4 ms·

Not every issue needs to have both sides represented as if they are both reasonable and should both be considered. For example if you have a NASA expert talking

Not every issue needs to have both sides represented as if they are both reasonable and should both be considered. For example if you have a NASA expert talking about nearby galaxies, it isn't necessary to also invite a flat-earther to spout whatever nonsense they believe about space. During a deadly pandemic that's killing millions, it's perfectly fine to only present the information that will save lives.

enchiridion 5y ago
I disagree. The dangerous issues are precisely the ones that need more debate. The consequences of blindly following a single push are potentially cataclysmic. Your last statement relies on the assumption that the authorities actually know what information will save lives. I do not believe that is true. I do believe in the reasoning and self preservation instincts of most people. The way these experts have acted shows very little respect for the sanctity of the individual.
- mikeyouse 5y ago
  Listening to Joe Rogan corresponded to a halving of vaccination rate in those people and his idiotic breed of “both sides” literally got people killed. But glad we avoided something “cataclysmic” like more vaccination. These are the most naive arguments I could imagine. It’s certainly not important to platform a bunch of conspiracy riddled garbage.
  - enchiridion 5y ago
    "Platform", as in allow free speech, a core founding idea of liberal democracies everywhere. I'm aware speech on private platforms is not protected from the actions of the platform by the First Amendment. That doesn't mean it is morally acceptable for these platforms to infringe. "Conspiracy riddled garbage" which has turned out in more than one case to be right (the effectiveness of masking, effectiveness of social distancing, the effectiveness of lock downs). Just because the evidence currently looks to be in favor of vaccination doesn't mean we should shutdown dissenting opinions. Millions of people have given their lives to protect the ideal of free speech and similar freedoms. I have no issue with the fact that exercising that right may cause some harm. I fundamentally believe that free speech leads to better outcomes over the long term. Additionally, in this particular case the harm is not immediately obvious to me. If you are in a position to affect outcomes in this area (as many on HN probably are, given ties to social media), I hope you reflect on the environment of freedom you currently benefit from. Are comfortable restricting freedoms for future generations, who's situations and trials are unknown to you?
  - disambiguation 5y ago
    consider there are many who prefer a free, open, and optional platform that sometimes gets it wrong to a mandatory, closed one that can never be reviewed or corrected when it does get it wrong. i'm also curious if there's a source on the halving of vaccination rates?
    - ceejayoz 5y ago
      https://morningconsult.com/2022/03/14/joe-rogan-fans-demographics-political-messaging-persuasion/ https://morningconsult.com/2022/03/14/joe-rogan-fans-demogra... See the chart (oddly) titled "Over Half of Joe Rogan's Fans Are Vaccinated Against COVID-19" about 2/3 down. Avid fans: 55% vaccinated, 45% unvaccinated Nonfans: 76% vaccinated, 24% unvaccinated
      - disambiguation 5y ago
        very interesting, i'm inspired to do some quick loose math 1 in 10 people are avid fans (3 in 10 if you include casual) 7 in 10 are under the age of 45 - negligible covid deaths, so we'll look at the 3 in 10 over 45 ~20% could have been vaccinated if they didn't listen to JRE it's estimated that ~200k lives could have been saved by the vaccine [0] so .1 * .3 * .2 * 200k is the number of deaths attributable to Joe Rogan [0] (i'm extrapolating the ratio at the time to todays 1M deaths) https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/brief/covid19-and-other-leading-causes-of-death-in-the-us/ https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/brief/covid19-and-other-...
- dekhn 5y ago
