6 ms·

While I agree that free speech is important, misinformation is nonetheless an important topic to discuss. Public policy debates are important because it leads

by 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.
- longhairedhippy 5y ago
  You can't argue with a cult. My entire wife's family are rabid GOPers and I have had multiple discussions where I have absolutely crushed them with facts and the outcome, nothing. They will simply deny anything that doesn't agree with their world view as "fake news" while believing anything Trump says without question. How do you have a rational discussion like that? If folks can find absolutely zero common ground to agree on, there is no basis for any type of meaningful discourse.
  - ohdannyboy 5y ago
    while believing anything Trump says without question. Trump is pro vaccine... He still brags about his involvement with Operation Warp Speed. How does this work out? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eA306aNtvmk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eA306aNtvmk I too have to deal with hard right wing Christians... I used to be one. The idea that they are too stupid or deluded to be talked to about anything just isn't true. Talking to people about emotionally charged issues is hard, and if your attitude is that they're all idiots you're not gonna do it productively. "Crushing" someone with facts will never, ever change their mind. I've been able to have a lot of discussions with these types of people (albeit not everyone) because I understand them.
    - longhairedhippy 5y ago
      Right and Trump got boo'ed for saying people should get vaccinated because he's reaping the consequences of speaking without thought. I didn't say they're stupid, I said they're fools for believing what is obvious a bunch of politically motivated lies, science is no place for emotion. What these people do lack is the ability to think critically about the subject, examine their biases, and challenge their assumptions. If we can't change people's mind with the truth, what possibly could make them realize they have been duped?
      - ohdannyboy 5y ago
        I didn't say they're stupid, I said their fools for believing what is obvious a bunch of politically motivated lies, science is no place for emotion. No, you said "while believing anything Trump says without question." If we can't change people's mind with the truth, what possibly could make them realize they have been duped? Packaging matters. People are emotional and make rarely make factual determinations in a vacuum. Your attitude in our conversation so far tells me that you have a near-zero opinion of their intellect and have no idea why they believe what they believe (ie you say that they believe 100% of what Trump says, but 10 seconds later acknowledge they'll boo him at his own rally). You most likely come across as smug and superior in these conversations so while you may just be explaining that mRNA therapies have been in development for decades they will see it as an attack on them... Logical? No, but it's how humans operate. Maybe you're perfectly logical but I kinda doubt it. Lets use creationism as an example because it's what I have the most experience with. You can argue until you're blue in the face with facts and won't get anywhere most of the time -- there were certainly people who had that experience with me 15-20 years ago. Looking back I wasn't interested in the facts. The Adam and Eve story had to be literal to explain original sin, which had to be a thing to explain Jesus' sacrifice which was one of the most central things I believed in. So when you'd crush me with facts demonstrating that the earth cannot be 6,000 years old you'd actually be tugging at the single most central thing I believed. Good luck. I was reasoned out of young earth creationism, but I had to be in a place where Jesus was also on the table to be discussed. It took about a year from "oh shit, that's how radiometric dating works" to "uh yeah, none of this makes sense." Open discourse was the only way that was possible -- the talk.origins archive, books like Why Evolution is True by Coyne, lectures by friendly scientists, ect.
ljm 5y ago
I feel like 'malinformation' describes this kind of thing more accurately, as it is a style of misinformation that has directly harmful effects that can be fatal. It's another level, compared to misinforming people about other things.
Meekro 5y ago
The lab leak theory was "misinformation" until it wasn't. They say "listen to the experts" and then censor actual doctors and scientists who say the wrong things. An "expert" is apparently someone who has a degree and holds the approved views, everyone else is spouting "misinformation."
- idiotsecant 5y ago
  Careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. An expert being wrong once doesn't mean all experts everywhere are always wrong. Experts are a real thing. People who spend a lifetime learning about something will, on average, make better decisions about that thing then you or I. Pretending that this is not true is not only silly, it's often dangerous.
  - ohdannyboy 5y ago
    I don't think he's disputing that experts are real. He's saying that we need to be able to question the experts (ie the lab lead being refuted by scientists with massive conflicts of interest). Experts are also not a monolith, there were experts saying the lab leak theory was credible but they were shut down during the early stages.
  - Miner49er 5y ago
    Except nowadays, an expert being wrong once means everyone who disagreed with them is banned forever.
  - umvi 5y ago
    > People who spend a lifetime learning about something will, on average, make better decisions about that thing then you or I ...at the expense of things they are not experts in. Ask an expert in virology how to prevent spread of the virus and they will give you a good answer. But that doesn't mean turning their advice into a mandated policy will work out well. Game theory comes into play there and an expert in virology is likely not an expert in game theory, politics, economics, or anything else involving policies affecting 350M+ people.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

