine accurate information at every turn.
- native_samples 5y ago
  How do you know the information is accurate?
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  Then argue against it. You elevated the misinformation by banning it. How many people make their vaccination decision because of Youtube content? It is paramount that some people get a more realistic picture here...
  - crazy_horse 5y ago
    What's going to actually convince people? I don't think it's six months of watching YT videos. Is that one extra video really going to change things? It seems more like blind contrarianism.
  - 5e92cb50239222b 5y ago
    > How many people make their vaccination decision because of Youtube content? Every one of the four anti-vaxxers that I personally know. I don't have any objective stats and this is just a single anecdote, sure.
    - deelowe 5y ago
      It's facebook for me.
  - chefkoch 5y ago
    >How many people make their vaccination decision because of Youtube content? Way more than one would think.
1cvmask 5y ago
Woke-ism is a blunt instrument of the elites to shut down any discussion that threatens their narrative. It is used as a propaganda tool of the dominant and elites. It is repackaged bigotry, or performative anti-bigotry bigotry, to bully and intimidate people and become part of the evolving toolset of modern sociopaths. https://theintercept.com/2021/09/28/israel-palestine-unc-academic-freedom/ https://theintercept.com/2021/09/28/israel-palestine-unc-aca... https://greenwald.substack.com/p/an-nba-star-and-new-yorks-governor-8d1 https://greenwald.substack.com/p/an-nba-star-and-new-yorks-g... https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1442879729669914637 https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1442879729669914637 https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1442520376278409222 https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1442520376278409222 https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1443200943764480002 https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1443200943764480002
- api 5y ago
  ___________ is a blunt instrument of the elites to shut down any discussion that threatens their narrative. It's a propaganda technique. If the opposite of wokeism etc. were popular and accepted by a large number of people, propagandists would use that. They would, for example, brand any dissent as "not white" or "gay" or "miscegenated" or "degenerate" etc. They did in fact do this generations ago. If we lived in a super-religious society any dissent would be satanic. This version is still leveraged within the evangelical community. All narratives will be weaponized by propagandists regardless of whether the narrative itself has objective merit when considered in good faith. "It will be weaponized. No exceptions."
  - nitrogen 5y ago
    This is a tactic and works largely the same regardless of what narrative is being weaponized. Indeed, just look at how "carbon footprint" came from the oil industry. I left behind a conservative religious upbringing, but never found an escape from tribalism and guilt tripping, whether for conservative or liberal causes. Manipulating our need for agency (by touting personal responsibility) and belonging (by guilt tripping and shunning) is an astonishingly good way to divide and conquer a society that really has a lot in common.
umvi 5y ago
The rationale is: "There's no time to be debating the scientific consensus right now. We are in a crisis. Lives are at stake. Debating and questioning the consensus (even if it changes) will cause misinformation to propagate and lives to be lost. The only way to optimize for lives saved is to temporarily take away some fundamental freedoms like speech so that the smart people in charge can resolve the crisis with minimal loss of life."
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  Sorry, we had emergency legislation because of terrorism since 2 decades now. A bit desensitized by now. Perhaps I should look for something that induces fear?
  - chasd00 5y ago
    i regret that i have but one upvote to give. I'm a little tired of the constant state of emergency and pearl clutching since about this time of year 2001.
- TimTheTinker 5y ago
  This sounds like the rationale government leaders often employ to institute a dictatorship: "temporarily remove freedoms and grant the president emergency executive powers". But somehow "temporarily" becomes "permanently" because no one in power wants to voluntarily give up that power.
  - TimTheTinker 5y ago
    "Emergency powers" formed an important link in the chain of Hitler's rise to power. https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/02/19/emergency-powers-helped-hitlers-rise-germany-has-avoided-them-ever-since/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/02/19/emergency-...
mbesto 5y ago
> We're in the middle of a global pandemic and we're not allowed to discuss whether GoF research is too risky? We're not allowed to discuss the nuances of what a "lab leak" may really entail? When the polio vaccine first came out was the public (i.e. non medical personnel) allowed to discuss whether the use of inactivated virus was too risky? > Why should they trust the government, the CDC, the WHO and the like? What have they done to prove they are trustworthy at this point? To this point? Are you serious? Does someone seriously need to explain to you all of the viruses (far more deadly than COVID mind you) that have been eradicated by government organizations? > Shutting down open discussion around this topics will only make the situation worse, not better. You're missing the point. The people who are crying "why can't we discuss GoF research or the lab leak" are not engaging in the argument in good faith. I absolutely think we need to discuss this topics in a meaningful way, however when most of the actors who are bringing up these topics are trying to cry wolf then why should we take them seriously?
- gruez 5y ago
  >When the polio vaccine first came out was the public (i.e. non medical personnel) allowed to discuss whether the use of inactivated virus was too risky? They weren't? >You're missing the point. The people who are crying "why can't we discuss GoF research or the lab leak" are not engaging in the argument in good faith. I absolutely think we need to discuss this topics in a meaningful way, however when most of the actors who are bringing up these topics are trying to cry wolf then why should we take them seriously? Why would the good faith actors get punished for the actions of bad faith actors?
  - mbesto 5y ago
    > They weren't? Happy for you to provide evidence that shows otherwise. > Why would the good faith actors get punished for the actions of bad faith actors? Would or should? They shouldn't get punished, but this precisely the point. Bad faith actors get far more attention than good ones. So this is already happening regardless of whether you want it to.
    - 5y ago
specialist 5y ago
> ...In today's world of "woke" content creators Welcome to the new woke. Same as the old woke. Lather, rinse, repeat.
president 5y ago
