6 ms·

At some point, when someone is spewing disinformation that has been already proven false many times, what else can you do to improve the signal-to-noise ratio b

by m-p-3 5y ago

At some point, when someone is spewing disinformation that has been already proven false many times, what else can you do to improve the signal-to-noise ratio but to mute them?

jebronie 5y ago
Then explain why Pfizer is not blocked on Twitter. They also "spewed disinformation" to promote "vaccine hesitancy" against a rival product: https://www.cityam.com/pfizer-accused-of-funding-anti-astrazeneca-information/ https://www.cityam.com/pfizer-accused-of-funding-anti-astraz...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- m-p-3 5y ago
  Pfizer didn't write those slides, a third-party did, on which Pfizer claim they had no input. One could argue they did, but there isn't tangible evidence to claim they did.
  - jebronie 5y ago
    That's extremely naive. Why would you give a company, that has a terrible track record of doing absolutely horrific shit just for money, the benefit of the doubt?
rurban 5y ago
This doctor did not spew misinformation, he was right scientifically. The press does spew misinformation on a weekly basis, also for COVID-19. Was the press deplatformed? No. There is a process to determine truth, that's called science. Abandoning the scientific process for political goals, and economical goals in the case of the press is harmful. Here he was deplatformed for political reasons, like crying fire in a theatre. Vaccinations are important, and criticism has a huge effect on the percentages. And under 85% the policies are not working that much.
- nradov 5y ago
  Science can almost never determine truth. Usually the best it can do is a high level of probability.
bmeski 5y ago
It’s really sad to see smart people argue against their own interests. This is not good. Read the papers and fine print on everything. Science should be inherently skeptical. If you haven’t read the papers and understood them, you have no business claiming this person is spewing disinformation or not. Your opinion is not yours otherwise. Example, the CDC points to an Arizona study about mask efficacy in public schools. The study did not address the large range of total days in school for each district/school. Some unmasked schools were in session almost 3x longer than the masked ones, so of course there was more spread. Also there was no specification if the spread occurred at home or in school. I understand this is a horrible disease and we need to do our best to get through this, but there is some seriously janky/inept science going on.
- belorn 5y ago
  What I read, some schools were actually closed and only had remote work. That is clear evidence of bad data and grounds for doing a new study.
  - peteradio 5y ago
    Ya but if instead we just label you disinformation for bringing it up, then its much neater for us. We don't have to admit our ability to field studies is not up to the task of guiding a nation growing towards half a B. Enjoy the void looser.
faeriechangling 5y ago
Major social media sites and fact checkers all shunned “lab-leak” as a fringe conspiracy theory simply because Trump professed to believe in it. Once he left office we acknowledged it as a real possibility. I don’t think these organizations or people have the knowledge to correctly assess what he’s saying. This I suspect the ban happened wholly because he’s a controversial fringe contrarian. Since I think that, I’m much more ambivalent about the ban. The politics of such a situation will NEVER allow for such a voice to be on a major platform if the stakes are so high and they’re rather effectual in their influence.
- sascha_sl 5y ago
  No, the lab leak theory was fringe. It still sort of is. Everything pointed to animal origin, but since we haven't found it and it's less and less likely we'll ever find it (the evidence may no longer exist), other theories are back on the table. Though lab leak has exactly the same amount of hard evidence going for it. None.
  - yucky 5y ago

by m-p-3 5y ago

At some point, when someone is spewing disinformation that has been already proven false many times, what else can you do to improve the signal-to-noise ratio but to mute them?

jebronie 5y ago

Then explain why Pfizer is not blocked on Twitter. They also "spewed disinformation" to promote "vaccine hesitancy" against a rival product: https://www.cityam.com/pfizer-accused-of-funding-anti-astrazeneca-information/ https://www.cityam.com/pfizer-accused-of-funding-anti-astraz...

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
m-p-3 5y ago
Pfizer didn't write those slides, a third-party did, on which Pfizer claim they had no input. One could argue they did, but there isn't tangible evidence to claim they did.
- jebronie 5y ago
  That's extremely naive. Why would you give a company, that has a terrible track record of doing absolutely horrific shit just for money, the benefit of the doubt?

rurban 5y ago

This doctor did not spew misinformation, he was right scientifically. The press does spew misinformation on a weekly basis, also for COVID-19. Was the press deplatformed? No. There is a process to determine truth, that's called science. Abandoning the scientific process for political goals, and economical goals in the case of the press is harmful. Here he was deplatformed for political reasons, like crying fire in a theatre. Vaccinations are important, and criticism has a huge effect on the percentages. And under 85% the policies are not working that much.

nradov 5y ago
Science can almost never determine truth. Usually the best it can do is a high level of probability.

bmeski 5y ago

It’s really sad to see smart people argue against their own interests. This is not good. Read the papers and fine print on everything. Science should be inherently skeptical. If you haven’t read the papers and understood them, you have no business claiming this person is spewing disinformation or not. Your opinion is not yours otherwise. Example, the CDC points to an Arizona study about mask efficacy in public schools. The study did not address the large range of total days in school for each district/school. Some unmasked schools were in session almost 3x longer than the masked ones, so of course there was more spread. Also there was no specification if the spread occurred at home or in school. I understand this is a horrible disease and we need to do our best to get through this, but there is some seriously janky/inept science going on.

belorn 5y ago
What I read, some schools were actually closed and only had remote work. That is clear evidence of bad data and grounds for doing a new study.
- peteradio 5y ago
  Ya but if instead we just label you disinformation for bringing it up, then its much neater for us. We don't have to admit our ability to field studies is not up to the task of guiding a nation growing towards half a B. Enjoy the void looser.

faeriechangling 5y ago

Major social media sites and fact checkers all shunned “lab-leak” as a fringe conspiracy theory simply because Trump professed to believe in it. Once he left office we acknowledged it as a real possibility. I don’t think these organizations or people have the knowledge to correctly assess what he’s saying. This I suspect the ban happened wholly because he’s a controversial fringe contrarian. Since I think that, I’m much more ambivalent about the ban. The politics of such a situation will NEVER allow for such a voice to be on a major platform if the stakes are so high and they’re rather effectual in their influence.

sascha_sl 5y ago
No, the lab leak theory was fringe. It still sort of is. Everything pointed to animal origin, but since we haven't found it and it's less and less likely we'll ever find it (the evidence may no longer exist), other theories are back on the table. Though lab leak has exactly the same amount of hard evidence going for it. None.
- yucky 5y ago