3 ms·

Of course not. But comments don’t have to be hate speech to be damaging nonsense. And things don’t even have to be damaging for them to be too stupid for me to

Of course not. But comments don’t have to be hate speech to be damaging nonsense. And things don’t even have to be damaging for them to be too stupid for me to want to read. I only have a finite number of hours in the day, so why would I waste them reading stupid comments from people latching onto conspiracies because they need some form of belief system to cope with the chaos?

raxxorrax 5y ago
Common problem that words are taken to heart by those that weren't meant to do that in the first place. But I think there cannot be objective rules. Sure, you can scrap some vulgar words but even that could be negative. It is a problem that has to be solved on the receiving end. I think indignation of what other people say online is the vastly larger problem than any conspiracy. What we have seen related to comments about Covid was not pretty. It really underlined why content should be as unrestricted as possible.
- laumars 5y ago
  > Common problem that words are taken to heart by those that weren't meant to do that in the first place. I’m not so sure about that. I think many of the opinions shared on social media are ones that people are passions about. Even if it’s unconsciously passionate. > But I think there cannot be objective rules. Sure, you can scrap some vulgar words but even that could be negative. It is a problem that has to be solved on the receiving end. Indeed. Which is why Facebook are losing members. To quote the movie “Wargames”: The only winning move is not to play. > I think indignation of what other people say online is the vastly larger problem than any conspiracy. What we have seen related to comments about Covid was not pretty. It really underlined why content should be as unrestricted as possible. The comments about COVID come from the same folk that follow conspiracy theories. The problem is once you stop listening to science and assume that experts cannot be trusted, you’re then defaulting to a position that there must be a conspiracy. It doesn’t mean all folk who are curious are worshipers of Qanon but the fact remains they still believe there is a conspiracy.
  - raxxorrax 5y ago
    To believe there is complete consensus between experts is a similar conspiracy theory. People don't get vaccinated for different reasons and one very sensible on is not to make yourself a subject to "science". Because that does not exist and even statements from scientists need scrutiny, their work even depends on it. Any serious scientist will confirm that for you. You cannot generalize critics as "folks that follow conspiracy theories", as a matter of fact that is why we see less and less trust in officials. They need criticism too.
    - laumars 5y ago
      > To believe there is complete consensus between experts is a similar conspiracy theory. There’s a gulf of difference between accepting that scientific opinion is divided; and thinking experts cannot be trusted. Conflating the two is simply silly because the former is being open minded to new evidence and analysis, and discussing those findings. Where as the latter is being closed minded to all formal evidence and analysis and refusing to discuss the science. To be honest this feels like a bloody obvious distinction that shouldn’t need to be made yet people do seem confused by it. > People don't get vaccinated for different reasons and one very sensible on is not to make yourself a subject to "science". Because that does not exist and even statements from scientists need scrutiny, their work even depends on it. Any serious scientist will confirm that for you. Confirm what? Your comment here it gibberish. If people have a medical reason not to be vaccinated then they obviously should not be vaccinated. However that just means it’s even more important for all those who are able to be vaccinated to be vaccinated (to reduce the overall risk so those at risk are protected by proxy). Saying “I don’t trust the science” is just a bullshit way of saying “i don’t understand science but also too lazy to learn it” and thus not an acceptable reason to avoid vaccination. > You cannot generalize critics as "folks that follow conspiracy theories", as a matter of fact that is why we see less and less trust in officials. They need criticism too. I can and I did. ;) Yes, science does need criticism. Which is exactly why it already happens. We called it “peer review” (in fact you said yourself that scientists don’t always have a consensus so you’re contradicting your own arguments now). The problem is people like yourself just assume those reviewers are also part of the conspiracy whenever that peer review doesn’t align with your assumed position. There’s literally Jack shit one can do to convince a person that due diligence has been done if that person has already convinced themselves that something isn’t safe and anyone that tells them otherwise is a liar.

raxxorrax 5y ago

Common problem that words are taken to heart by those that weren't meant to do that in the first place. But I think there cannot be objective rules. Sure, you can scrap some vulgar words but even that could be negative. It is a problem that has to be solved on the receiving end. I think indignation of what other people say online is the vastly larger problem than any conspiracy. What we have seen related to comments about Covid was not pretty. It really underlined why content should be as unrestricted as possible.

laumars 5y ago
> Common problem that words are taken to heart by those that weren't meant to do that in the first place. I’m not so sure about that. I think many of the opinions shared on social media are ones that people are passions about. Even if it’s unconsciously passionate. > But I think there cannot be objective rules. Sure, you can scrap some vulgar words but even that could be negative. It is a problem that has to be solved on the receiving end. Indeed. Which is why Facebook are losing members. To quote the movie “Wargames”: The only winning move is not to play. > I think indignation of what other people say online is the vastly larger problem than any conspiracy. What we have seen related to comments about Covid was not pretty. It really underlined why content should be as unrestricted as possible. The comments about COVID come from the same folk that follow conspiracy theories. The problem is once you stop listening to science and assume that experts cannot be trusted, you’re then defaulting to a position that there must be a conspiracy. It doesn’t mean all folk who are curious are worshipers of Qanon but the fact remains they still believe there is a conspiracy.
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  To believe there is complete consensus between experts is a similar conspiracy theory. People don't get vaccinated for different reasons and one very sensible on is not to make yourself a subject to "science". Because that does not exist and even statements from scientists need scrutiny, their work even depends on it. Any serious scientist will confirm that for you. You cannot generalize critics as "folks that follow conspiracy theories", as a matter of fact that is why we see less and less trust in officials. They need criticism too.
  - laumars 5y ago
    > To believe there is complete consensus between experts is a similar conspiracy theory. There’s a gulf of difference between accepting that scientific opinion is divided; and thinking experts cannot be trusted. Conflating the two is simply silly because the former is being open minded to new evidence and analysis, and discussing those findings. Where as the latter is being closed minded to all formal evidence and analysis and refusing to discuss the science. To be honest this feels like a bloody obvious distinction that shouldn’t need to be made yet people do seem confused by it. > People don't get vaccinated for different reasons and one very sensible on is not to make yourself a subject to "science". Because that does not exist and even statements from scientists need scrutiny, their work even depends on it. Any serious scientist will confirm that for you. Confirm what? Your comment here it gibberish. If people have a medical reason not to be vaccinated then they obviously should not be vaccinated. However that just means it’s even more important for all those who are able to be vaccinated to be vaccinated (to reduce the overall risk so those at risk are protected by proxy). Saying “I don’t trust the science” is just a bullshit way of saying “i don’t understand science but also too lazy to learn it” and thus not an acceptable reason to avoid vaccination. > You cannot generalize critics as "folks that follow conspiracy theories", as a matter of fact that is why we see less and less trust in officials. They need criticism too. I can and I did. ;) Yes, science does need criticism. Which is exactly why it already happens. We called it “peer review” (in fact you said yourself that scientists don’t always have a consensus so you’re contradicting your own arguments now). The problem is people like yourself just assume those reviewers are also part of the conspiracy whenever that peer review doesn’t align with your assumed position. There’s literally Jack shit one can do to convince a person that due diligence has been done if that person has already convinced themselves that something isn’t safe and anyone that tells them otherwise is a liar.