Don't forget, the term "anti-vaxers" has become a catch-all term for shutting down the slightest criticism about the virus, whether fact or opinion. I have seen this term slung at people simply questioning vaccine mandates and passports in casual conversations both online and offline. Very few people are anti-vax but they powers that be would like most people to think there are only 2 sides. We live in dangerous times.
- mdp2021 5y ago
  Exactly: that term seems to be used as a strawman to attack the worse positions avoiding the reasonable ones. Dismissal has been a constant presence. Somebody got damaged after infection? Some will come and dismiss with "anectodal". Somebody got damaged after vaccination? Others will come and dismiss with "anectodal". One tries to tell someone that he lost very real family members and friends to covid: "they must have been already sick". One tries to tell someone that he has known of a surprising number of people with adverse events: "they must have been already sick". And with that the issue has not progressed a bit.
HyperRational 5y ago
Anti-vaxxers spread lies that are causing a lot of unneeded death and suffering.
justwanttolearn 5y ago
Even for racism and homophobia has now merged through grey areas. Someone who disagrees with mass immigration is a racist and someone who is pro the sanctity of marriage between man and woman (not that you can't get legal rights as a same sex couple) is now homophobia. There's so much nuance in under these big umbrellas that no one care to have a dialogue about, they just want clear cut right or wrong with the world is filled in fuzzy lines.
melenaboija 5y ago
"Why should they trust the government, the CDC, the WHO and the like?" For similar reasons they should be trusting people creating content on private media platforms. People need information and seek for sources, whatever they are. I don't think the lack of content on YouTube will make change most of people beliefs, if something will reinforce them to think this is imposed. You can always go to other sources to look for what you want to see.
nsxwolf 5y ago
We should have supported openly racist and homophobic speech. So that we'd be able to continue openly talking about other things, like science. But we all think we can control the beast.
ineptech 5y ago
I know HN is always on a hair trigger to call out free speech issues, but "youtube does a poor job of curating covid information" is the expected outcome. You don't need to postulate a conspiracy or malicious actor to explain the expected outcome. So it's kind of hard to take stuff like this seriously: > ...we're not allowed to discuss whether GoF research is too risky?" Of course you are. Youtube middle-management aren't the arbiters of what is and is not acceptable scientific or medical information. If they ever were, that would be a crisis worthy of outrage.
dang 5y ago
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28693407 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28693407, partly because it's swerving into generic ideological flamewar, and partly because I need to prune some large subthreads in order to ease the load on our poor server, which smoke is coming out of right now. The latter is our problem and we're working on fixing it, but the former is the community's problem and everyone needs to work on fixing that. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- deelowe 5y ago
  Thanks. I'll tone down the snark.
poo-yie 5y ago
> "Why should they trust the government, the CDC, the WHO and the like? What have they done to prove they are trustworthy at this point?" This is the crux of the issue IMO. As someone pointed out in another comment, the CDC of the past is not the same as the CDC of today. I am vaccinated as are my wife and kids (young adults). However, it was not a slam-dunk decision to get it. Why the hesitancy? - Trump pushed to get the vaccine in record time (maybe to score some political points?) - When outbreak first hit the US, Trump tried to halt international travel to a large extent. He was berated for this, while it seemed to me to be a prudent action given the situation. Other countries put the clamps on international travel and I didn't see any criticism of them. - While Trump was still in office, Harris and others were publicly quoted as saying that if Trump says they should get the vaccine that they would be hesitant (don't recall the exact quote). (Did they say this as a legitimate concern or as a way of scoring political points?) - Biden administration, supporters, and MSM rush to label anyone who questioned whether the virus originated from Wuhan lab as "conspiracy theorists", "kooks", "crackpots", "nutjobs", etc. Then later on, well-respected scientists openly suggest that Wuhan lab could be the origin. (Who is trying to manipulate our perceptions and WHY?) - Mask mandates openly ignored by the same people who advocated for strict adherence (Gov. Whitmer, Pres. Biden, former Pres. Obama's big birthday party, etc.) If wearing a mask is so important for public health, why are they NOT doing it at times? - Sufficient public testimony from NIH scientists in Congressional hearings to conclude that NIH funding of Wuhan lab through 3rd party DID fit the definition of gain-of-function research (suggesting that Fauci is lying to the public. Why?) - Earlier in outbreak, Biden administration stated that they don't foresee mask mandates. Later, mask mandates. - There is ample anecdotal evidence to suggest that many hospitals were quick to report fatalities as being Covid when there was no Covid connection. Why? Were the hospitals coached to act this way? Was it about federal government payments? Make the numbers look a certain way? - From the very earliest days of Biden administration, up to today, there has been record immigration on the southern border. Putting aside your position about how immigration should or should not be handled IN THE ABSENCE OF a worldwide pandemic, WHY are record number of immigrants being encouraged, supported, and processed at our southern border? Are they being tested for Covid? Mayorkas just made a statement a day or 2 ago that he was SURPRISED by the jump in delta variant numbers at the immigrant processing and staging locations!! Really??? WTF are these people thinking? I could continue on, but by now you either see the pattern or you refuse to acknowledge that it's even conceivable that there could be a pattern of deception. If I look back over the history of vaccinations, they have been an absolute blessing to all of humanity. There's no doubt about their effectiveness in wiping out terrible things such as Polio (as just 1 example). However, today there is so much evidence that federal government, UN, WHO, state governments, local governments, MSM, Facebook, Youtube, Twitter, etc. are now operating under a perpetual mode of MANIPULATION to coerce the public to their DESIRED end goals, irrespective of truth and scientific fact. Both Democrat and Republican parties are guilty. Are you really surprised that there are people who question the truth and sincerity of the powers that be?
goatlover 5y ago
I'm not standing up for people who spread conspiracy theories about an ongoing pandemic. I hope they get deplatformed.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