  Let's simplify the moral calculus. You are a public health official with total authority over messaging. You are faced with a public health issue that could possibly be existential- that is, there is an estimated nonzero risk that if you fail to act, all of society could be wiped out. Do you: allow for free speech, risking total annihilation (because your freedom of speech principles are more important than societal existence), or disallow free speech during the emergency, while also agreeing to suspend it when well defined criteria are reached? I pick the latter. However, COVID itself was never existential (some fracction of people are immune, or get sick and then don't die, but instead reproduce, and over time, genetic immunity increases due to natural selection), although it was absolutely a threat to a healthy global economy (which in turn determines how much health care is available to society). So the calculus is more complicated. Probably, it's best to: promote the correct message, while allowing dissenting opiniions to be stated, but firmly refuted, and people who are saying things that are outright risky ("inject bleach") are shut down with the full force of law.
  - edmcnulty101 5y ago
    > However, COVID itself was never existential Covid was not existential. Here's a though experiment for you: If a group completely blew something out of proportion with massive restrictions on the world...would you want to know about it, to regain your freedom? Or continue to be lied to in order to save face for your ideological peer group?
    - dekhn 5y ago
      I don't know... did that happen? Or is this a hypothetical? It didn't happen (large scale intentional lying), but if my government openly lies, I will complain about it up and until they restrict my freedom of speech, and I'll use the mechanisms I know (using social media, salon discussion websites, etc) to promote my message.
  - disambiguation 5y ago
    the calculus is not as simple as you suggest, given "free speech" and "institutional message" are variable, too. your example implies "free speech" = some advice that will get you killed and "institutional message" = some advice that will definitely save your life it also implies that "officials" only act rationally and morally.
edmcnulty101 5y ago
The marketplace of ideas has decided that the flat earther's are wrong, not censorship. That's literally how science works. It's perfectly fine to invite whoever you want on your show, unless you're Joe Rogan apparently? Please stop with the fear based, hand wavy: 'millions have died!' to justify censorship and medical tyranny. It's not that simple. This is: * a novel vaccine developed with novel technology for a novel virus, where the effectiveness data has changed numerous times and breakthrough cases happen constantly and the FDA is fighting against requests to release the data that they used to approve it? * A virus where the 'experts' completely ignored natural immunity and now years later are acknowledging that it may be as effective or more effective than the vaccine. * A virus where every state and numerous countries have lifted all covid restrictions despite people dying in the THOUSANDS DAILY? You should support the questioning of everything, even the earth being flat, and let the marketplace of ideas decide instead of ideological news media and medical dictators who think people are too stupid to think for themselves and/or are guided by whatever back alley deals they're making with big pharma. And if none of this raises red flags for you then I worry that you're completely lost in the simplicity of ingroup/outgroup ideological propaganda. Remember, Lobotomies won the Nobel prize.
disambiguation 5y ago
I had the exact opposite takeaway from the pandemic. Doubling down on blatant lies during a mass casualty event is exactly what spooked so many people and fueled the anti-vax movement. "why would they lie? what else are they lying about? what are they hiding? whats their motive?" misinformation thrives in a low trust environment. sure misinformation agents can sow distrust, but that should be seen as an opportunity by the institutions to set the record straight and gain trust, because if their ideas are really misinformation there should be no issue with having a conversation that demonstrates it one way or the other. The exact wrong thing to do is double-down on lies, penalize, cancel, and censor free speech, and socially shame, berate, and hummiliate people that are just as scared, confused, and vulnerable as anyone else. That's how you lose trust and how misinformation wins.

