6 ms·

It's unfortunate that they were loud with the misinformation and very quiet with the correction.

ipiz0618 5y ago
Exactly. They act like they are the "authority" when most of their initial statements were wrong. It's understandable to be wrong because no one knew much about this virus at first, and everyone, including the ones that were proven right, was making guesses. But labelling the opposite side as "misinformation" only to agree with them afterwards is disgusting.
- jimmydorry 5y ago
  Labelling is one thing (putting a warning underneath posts with the current understanding of a given topic), but the step too far (in my opinion) was the silencing and deplatforming by way of removing posts and banning users. No company should have unfettered control over the metaphorical "town square" to control population-level discourse.
  - JetAlone 5y ago
    Ahhhh, it's not a town square. It's Mordor, the panopticon. And we're just a horde of orcs wondering when meat's back on the menu.
    - ngc248 5y ago
      We are in fact the meat.
      - JetAlone 5y ago
        Actually, there's a totally apt device in LOTR already: the palantíri. https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/Palant%C3%ADri https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/Palant%C3%ADri Except instead of there being only seven, Sauron mass-produced them and now everyone has one, maybe two. Hardly nobody even meets at the Prancing Pony anymore, at least without a palantíri call first.
  - seattle_spring 5y ago
    Then the "town square" would become completely overrun with hateful people yelling falsehoods through microphones. Normal people would avoid the "town square" like the plague.
    - spookthesunset 5y ago
      I agree. But wait until you have rational thoughts that get you banned and deplatformed for “misinformation”. I didn’t think it would ever happen to me until it did… there is definitely a balance between keeping toxic crap off a forum and labeling everything the admins happen to disagree with as “misinformation”
      - seattle_spring 5y ago
        What specifically did you say that got you banned?
        spookthesunset 5y ago
        Posting public data from the county Covid dashboard. “It’s dangerous” I was told.
        JetAlone 5y ago
        The most concise word for that is not misinformation, it's malinformation; true information spread with an intent to cause harm. https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.brookings.edu%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2020%2F07%2F200706_global_twitter_fig4.png&f=1&nofb=1 https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2F... It's fine because you didn't intend to harm anyone, but now that you know it's dangerous, if you kept spreading that public data, we would know you intended harm and your behaviour would be rightly considered malinformation. That would be double plus bad.
    - jimmydorry 5y ago
      People of the past would consider our crowded city town spaces completely overrun. I can't speak for your specific locality, but when I go to mine, I always see that there are several people with a microphone proselytising or screaming about the end of the world. Perspective changes over time, and I have no doubt that the "town squares" will adapt into forms unrecognizable to those of us alive now, but to simply throw our hands up in the air a cede all control of public discourse to unaccountable entities is an abhorent thought.
- Overtonwindow 5y ago
  Hrm reminds me of government.
- jayd16 5y ago
  >But labelling the opposite side as "misinformation" only to agree with them afterwards is disgusting. Is it though? If someone makes an unfounded guess and states it as fact isn't it fair to call that misinformation even if that turns out to be correct? What would be your preferred approach?
  - leetcrew 5y ago
    how about not calling anything misinformation until you're pretty damn sure you're right yourself?
    - diffeomorphism 5y ago
      No, that is a complete overreaction. You can still call out "aliens did it" or other obvious nonsense.
      - janto 5y ago
        Framing the dissenting opinion as equivalent to "aliens did it" is exactly the problem. When the opinion turns out correct are you going to continue making those categorization errors? What lead to that mistake in the first place?
        diffeomorphism 5y ago
