4 ms·

It’s important to have a meta conversation because the media and social media were actively hindering discussion (censoring) that examined the lab leak hypothes

by mc32 5y ago

It’s important to have a meta conversation because the media and social media were actively hindering discussion (censoring) that examined the lab leak hypothesis. One can’t have an honest investigation if one major avenue is shut down.

ajross 5y ago
But... we're literally discussing a book written on the subject. It wasn't censored. Neither were discussions here on this site, where lab leak arguments were very popular. Are you really sure you aren't confusing controversy (the fact that an opinion can be a minority one with which most experts disagree) with suppression?
- mc32 5y ago
  Yes, two years after the fact. It’s like saying, after Snowden released his trove of documents, what government secret data collection? look, here’s what Snowden showed us, it’s not secret! We need open discussion at all times not only after we “get permission”. When we had the ricin incident in the 2000s people openly discussed the possibility of a lab insider being the source any it wasn’t censored by the media.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- kspacewalk2 5y ago
  Just because suppression wasn't successful doesn't mean it wasn't attempted. And the attempt itself, by leading Western scientists who attempted to forestall any discussion and gaslight dissenters with accusations of anti-Chinese bigotry and scientific ignorance, is to me an even bigger story than covid's actual origins.
  - lern_too_spel 5y ago
    The government continued to investigate the lab leak hypothesis from the very beginning. The fact that some scientists tried to paint it as anti-Chinese bigotry (and some of the accusations clearly were) did not stop this. There's very little there there.
    - watwut 5y ago
      I mean, the reality also is that there were in fact serious attempts to unleash bigotry instead of focusing on response. That is reality of what happened too. Huge reason why people painted it as anti-Chinese bigotry is that such a thing played a huge role in Trump response. Renaming Covid-19 to Chinese virus while downplaying need for tests and such was exactly that.
    - mc32 5y ago
      Social media actively censored such discussion and Google also manipulated autocomplete, etc. The WHO and CDC dismissed the theory at the time. The CCP actively scrubbed data which would affect the effectiveness of any subsequent investigation.
      - lern_too_spel 5y ago
        1. What data did the CCP delete? 2. Facebook ham-fistedly censored conspiracy theory posts that the virus was man-made and later realized that they were also censoring actual lab leak discussion and fixed their policy. 3. Google turned off autocomplete because most of the autocompletions were crazy conspiracy theories. People could still search for whatever they wanted. None of this stopped actual investigation of the lab leak hypothesis, which you claim could not have happened due to Facebook's actions.
  - mytailorisrich 5y ago
    There was no suppression, quite tyje opposite: the lab leak hypothesis has been pusjed again and again, often with 'convenient' timing. Now for scientists there is no point discussing this without any concrete element. Sure, a lab leak or even an artificial origin of the virus are potential hypotheses but then people need to find evidence, and the more far-fetched the hypothesis the stronger the evidence needed before keeping mentioning it (or writing books...) Currently I don't think there are any material element so the reasonable and scientific thing to do is to work on finding the origin of the virus and only then to discuss facts.
    - adolph 5y ago