by kiba 5y ago

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.
longhairedhippy 5y ago
You can't argue with a cult. My entire wife's family are rabid GOPers and I have had multiple discussions where I have absolutely crushed them with facts and the outcome, nothing. They will simply deny anything that doesn't agree with their world view as "fake news" while believing anything Trump says without question. How do you have a rational discussion like that? If folks can find absolutely zero common ground to agree on, there is no basis for any type of meaningful discourse.
- ohdannyboy 5y ago
  while believing anything Trump says without question. Trump is pro vaccine... He still brags about his involvement with Operation Warp Speed. How does this work out? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eA306aNtvmk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eA306aNtvmk I too have to deal with hard right wing Christians... I used to be one. The idea that they are too stupid or deluded to be talked to about anything just isn't true. Talking to people about emotionally charged issues is hard, and if your attitude is that they're all idiots you're not gonna do it productively. "Crushing" someone with facts will never, ever change their mind. I've been able to have a lot of discussions with these types of people (albeit not everyone) because I understand them.
  - longhairedhippy 5y ago
    Right and Trump got boo'ed for saying people should get vaccinated because he's reaping the consequences of speaking without thought. I didn't say they're stupid, I said they're fools for believing what is obvious a bunch of politically motivated lies, science is no place for emotion. What these people do lack is the ability to think critically about the subject, examine their biases, and challenge their assumptions. If we can't change people's mind with the truth, what possibly could make them realize they have been duped?
    - ohdannyboy 5y ago
      I didn't say they're stupid, I said their fools for believing what is obvious a bunch of politically motivated lies, science is no place for emotion. No, you said "while believing anything Trump says without question." If we can't change people's mind with the truth, what possibly could make them realize they have been duped? Packaging matters. People are emotional and make rarely make factual determinations in a vacuum. Your attitude in our conversation so far tells me that you have a near-zero opinion of their intellect and have no idea why they believe what they believe (ie you say that they believe 100% of what Trump says, but 10 seconds later acknowledge they'll boo him at his own rally). You most likely come across as smug and superior in these conversations so while you may just be explaining that mRNA therapies have been in development for decades they will see it as an attack on them... Logical? No, but it's how humans operate. Maybe you're perfectly logical but I kinda doubt it. Lets use creationism as an example because it's what I have the most experience with. You can argue until you're blue in the face with facts and won't get anywhere most of the time -- there were certainly people who had that experience with me 15-20 years ago. Looking back I wasn't interested in the facts. The Adam and Eve story had to be literal to explain original sin, which had to be a thing to explain Jesus' sacrifice which was one of the most central things I believed in. So when you'd crush me with facts demonstrating that the earth cannot be 6,000 years old you'd actually be tugging at the single most central thing I believed. Good luck. I was reasoned out of young earth creationism, but I had to be in a place where Jesus was also on the table to be discussed. It took about a year from "oh shit, that's how radiometric dating works" to "uh yeah, none of this makes sense." Open discourse was the only way that was possible -- the talk.origins archive, books like Why Evolution is True by Coyne, lectures by friendly scientists, ect.

ljm 5y ago

I feel like 'malinformation' describes this kind of thing more accurately, as it is a style of misinformation that has directly harmful effects that can be fatal. It's another level, compared to misinforming people about other things.

Meekro 5y ago

The lab leak theory was "misinformation" until it wasn't. They say "listen to the experts" and then censor actual doctors and scientists who say the wrong things. An "expert" is apparently someone who has a degree and holds the approved views, everyone else is spouting "misinformation."

idiotsecant 5y ago
Careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. An expert being wrong once doesn't mean all experts everywhere are always wrong. Experts are a real thing. People who spend a lifetime learning about something will, on average, make better decisions about that thing then you or I. Pretending that this is not true is not only silly, it's often dangerous.
- ohdannyboy 5y ago
  I don't think he's disputing that experts are real. He's saying that we need to be able to question the experts (ie the lab lead being refuted by scientists with massive conflicts of interest). Experts are also not a monolith, there were experts saying the lab leak theory was credible but they were shut down during the early stages.
- Miner49er 5y ago
  Except nowadays, an expert being wrong once means everyone who disagreed with them is banned forever.
- umvi 5y ago
  > People who spend a lifetime learning about something will, on average, make better decisions about that thing then you or I ...at the expense of things they are not experts in. Ask an expert in virology how to prevent spread of the virus and they will give you a good answer. But that doesn't mean turning their advice into a mandated policy will work out well. Game theory comes into play there and an expert in virology is likely not an expert in game theory, politics, economics, or anything else involving policies affecting 350M+ people.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]