        > Framing the dissenting opinion as equivalent to "aliens did it" is exactly the problem. You made a category error by somehow replacing "opinions which are obvious nonsense" with "any dissenting opinion whatsoever". Nobody but you suggested that. The claim was that you cannot say anything at all about any "dissenting opinion" unless you are 100% sure you are correct. That is nonsense. You can obviously say something about some of them, while not being confident enough to rule out some others.
        janto 5y ago
        What do you do with opinions that you think are wrong? Do you place them all in an "obviously nonsense" category and slap a misinformation sticker on it so others are not tempted to look at it? Because that is what happened here. What do you do when it turns out some of those things were true? Do you continue to curate the world with willful blindness?
tuxie_ 5y ago
I don't think it's fair to call it "misinformation" since that implies an intention to spread false or unchecked information. To the best of their knowledge , at the time, that was what the evidence pointed to. Then, as more evidence surfaced they realized that those assumptions didn't hold (and that could change again in the future with new research).
- janto 5y ago
  Live by the sword, die by the sword.
ls15 5y ago
- divbzero 5y ago
  I understand the frustration with mandates and wish we didn’t have them, but also think the vaccines are sound from a medical and public health standpoint. > the vaccine does not prevent infection or transmission The vaccine does actually prevent infection, very well against the initial virus and moderately well against recent variants. > It was claimed for a good year that the vaccines "protect you and the ones you love and therefore everyone needs to take it in order to meet other people." That’s because the vaccines did a great job of preventing infection for a good year or so until newer variants came in. Protection against infection with two doses of the mRNA vaccine has dropped from something like >90% in the original trials to <50% with the newest variants. > Traditional vaccines contain dead pathogens that do not reproduce, while the new ones contains a mechanism that produces new pathogen. This statement is a bit off in terms of how traditional vaccines and newer mRNA vaccines work. First, the spike protein produced from mRNA vaccines is not a pathogen. Second, mRNA vaccines do not reproduce or replicate. Third, some traditional vaccines are attenuated vaccines [1] that can actually replicate, a fact that is taken into account when they are used. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attenuated_vaccine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attenuated_vaccine
  - ls15 5y ago
    I don't attack the vaccines as a useful tool in many cases, but the way in that they are/were marketed and mandated and the way in that sceptics are/were treated, as well as the way in that concerns about adverse reactions are treated. > That’s because the vaccines did a great job of preventing infection for a good year or so until newer variants came in. Protection against infection with two doses of the mRNA vaccine has dropped from something like >90% in the original trials to <50% with the newest variants. But wasn't that to be expected, because viruses mutate? It was surely mentioned by many when it started, but that did not stop the discrimination. > First, the spike protein produced from mRNA vaccines is not a pathogen. If it is not the spike protein, then what is most likely causing post-mRNA myocarditis? > Second, mRNA vaccines do not reproduce or replicate. That's not what I claimed, but that even after 8 weeks new spike protein can be produced. If spike protein is likely to cause myocarditis and potentially other adverse reactions and spike protein is still produced 8 weeks after injection, then delayed reactions seem reasonable. Public claims were that spike protein only gets produced for a very short amount of time, while there were never actual numbers. Because nobody knew, I guess.
thenerdhead 5y ago
Exactly this. - A claim is made with apparently uncontested evidence like a video, picture, quote, article, or endorsement. - Knowledgeable viewers see the story and realize something is wrong. - Meanwhile, the original claim starts to get spread by the "credible" media such as newspapers, TV, and online publications. - Critics then mock and complain on social media about the claim. - The regular news eventually catches up and makes new stories over the corrected claim without a reference to their original claims. Hold these people accountable and don't give them your attention. Journalism has lost much of it's integrity.