EL_Loco 5y ago

Well, in the field of immunization, the WHO has done quite a lot since its creation.

artificialLimbs 5y ago
In the field of rape as well. https://www.mypanhandle.com/health/panel-finds-80-alleged-abuse-cases-tied-to-whos-congo-work/ https://www.mypanhandle.com/health/panel-finds-80-alleged-ab...

swader999 5y ago

Censoring discussion in an environment of coercive mandates. Anyone working for Google - how do you justify this? You have great options out there you know?

fridif 5y ago
By ignoring it and buying new houses and cars
pjc50 5y ago
There's still people dying in large numbers, unvaccinated? Eventually people notice the body count against a point of principle. That's how we got to this point.
- swader999 5y ago
  They'll notice it if the data can be discussed freely.
  - raisedbyninjas 5y ago
    This is Youtube, not SciHub.
- ashleyn 5y ago
  This ignores the aspect of personal responsibility. Nobody is forcing these people to refuse the free and widely-available vaccine - they do so by choice and an adult consciousness, and it follows that you bear the consequences for your personal decisions.
  - swader999 5y ago
    How can you make a responsible informed choice when censorship and access to information is restricted? Trust the experts then? Why would you if they don't let you freely talk about it?
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - duhast 5y ago
      I'm assuming you're getting your health advice on YouTube and Facebook? How are random fearmongers on YouTube more credible than CDC or FDA?

reilly3000 5y ago

Ir hardly "cannot be discussed". I've participated in several online discussions about it, and cited several major news outlets covering the story. The White House is openly investigating the topic. Defending free speech is very important, but crying wolf about censorship is counterproductive to the cause.