enchiridion 5y ago

I disagree. The dangerous issues are precisely the ones that need more debate. The consequences of blindly following a single push are potentially cataclysmic. Your last statement relies on the assumption that the authorities actually know what information will save lives. I do not believe that is true. I do believe in the reasoning and self preservation instincts of most people. The way these experts have acted shows very little respect for the sanctity of the individual.

mikeyouse 5y ago
Listening to Joe Rogan corresponded to a halving of vaccination rate in those people and his idiotic breed of “both sides” literally got people killed. But glad we avoided something “cataclysmic” like more vaccination. These are the most naive arguments I could imagine. It’s certainly not important to platform a bunch of conspiracy riddled garbage.
- enchiridion 5y ago
  "Platform", as in allow free speech, a core founding idea of liberal democracies everywhere. I'm aware speech on private platforms is not protected from the actions of the platform by the First Amendment. That doesn't mean it is morally acceptable for these platforms to infringe. "Conspiracy riddled garbage" which has turned out in more than one case to be right (the effectiveness of masking, effectiveness of social distancing, the effectiveness of lock downs). Just because the evidence currently looks to be in favor of vaccination doesn't mean we should shutdown dissenting opinions. Millions of people have given their lives to protect the ideal of free speech and similar freedoms. I have no issue with the fact that exercising that right may cause some harm. I fundamentally believe that free speech leads to better outcomes over the long term. Additionally, in this particular case the harm is not immediately obvious to me. If you are in a position to affect outcomes in this area (as many on HN probably are, given ties to social media), I hope you reflect on the environment of freedom you currently benefit from. Are comfortable restricting freedoms for future generations, who's situations and trials are unknown to you?
- disambiguation 5y ago
  consider there are many who prefer a free, open, and optional platform that sometimes gets it wrong to a mandatory, closed one that can never be reviewed or corrected when it does get it wrong. i'm also curious if there's a source on the halving of vaccination rates?
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    https://morningconsult.com/2022/03/14/joe-rogan-fans-demographics-political-messaging-persuasion/ https://morningconsult.com/2022/03/14/joe-rogan-fans-demogra... See the chart (oddly) titled "Over Half of Joe Rogan's Fans Are Vaccinated Against COVID-19" about 2/3 down. Avid fans: 55% vaccinated, 45% unvaccinated Nonfans: 76% vaccinated, 24% unvaccinated
    - disambiguation 5y ago
      very interesting, i'm inspired to do some quick loose math 1 in 10 people are avid fans (3 in 10 if you include casual) 7 in 10 are under the age of 45 - negligible covid deaths, so we'll look at the 3 in 10 over 45 ~20% could have been vaccinated if they didn't listen to JRE it's estimated that ~200k lives could have been saved by the vaccine [0] so .1 * .3 * .2 * 200k is the number of deaths attributable to Joe Rogan [0] (i'm extrapolating the ratio at the time to todays 1M deaths) https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/brief/covid19-and-other-leading-causes-of-death-in-the-us/ https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/brief/covid19-and-other-...
dekhn 5y ago
Let's simplify the moral calculus. You are a public health official with total authority over messaging. You are faced with a public health issue that could possibly be existential- that is, there is an estimated nonzero risk that if you fail to act, all of society could be wiped out. Do you: allow for free speech, risking total annihilation (because your freedom of speech principles are more important than societal existence), or disallow free speech during the emergency, while also agreeing to suspend it when well defined criteria are reached? I pick the latter. However, COVID itself was never existential (some fracction of people are immune, or get sick and then don't die, but instead reproduce, and over time, genetic immunity increases due to natural selection), although it was absolutely a threat to a healthy global economy (which in turn determines how much health care is available to society). So the calculus is more complicated. Probably, it's best to: promote the correct message, while allowing dissenting opiniions to be stated, but firmly refuted, and people who are saying things that are outright risky ("inject bleach") are shut down with the full force of law.
- edmcnulty101 5y ago
  > However, COVID itself was never existential Covid was not existential. Here's a though experiment for you: If a group completely blew something out of proportion with massive restrictions on the world...would you want to know about it, to regain your freedom? Or continue to be lied to in order to save face for your ideological peer group?
  - dekhn 5y ago
    I don't know... did that happen? Or is this a hypothetical? It didn't happen (large scale intentional lying), but if my government openly lies, I will complain about it up and until they restrict my freedom of speech, and I'll use the mechanisms I know (using social media, salon discussion websites, etc) to promote my message.
- disambiguation 5y ago
  the calculus is not as simple as you suggest, given "free speech" and "institutional message" are variable, too. your example implies "free speech" = some advice that will get you killed and "institutional message" = some advice that will definitely save your life it also implies that "officials" only act rationally and morally.

edmcnulty101 5y ago

The marketplace of ideas has decided that the flat earther's are wrong, not censorship. That's literally how science works. It's perfectly fine to invite whoever you want on your show, unless you're Joe Rogan apparently? Please stop with the fear based, hand wavy: 'millions have died!' to justify censorship and medical tyranny. It's not that simple. This is: * a novel vaccine developed with novel technology for a novel virus, where the effectiveness data has changed numerous times and breakthrough cases happen constantly and the FDA is fighting against requests to release the data that they used to approve it? * A virus where the 'experts' completely ignored natural immunity and now years later are acknowledging that it may be as effective or more effective than the vaccine. * A virus where every state and numerous countries have lifted all covid restrictions despite people dying in the THOUSANDS DAILY? You should support the questioning of everything, even the earth being flat, and let the marketplace of ideas decide instead of ideological news media and medical dictators who think people are too stupid to think for themselves and/or are guided by whatever back alley deals they're making with big pharma. And if none of this raises red flags for you then I worry that you're completely lost in the simplicity of ingroup/outgroup ideological propaganda. Remember, Lobotomies won the Nobel prize.

disambiguation 5y ago

I had the exact opposite takeaway from the pandemic. Doubling down on blatant lies during a mass casualty event is exactly what spooked so many people and fueled the anti-vax movement. "why would they lie? what else are they lying about? what are they hiding? whats their motive?" misinformation thrives in a low trust environment. sure misinformation agents can sow distrust, but that should be seen as an opportunity by the institutions to set the record straight and gain trust, because if their ideas are really misinformation there should be no issue with having a conversation that demonstrates it one way or the other. The exact wrong thing to do is double-down on lies, penalize, cancel, and censor free speech, and socially shame, berate, and hummiliate people that are just as scared, confused, and vulnerable as anyone else. That's how you lose trust and how misinformation wins.