      “Quite the opposite,” really? Lancet CORRESPONDENCE| VOLUME 395, ISSUE 10226, E42-E43, MARCH 07, 2020 We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30418-9/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... Lancet CORRESPONDENCE| VOLUME 398, ISSUE 10309, P1402-1404, OCTOBER 16, 2021 The authors associated any alternative view with conspiracy theories by stating: “We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin”. The statement has imparted a silencing effect on the wider scientific debate, including among science journalists. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02019-5/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... Edit: to add context: the authors of that letter didn’t disclose their conflicts of interest and mischaracterized the cited genomic research which hadn’t and still hasn’t found a wild match. Daszak’s story began falling apart last November when the non-profit group US Right to Know published emails gathered through a freedom of information request that showed he had orchestrated the Lancet statement without disclosing that he was funding Shi Zhengli through grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Daszak’s credibility took a further hit this June when Sachs published an essay that called for an independent investigation of the pandemic’s origin and charged that both China and the NIH should be transparent about virus research, including “gain-of-function” studies that make viruses more transmissible and virulent. https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2414 https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2414
- celticninja 5y ago
  The suppression is occurring in the actual investigation in China, not in relation to this book.
- coolso 5y ago
  > It wasn't censored. When the establishment media and big tech puts forth extreme concerted effort in using whatever underhanded techniques it can to attempt to slander and undermine you and your ideas, calling you every name in the book, associating you with "undesirable" groups of people, putting "debunked" labels next to the things you say, de-platforms, cancels, the whole nine yards... and its followers lap up that behavior, and engage in it themselves on discussion websites and social media, and even in real life, but you can still technically talk about it on the far corners of the web or if you're in a group of people you're sure think like you think, sorry but that is absolutely 100% still a form of censorship. The lab leak theory was never treated by the establishment as "a minority opinion with which most experts disagree", it was ridiculed and attacked, thereby effectively changing much of the public psyche against it. The damage was done. The government doesn't have to force a website to delete a post mentioning the lab leak theory in order for something to be considered censorship. Otherwise you're playing the semantics game - and losing at it.
beefield 5y ago
> It’s important to have a meta conversation because the media and social media were actively hindering discussion (censoring) that examined the lab leak hypothesis. > One can’t have an honest investigation if one major avenue is shut down. The problem is that to my understanding the lab-leak discussion was (and still somewhat is) dominated by raving mad conspiracy lunatics[1] or instances trying to inflict racism. I fully admit that someone should seriously research that hypothesis (I fully assume there are some serious folks doing just that), but it is also difficult to blame media trying to keep the raving mad in check, even if some sensible arguments are thrown with the bathwater. (Besides, I am not sure if public discussion has anything substantial to add before there is some conclusion on the matter) [1] As this is somewhat heated discussion, I think I need to emphasize that I definitely do not imply that all who doubt lab-leak are raving mad. If you think I do, please breathe and read again.
- freewilly1040 5y ago
  If a theory has been labeled as raving mad racism, only those that are comfortable with the cost of that being labelled thus will speak up. I don’t see where the media deserves a pass.
  - craftinator 5y ago
    You have failed to comprehend the parent comment. Please read again.
- angelzen 5y ago
  In a free society the job of the media is to report the facts, not to "keep the raving mad in check".