josephcsible 5y ago
How much content needs to be censored before we can talk about censorship without "crying wolf"?
- chefkoch 5y ago
  How many people have to die because of misinformation before it's OK to take it down?
  - hunterb123 5y ago
    Big bad "misinformation". The CCP also use that word as an excuse for censorship. You fight misinformation with more information, not censorship. > These peasants can't think for themselves, we have to tell them what to think! Especially if they disagree or dissent! First it was "think of the children!" Then it was "think of grandma!" Now it's "think of the gullible!"
    - chefkoch 5y ago
      Ah, so how do you do that, because the current approach does not seem to work. And when do you as platform owner think enough people died because of the content you host?
      - hunterb123 5y ago
        The current approach is to ban dissent for sanctioned topics (lab leak, hunter's laptop, vaccinations, etc.) and I agree that it's not working, because you get an echo chamber and force critics into the darkness whether they are right or wrong. The right approach is always more information. People can think for themselves, $5000 of Russian ads didn't do anything more or have any more lies a D or R campaign ad did, so stop pretending it did. If you want to ban foreign actors, that's fine. Targeting citizens with legit concerns and ideas is wrong and violates their rights, even if you launder your tyranny through private companies.

ghuin 5y ago

The problem is people who thought there were "clear cut issues". Now there are more issues that are considered clear cut. Disagree? Bad for you.

hammock 5y ago
Related to consolidation and centralization of power

kiba 5y ago

While I agree that free speech is important, misinformation is nonetheless an important topic to discuss. Public policy debates are important because it leads to a more accurate state and more informed decision, but not when anti-vaccine opponents continue to undermine accurate information at every turn.

native_samples 5y ago
How do you know the information is accurate?
raxxorrax 5y ago
Then argue against it. You elevated the misinformation by banning it. How many people make their vaccination decision because of Youtube content? It is paramount that some people get a more realistic picture here...
- crazy_horse 5y ago
  What's going to actually convince people? I don't think it's six months of watching YT videos. Is that one extra video really going to change things? It seems more like blind contrarianism.
- 5e92cb50239222b 5y ago
  > How many people make their vaccination decision because of Youtube content? Every one of the four anti-vaxxers that I personally know. I don't have any objective stats and this is just a single anecdote, sure.
  - deelowe 5y ago
    It's facebook for me.
- chefkoch 5y ago
  >How many people make their vaccination decision because of Youtube content? Way more than one would think.

1cvmask 5y ago

Woke-ism is a blunt instrument of the elites to shut down any discussion that threatens their narrative. It is used as a propaganda tool of the dominant and elites. It is repackaged bigotry, or performative anti-bigotry bigotry, to bully and intimidate people and become part of the evolving toolset of modern sociopaths. https://theintercept.com/2021/09/28/israel-palestine-unc-academic-freedom/ https://theintercept.com/2021/09/28/israel-palestine-unc-aca... https://greenwald.substack.com/p/an-nba-star-and-new-yorks-governor-8d1 https://greenwald.substack.com/p/an-nba-star-and-new-yorks-g... https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1442879729669914637 https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1442879729669914637 https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1442520376278409222 https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1442520376278409222 https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1443200943764480002 https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1443200943764480002

api 5y ago
___________ is a blunt instrument of the elites to shut down any discussion that threatens their narrative. It's a propaganda technique. If the opposite of wokeism etc. were popular and accepted by a large number of people, propagandists would use that. They would, for example, brand any dissent as "not white" or "gay" or "miscegenated" or "degenerate" etc. They did in fact do this generations ago. If we lived in a super-religious society any dissent would be satanic. This version is still leveraged within the evangelical community. All narratives will be weaponized by propagandists regardless of whether the narrative itself has objective merit when considered in good faith. "It will be weaponized. No exceptions."
- nitrogen 5y ago
  This is a tactic and works largely the same regardless of what narrative is being weaponized. Indeed, just look at how "carbon footprint" came from the oil industry. I left behind a conservative religious upbringing, but never found an escape from tribalism and guilt tripping, whether for conservative or liberal causes. Manipulating our need for agency (by touting personal responsibility) and belonging (by guilt tripping and shunning) is an astonishingly good way to divide and conquer a society that really has a lot in common.

