4 ms·

What does this piece of misdirection have to do with the fact that this channel promoted - falsely - anti-vaccine myths and in doing so made TOS-violating state

by nawgz 5y ago

What does this piece of misdirection have to do with the fact that this channel promoted - falsely - anti-vaccine myths and in doing so made TOS-violating statements? It is clear that government and corporation are both largely morally devoid institutions in the modern age, but this doesn't even rely on any traditional sense of trust. The data is published and we can see what it does and doesn't do, and if you want to discard that you mightaswell just take the kid gloves off and type something really offensive next

HideousKojima 5y ago
>The data is published and we can see what it does and doesn't do See my last link
- nawgz 5y ago
  Yes, a link suggesting 1k of 44k participants in the Pfizer Phase III trials were not well monitored and had other logistical issues does not surprise me. It does not concern me either; have you seen the reduced IFR post vaccination? It is not like 2% of 1/3 vaccines phase III participants is even a notable amount of the data. Like I said, if this type of thing is enough for you to go forward and claim that the whole thing is a lie, I think you’re creeping into some very dumb territory.
  - smaryjerry 5y ago
    Not the original poster but even if completely false information, it should be free to be posted. Let the company be sued for making false claims if they are claiming to be a journalist. If they aren’t even claiming to be a journalist they anyone dumb enough to rely into hem as their only source deserves whatever bad information they believe. If any of these videos with bad information get large enough there will be a response equal or larger in viewership size with the truth.
    - nawgz 5y ago
      You condone posting false information freely while impersonating credible organizations, and assert that the people fooled by this are the problem and not the liar? I don’t get that stance, but more importantly: why is this relevant to anything in discussion here?
      - smaryjerry 5y ago
        The post your originally responded to claimed that YouTube was taken down legitimate sources of information. You then claimed they are false information as why they are taken down or deserves to be taken down. My point it regardless if it is true it should be shown and not censored. I never mentioned anything about impersonation and said the opposite of what you are questioning.
        nawgz 5y ago
        > I never mentioned anything about impersonation and said the opposite of what you are questioning Surely in the modern disinformation environment you are joking when you write "[l]et the company be sued for making false claims" as if that is a moral justification to allow bad actors a platform. (If not, please search court cases relating to Fox News being sued for lying and their subsequent incredibly ironic justifications.) I understand what you think it is - an appeal to authority - but it's laughably naive. How many spreaders of misinformation during this pandemic faced any repercussion at all? Intentionally spreading misinformation about a pandemic, or for that matter any time one spreads known misinformation in order to manipulate others, should be harshly condemned as morally despicable, and also made impossible wherever possible. It is clear people will act in their short term interest wherever possible, and I would not describe "social isolation" or most other appropriate measures as fitting that bucket. Finally, before you argue that I shouldn't support "censorship" from unregulated big tech, please know that I fully agree and I believe free speech to be an important concept. I find it unjustifiable and deeply concerning how analogous being removed from FaceTwitTube is to being censored / silenced / "cancelled", but I refuse to act as if the principal of freedom means you should be able to use web technologies to maliciously act against others.

by nawgz 5y ago

HideousKojima 5y ago

>The data is published and we can see what it does and doesn't do See my last link

nawgz 5y ago
Yes, a link suggesting 1k of 44k participants in the Pfizer Phase III trials were not well monitored and had other logistical issues does not surprise me. It does not concern me either; have you seen the reduced IFR post vaccination? It is not like 2% of 1/3 vaccines phase III participants is even a notable amount of the data. Like I said, if this type of thing is enough for you to go forward and claim that the whole thing is a lie, I think you’re creeping into some very dumb territory.
- smaryjerry 5y ago
  Not the original poster but even if completely false information, it should be free to be posted. Let the company be sued for making false claims if they are claiming to be a journalist. If they aren’t even claiming to be a journalist they anyone dumb enough to rely into hem as their only source deserves whatever bad information they believe. If any of these videos with bad information get large enough there will be a response equal or larger in viewership size with the truth.
  - nawgz 5y ago
    You condone posting false information freely while impersonating credible organizations, and assert that the people fooled by this are the problem and not the liar? I don’t get that stance, but more importantly: why is this relevant to anything in discussion here?
    - smaryjerry 5y ago
      The post your originally responded to claimed that YouTube was taken down legitimate sources of information. You then claimed they are false information as why they are taken down or deserves to be taken down. My point it regardless if it is true it should be shown and not censored. I never mentioned anything about impersonation and said the opposite of what you are questioning.
      - nawgz 5y ago
        > I never mentioned anything about impersonation and said the opposite of what you are questioning Surely in the modern disinformation environment you are joking when you write "[l]et the company be sued for making false claims" as if that is a moral justification to allow bad actors a platform. (If not, please search court cases relating to Fox News being sued for lying and their subsequent incredibly ironic justifications.) I understand what you think it is - an appeal to authority - but it's laughably naive. How many spreaders of misinformation during this pandemic faced any repercussion at all? Intentionally spreading misinformation about a pandemic, or for that matter any time one spreads known misinformation in order to manipulate others, should be harshly condemned as morally despicable, and also made impossible wherever possible. It is clear people will act in their short term interest wherever possible, and I would not describe "social isolation" or most other appropriate measures as fitting that bucket. Finally, before you argue that I shouldn't support "censorship" from unregulated big tech, please know that I fully agree and I believe free speech to be an important concept. I find it unjustifiable and deeply concerning how analogous being removed from FaceTwitTube is to being censored / silenced / "cancelled", but I refuse to act as if the principal of freedom means you should be able to use web technologies to maliciously act against others.