5 ms·

Whatever, better to block the spread of medical information from uninformed sources even if a stopped clock is right twice a day. Censor everyone without an MD

Whatever, better to block the spread of medical information from uninformed sources even if a stopped clock is right twice a day. Censor everyone without an MD for all I'm concerned. The misinformation is worse.

hattmall 5y ago
Lots of MDs have been censored lately.
brightball 5y ago
Well, the article highlighted above was censored and fact checked for calling out a bogus study used to support nationwide medical policy…
- Nextgrid 5y ago
  Science does make mistakes but the process in general is thorough enough that they are rarer than idiots dishing out medical advice & spreading fear on Facebook.
  - nradov 5y ago
    Actually most published medical research is false. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/jo...
  - brightball 5y ago
    In this case, we aren’t talking about science though. We are talking about fact checking something that accurately questioned the science. If what is being spread can’t stand up to questioning, then it’s merits need to be questioned even further.
hutzlibu 5y ago
"Censor everyone without an MD for all I'm concerned. The misinformation is worse." Have you read 1984 or alike? Maybe do so at times. The BS online surely is bad, but did you know, that you can just buy a MD in certain parts of the world? So, we are in the middle of a question: which countries MD's do we recognize to speak censor free? (and who are "we" btw.) And well, governemnts do have some record of power abuse and missinformation, too. Even the democratic ones. And they take ages to get along and make contracts. So lots of golden firewalled nations then, but less vaxxer bs online? I am not sure, if this is a good trade.
- DarylZero 5y ago
  Even the MDs shouldn't be able to speak "censor free." MDs also need to be, and are, held to truth standards by censors. But considering medical boards can strip them of their MD, maybe there is a chilling effect that prevents false statements.
  - hutzlibu 5y ago
    "maybe there is a chilling effect that prevents false statements" Or a chilling effect of unpopular opinions and facts. And a much harder climate to find out, what is a fact at all, if you have to be scared, that some government commitee strips you of your right to publish, if they do not like your results.
tomp 5y ago
Thanks, but no thanks. If I've learned anything in the past 2 years it's that sometimes even random information (Twitter shitposters) is better than deliberately misleading fake information (e.g. early-pandemic WHO announcements). I've much more confidence in myself (and my own ability to evaluate information) than in any member of any government (or any "expert" credentialed by said government).
- MrMan 5y ago
  unfounded confidence in your critical thinking skills is a huge cognitive bias
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    Yes, but what alternative is there when health institutions are willing to blatantly lie for political reasons?
kube-system 5y ago
There’s plenty of misinformation coming from MDs too. Just because they have an MD doesn’t mean they know anything about topics outside of their specialty.
mannanj 5y ago
In science you constantly have MD disagrees. How do you propose to reconcile this? Someone very qualified will inherently be "fact checked" because the information the fact checker acted on was old and outdated. Anyways this is severely flawed and mistaken because what they're doing today is censoring everyone with or without an MD that their "black box algorithm" disagrees with. You propose keeping up stale information (which IMO amounts to killing people through misinformation not the reverse) and those with the stance to dumb down all information to the safest common denominator are making the social media experience worse for everyone else.

hattmall 5y ago

Lots of MDs have been censored lately.

brightball 5y ago

Well, the article highlighted above was censored and fact checked for calling out a bogus study used to support nationwide medical policy…

Nextgrid 5y ago
Science does make mistakes but the process in general is thorough enough that they are rarer than idiots dishing out medical advice & spreading fear on Facebook.
- nradov 5y ago
  Actually most published medical research is false. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/jo...
- brightball 5y ago
  In this case, we aren’t talking about science though. We are talking about fact checking something that accurately questioned the science. If what is being spread can’t stand up to questioning, then it’s merits need to be questioned even further.

hutzlibu 5y ago

"Censor everyone without an MD for all I'm concerned. The misinformation is worse." Have you read 1984 or alike? Maybe do so at times. The BS online surely is bad, but did you know, that you can just buy a MD in certain parts of the world? So, we are in the middle of a question: which countries MD's do we recognize to speak censor free? (and who are "we" btw.) And well, governemnts do have some record of power abuse and missinformation, too. Even the democratic ones. And they take ages to get along and make contracts. So lots of golden firewalled nations then, but less vaxxer bs online? I am not sure, if this is a good trade.

DarylZero 5y ago
Even the MDs shouldn't be able to speak "censor free." MDs also need to be, and are, held to truth standards by censors. But considering medical boards can strip them of their MD, maybe there is a chilling effect that prevents false statements.
- hutzlibu 5y ago
  "maybe there is a chilling effect that prevents false statements" Or a chilling effect of unpopular opinions and facts. And a much harder climate to find out, what is a fact at all, if you have to be scared, that some government commitee strips you of your right to publish, if they do not like your results.

tomp 5y ago

Thanks, but no thanks. If I've learned anything in the past 2 years it's that sometimes even random information (Twitter shitposters) is better than deliberately misleading fake information (e.g. early-pandemic WHO announcements). I've much more confidence in myself (and my own ability to evaluate information) than in any member of any government (or any "expert" credentialed by said government).

MrMan 5y ago
unfounded confidence in your critical thinking skills is a huge cognitive bias
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  Yes, but what alternative is there when health institutions are willing to blatantly lie for political reasons?

kube-system 5y ago

There’s plenty of misinformation coming from MDs too. Just because they have an MD doesn’t mean they know anything about topics outside of their specialty.

mannanj 5y ago

In science you constantly have MD disagrees. How do you propose to reconcile this? Someone very qualified will inherently be "fact checked" because the information the fact checker acted on was old and outdated. Anyways this is severely flawed and mistaken because what they're doing today is censoring everyone with or without an MD that their "black box algorithm" disagrees with. You propose keeping up stale information (which IMO amounts to killing people through misinformation not the reverse) and those with the stance to dumb down all information to the safest common denominator are making the social media experience worse for everyone else.