umvi 5y ago

The rationale is: "There's no time to be debating the scientific consensus right now. We are in a crisis. Lives are at stake. Debating and questioning the consensus (even if it changes) will cause misinformation to propagate and lives to be lost. The only way to optimize for lives saved is to temporarily take away some fundamental freedoms like speech so that the smart people in charge can resolve the crisis with minimal loss of life."

raxxorrax 5y ago
Sorry, we had emergency legislation because of terrorism since 2 decades now. A bit desensitized by now. Perhaps I should look for something that induces fear?
- chasd00 5y ago
  i regret that i have but one upvote to give. I'm a little tired of the constant state of emergency and pearl clutching since about this time of year 2001.
TimTheTinker 5y ago
This sounds like the rationale government leaders often employ to institute a dictatorship: "temporarily remove freedoms and grant the president emergency executive powers". But somehow "temporarily" becomes "permanently" because no one in power wants to voluntarily give up that power.
- TimTheTinker 5y ago
  "Emergency powers" formed an important link in the chain of Hitler's rise to power. https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/02/19/emergency-powers-helped-hitlers-rise-germany-has-avoided-them-ever-since/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/02/19/emergency-...

mbesto 5y ago

> We're in the middle of a global pandemic and we're not allowed to discuss whether GoF research is too risky? We're not allowed to discuss the nuances of what a "lab leak" may really entail? When the polio vaccine first came out was the public (i.e. non medical personnel) allowed to discuss whether the use of inactivated virus was too risky? > Why should they trust the government, the CDC, the WHO and the like? What have they done to prove they are trustworthy at this point? To this point? Are you serious? Does someone seriously need to explain to you all of the viruses (far more deadly than COVID mind you) that have been eradicated by government organizations? > Shutting down open discussion around this topics will only make the situation worse, not better. You're missing the point. The people who are crying "why can't we discuss GoF research or the lab leak" are not engaging in the argument in good faith. I absolutely think we need to discuss this topics in a meaningful way, however when most of the actors who are bringing up these topics are trying to cry wolf then why should we take them seriously?

gruez 5y ago
>When the polio vaccine first came out was the public (i.e. non medical personnel) allowed to discuss whether the use of inactivated virus was too risky? They weren't? >You're missing the point. The people who are crying "why can't we discuss GoF research or the lab leak" are not engaging in the argument in good faith. I absolutely think we need to discuss this topics in a meaningful way, however when most of the actors who are bringing up these topics are trying to cry wolf then why should we take them seriously? Why would the good faith actors get punished for the actions of bad faith actors?
- mbesto 5y ago
  > They weren't? Happy for you to provide evidence that shows otherwise. > Why would the good faith actors get punished for the actions of bad faith actors? Would or should? They shouldn't get punished, but this precisely the point. Bad faith actors get far more attention than good ones. So this is already happening regardless of whether you want it to.
  - 5y ago

specialist 5y ago

> ...In today's world of "woke" content creators Welcome to the new woke. Same as the old woke. Lather, rinse, repeat.

president 5y ago

Don't forget, the term "anti-vaxers" has become a catch-all term for shutting down the slightest criticism about the virus, whether fact or opinion. I have seen this term slung at people simply questioning vaccine mandates and passports in casual conversations both online and offline. Very few people are anti-vax but they powers that be would like most people to think there are only 2 sides. We live in dangerous times.

mdp2021 5y ago
Exactly: that term seems to be used as a strawman to attack the worse positions avoiding the reasonable ones. Dismissal has been a constant presence. Somebody got damaged after infection? Some will come and dismiss with "anectodal". Somebody got damaged after vaccination? Others will come and dismiss with "anectodal". One tries to tell someone that he lost very real family members and friends to covid: "they must have been already sick". One tries to tell someone that he has known of a surprising number of people with adverse events: "they must have been already sick". And with that the issue has not progressed a bit.