by mc32 5y ago

ajross 5y ago

But... we're literally discussing a book written on the subject. It wasn't censored. Neither were discussions here on this site, where lab leak arguments were very popular. Are you really sure you aren't confusing controversy (the fact that an opinion can be a minority one with which most experts disagree) with suppression?

mc32 5y ago
Yes, two years after the fact. It’s like saying, after Snowden released his trove of documents, what government secret data collection? look, here’s what Snowden showed us, it’s not secret! We need open discussion at all times not only after we “get permission”. When we had the ricin incident in the 2000s people openly discussed the possibility of a lab insider being the source any it wasn’t censored by the media.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
kspacewalk2 5y ago
Just because suppression wasn't successful doesn't mean it wasn't attempted. And the attempt itself, by leading Western scientists who attempted to forestall any discussion and gaslight dissenters with accusations of anti-Chinese bigotry and scientific ignorance, is to me an even bigger story than covid's actual origins.
- lern_too_spel 5y ago
  The government continued to investigate the lab leak hypothesis from the very beginning. The fact that some scientists tried to paint it as anti-Chinese bigotry (and some of the accusations clearly were) did not stop this. There's very little there there.
  - watwut 5y ago
    I mean, the reality also is that there were in fact serious attempts to unleash bigotry instead of focusing on response. That is reality of what happened too. Huge reason why people painted it as anti-Chinese bigotry is that such a thing played a huge role in Trump response. Renaming Covid-19 to Chinese virus while downplaying need for tests and such was exactly that.
  - mc32 5y ago
    Social media actively censored such discussion and Google also manipulated autocomplete, etc. The WHO and CDC dismissed the theory at the time. The CCP actively scrubbed data which would affect the effectiveness of any subsequent investigation.
    - lern_too_spel 5y ago
      1. What data did the CCP delete? 2. Facebook ham-fistedly censored conspiracy theory posts that the virus was man-made and later realized that they were also censoring actual lab leak discussion and fixed their policy. 3. Google turned off autocomplete because most of the autocompletions were crazy conspiracy theories. People could still search for whatever they wanted. None of this stopped actual investigation of the lab leak hypothesis, which you claim could not have happened due to Facebook's actions.
- mytailorisrich 5y ago
  There was no suppression, quite tyje opposite: the lab leak hypothesis has been pusjed again and again, often with 'convenient' timing. Now for scientists there is no point discussing this without any concrete element. Sure, a lab leak or even an artificial origin of the virus are potential hypotheses but then people need to find evidence, and the more far-fetched the hypothesis the stronger the evidence needed before keeping mentioning it (or writing books...) Currently I don't think there are any material element so the reasonable and scientific thing to do is to work on finding the origin of the virus and only then to discuss facts.
  - adolph 5y ago
    “Quite the opposite,” really? Lancet CORRESPONDENCE| VOLUME 395, ISSUE 10226, E42-E43, MARCH 07, 2020 We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30418-9/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... Lancet CORRESPONDENCE| VOLUME 398, ISSUE 10309, P1402-1404, OCTOBER 16, 2021 The authors associated any alternative view with conspiracy theories by stating: “We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin”. The statement has imparted a silencing effect on the wider scientific debate, including among science journalists. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02019-5/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... Edit: to add context: the authors of that letter didn’t disclose their conflicts of interest and mischaracterized the cited genomic research which hadn’t and still hasn’t found a wild match. Daszak’s story began falling apart last November when the non-profit group US Right to Know published emails gathered through a freedom of information request that showed he had orchestrated the Lancet statement without disclosing that he was funding Shi Zhengli through grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Daszak’s credibility took a further hit this June when Sachs published an essay that called for an independent investigation of the pandemic’s origin and charged that both China and the NIH should be transparent about virus research, including “gain-of-function” studies that make viruses more transmissible and virulent. https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2414 https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2414
celticninja 5y ago
The suppression is occurring in the actual investigation in China, not in relation to this book.
coolso 5y ago
> It wasn't censored. When the establishment media and big tech puts forth extreme concerted effort in using whatever underhanded techniques it can to attempt to slander and undermine you and your ideas, calling you every name in the book, associating you with "undesirable" groups of people, putting "debunked" labels next to the things you say, de-platforms, cancels, the whole nine yards... and its followers lap up that behavior, and engage in it themselves on discussion websites and social media, and even in real life, but you can still technically talk about it on the far corners of the web or if you're in a group of people you're sure think like you think, sorry but that is absolutely 100% still a form of censorship. The lab leak theory was never treated by the establishment as "a minority opinion with which most experts disagree", it was ridiculed and attacked, thereby effectively changing much of the public psyche against it. The damage was done. The government doesn't have to force a website to delete a post mentioning the lab leak theory in order for something to be considered censorship. Otherwise you're playing the semantics game - and losing at it.

beefield 5y ago

> It’s important to have a meta conversation because the media and social media were actively hindering discussion (censoring) that examined the lab leak hypothesis. > One can’t have an honest investigation if one major avenue is shut down. The problem is that to my understanding the lab-leak discussion was (and still somewhat is) dominated by raving mad conspiracy lunatics[1] or instances trying to inflict racism. I fully admit that someone should seriously research that hypothesis (I fully assume there are some serious folks doing just that), but it is also difficult to blame media trying to keep the raving mad in check, even if some sensible arguments are thrown with the bathwater. (Besides, I am not sure if public discussion has anything substantial to add before there is some conclusion on the matter) [1] As this is somewhat heated discussion, I think I need to emphasize that I definitely do not imply that all who doubt lab-leak are raving mad. If you think I do, please breathe and read again.

freewilly1040 5y ago
If a theory has been labeled as raving mad racism, only those that are comfortable with the cost of that being labelled thus will speak up. I don’t see where the media deserves a pass.
- craftinator 5y ago
  You have failed to comprehend the parent comment. Please read again.
angelzen 5y ago
In a free society the job of the media is to report the facts, not to "keep the raving mad in check".