2 ms·
Oh, I’m well aware how much easier it is to throw out random unscientific claims than it is to respond to them analytically. Which is actually part of why I’m
by mypastself 5y ago
Oh, I’m well aware how much easier it is to throw out random unscientific claims than it is to respond to them analytically.
Which is actually part of why I’m opposed to a blanket ban. I’ve had to personally wade through papers and studies to determine whether a vaccine skeptic (an M.D., at that) had correctly interpreted the results.
They hadn’t. So I’d rather have someone else, with some expertise and clout, spend some time on it and publish their counterargument.
- MrRadar 5y agoAh, I missed your last sentence. Either way, though, I still think there is a benefit to banning anti-vaxx content from general-audience platforms in that it stops people who are not necessarily seeking out anti-vaxx misinformation from being exposed to it in the first place. A great example of this strategy working is Reddit. When they ban a hateful subreddit (like r/fatpeoplehate) it tends to noticeably improve the quality of the discourse on the site in general for a period afterwards as people who were drawn to join Reddit just to be hateful will have less reason to be on it and also because fewer "ordinary" people are exposed to those hateful ideas limiting their spread within the "general" user base of the site. I believe the same approach works equally well with misinformation movements.
- mypastself 5y agoUltimately, I can’t fault a corporate entity for wishing to improve their customers’ experience by preventing dissemination of potentially harmful material. Perhaps I would agree with them if I had insight into their cost-benefit analysis. I still generally prefer to have all types of ideas out in the open.