HyperRational 5y ago

Anti-vaxxers spread lies that are causing a lot of unneeded death and suffering.

justwanttolearn 5y ago

Even for racism and homophobia has now merged through grey areas. Someone who disagrees with mass immigration is a racist and someone who is pro the sanctity of marriage between man and woman (not that you can't get legal rights as a same sex couple) is now homophobia. There's so much nuance in under these big umbrellas that no one care to have a dialogue about, they just want clear cut right or wrong with the world is filled in fuzzy lines.

melenaboija 5y ago

"Why should they trust the government, the CDC, the WHO and the like?" For similar reasons they should be trusting people creating content on private media platforms. People need information and seek for sources, whatever they are. I don't think the lack of content on YouTube will make change most of people beliefs, if something will reinforce them to think this is imposed. You can always go to other sources to look for what you want to see.

nsxwolf 5y ago

We should have supported openly racist and homophobic speech. So that we'd be able to continue openly talking about other things, like science. But we all think we can control the beast.

ineptech 5y ago

I know HN is always on a hair trigger to call out free speech issues, but "youtube does a poor job of curating covid information" is the expected outcome. You don't need to postulate a conspiracy or malicious actor to explain the expected outcome. So it's kind of hard to take stuff like this seriously: > ...we're not allowed to discuss whether GoF research is too risky?" Of course you are. Youtube middle-management aren't the arbiters of what is and is not acceptable scientific or medical information. If they ever were, that would be a crisis worthy of outrage.

dang 5y ago

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28693407 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28693407, partly because it's swerving into generic ideological flamewar, and partly because I need to prune some large subthreads in order to ease the load on our poor server, which smoke is coming out of right now. The latter is our problem and we're working on fixing it, but the former is the community's problem and everyone needs to work on fixing that. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

deelowe 5y ago
Thanks. I'll tone down the snark.

poo-yie 5y ago

> "Why should they trust the government, the CDC, the WHO and the like? What have they done to prove they are trustworthy at this point?" This is the crux of the issue IMO. As someone pointed out in another comment, the CDC of the past is not the same as the CDC of today. I am vaccinated as are my wife and kids (young adults). However, it was not a slam-dunk decision to get it. Why the hesitancy? - Trump pushed to get the vaccine in record time (maybe to score some political points?) - When outbreak first hit the US, Trump tried to halt international travel to a large extent. He was berated for this, while it seemed to me to be a prudent action given the situation. Other countries put the clamps on international travel and I didn't see any criticism of them. - While Trump was still in office, Harris and others were publicly quoted as saying that if Trump says they should get the vaccine that they would be hesitant (don't recall the exact quote). (Did they say this as a legitimate concern or as a way of scoring political points?) - Biden administration, supporters, and MSM rush to label anyone who questioned whether the virus originated from Wuhan lab as "conspiracy theorists", "kooks", "crackpots", "nutjobs", etc. Then later on, well-respected scientists openly suggest that Wuhan lab could be the origin. (Who is trying to manipulate our perceptions and WHY?) - Mask mandates openly ignored by the same people who advocated for strict adherence (Gov. Whitmer, Pres. Biden, former Pres. Obama's big birthday party, etc.) If wearing a mask is so important for public health, why are they NOT doing it at times? - Sufficient public testimony from NIH scientists in Congressional hearings to conclude that NIH funding of Wuhan lab through 3rd party DID fit the definition of gain-of-function research (suggesting that Fauci is lying to the public. Why?) - Earlier in outbreak, Biden administration stated that they don't foresee mask mandates. Later, mask mandates. - There is ample anecdotal evidence to suggest that many hospitals were quick to report fatalities as being Covid when there was no Covid connection. Why? Were the hospitals coached to act this way? Was it about federal government payments? Make the numbers look a certain way? - From the very earliest days of Biden administration, up to today, there has been record immigration on the southern border. Putting aside your position about how immigration should or should not be handled IN THE ABSENCE OF a worldwide pandemic, WHY are record number of immigrants being encouraged, supported, and processed at our southern border? Are they being tested for Covid? Mayorkas just made a statement a day or 2 ago that he was SURPRISED by the jump in delta variant numbers at the immigrant processing and staging locations!! Really??? WTF are these people thinking? I could continue on, but by now you either see the pattern or you refuse to acknowledge that it's even conceivable that there could be a pattern of deception. If I look back over the history of vaccinations, they have been an absolute blessing to all of humanity. There's no doubt about their effectiveness in wiping out terrible things such as Polio (as just 1 example). However, today there is so much evidence that federal government, UN, WHO, state governments, local governments, MSM, Facebook, Youtube, Twitter, etc. are now operating under a perpetual mode of MANIPULATION to coerce the public to their DESIRED end goals, irrespective of truth and scientific fact. Both Democrat and Republican parties are guilty. Are you really surprised that there are people who question the truth and sincerity of the powers that be?

goatlover 5y ago

I'm not standing up for people who spread conspiracy theories about an ongoing pandemic. I hope they get deplatformed.