Exactly. They act like they are the "authority" when most of their initial statements were wrong. It's understandable to be wrong because no one knew much about this virus at first, and everyone, including the ones that were proven right, was making guesses. But labelling the opposite side as "misinformation" only to agree with them afterwards is disgusting.

jimmydorry 5y ago
Labelling is one thing (putting a warning underneath posts with the current understanding of a given topic), but the step too far (in my opinion) was the silencing and deplatforming by way of removing posts and banning users. No company should have unfettered control over the metaphorical "town square" to control population-level discourse.
- JetAlone 5y ago
  Ahhhh, it's not a town square. It's Mordor, the panopticon. And we're just a horde of orcs wondering when meat's back on the menu.
  - ngc248 5y ago
    We are in fact the meat.
    - JetAlone 5y ago
      Actually, there's a totally apt device in LOTR already: the palantíri. https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/Palant%C3%ADri https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/Palant%C3%ADri Except instead of there being only seven, Sauron mass-produced them and now everyone has one, maybe two. Hardly nobody even meets at the Prancing Pony anymore, at least without a palantíri call first.
- seattle_spring 5y ago
  Then the "town square" would become completely overrun with hateful people yelling falsehoods through microphones. Normal people would avoid the "town square" like the plague.
  - spookthesunset 5y ago
    I agree. But wait until you have rational thoughts that get you banned and deplatformed for “misinformation”. I didn’t think it would ever happen to me until it did… there is definitely a balance between keeping toxic crap off a forum and labeling everything the admins happen to disagree with as “misinformation”
    - seattle_spring 5y ago
      What specifically did you say that got you banned?
      - spookthesunset 5y ago
        Posting public data from the county Covid dashboard. “It’s dangerous” I was told.
        JetAlone 5y ago
        The most concise word for that is not misinformation, it's malinformation; true information spread with an intent to cause harm. https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.brookings.edu%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2020%2F07%2F200706_global_twitter_fig4.png&f=1&nofb=1 https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2F... It's fine because you didn't intend to harm anyone, but now that you know it's dangerous, if you kept spreading that public data, we would know you intended harm and your behaviour would be rightly considered malinformation. That would be double plus bad.
  - jimmydorry 5y ago
    People of the past would consider our crowded city town spaces completely overrun. I can't speak for your specific locality, but when I go to mine, I always see that there are several people with a microphone proselytising or screaming about the end of the world. Perspective changes over time, and I have no doubt that the "town squares" will adapt into forms unrecognizable to those of us alive now, but to simply throw our hands up in the air a cede all control of public discourse to unaccountable entities is an abhorent thought.
Overtonwindow 5y ago
Hrm reminds me of government.
jayd16 5y ago
>But labelling the opposite side as "misinformation" only to agree with them afterwards is disgusting. Is it though? If someone makes an unfounded guess and states it as fact isn't it fair to call that misinformation even if that turns out to be correct? What would be your preferred approach?
- leetcrew 5y ago
  how about not calling anything misinformation until you're pretty damn sure you're right yourself?
  - diffeomorphism 5y ago
    No, that is a complete overreaction. You can still call out "aliens did it" or other obvious nonsense.
    - janto 5y ago
      Framing the dissenting opinion as equivalent to "aliens did it" is exactly the problem. When the opinion turns out correct are you going to continue making those categorization errors? What lead to that mistake in the first place?
      - diffeomorphism 5y ago
        > Framing the dissenting opinion as equivalent to "aliens did it" is exactly the problem. You made a category error by somehow replacing "opinions which are obvious nonsense" with "any dissenting opinion whatsoever". Nobody but you suggested that. The claim was that you cannot say anything at all about any "dissenting opinion" unless you are 100% sure you are correct. That is nonsense. You can obviously say something about some of them, while not being confident enough to rule out some others.
        janto 5y ago
        What do you do with opinions that you think are wrong? Do you place them all in an "obviously nonsense" category and slap a misinformation sticker on it so others are not tempted to look at it? Because that is what happened here. What do you do when it turns out some of those things were true? Do you continue to curate the world with willful blindness?

tuxie_ 5y ago

I don't think it's fair to call it "misinformation" since that implies an intention to spread false or unchecked information. To the best of their knowledge , at the time, that was what the evidence pointed to. Then, as more evidence surfaced they realized that those assumptions didn't hold (and that could change again in the future with new research).

janto 5y ago
Live by the sword, die by the sword.

ls15 5y ago

divbzero 5y ago
I understand the frustration with mandates and wish we didn’t have them, but also think the vaccines are sound from a medical and public health standpoint. > the vaccine does not prevent infection or transmission The vaccine does actually prevent infection, very well against the initial virus and moderately well against recent variants. > It was claimed for a good year that the vaccines "protect you and the ones you love and therefore everyone needs to take it in order to meet other people." That’s because the vaccines did a great job of preventing infection for a good year or so until newer variants came in. Protection against infection with two doses of the mRNA vaccine has dropped from something like >90% in the original trials to <50% with the newest variants. > Traditional vaccines contain dead pathogens that do not reproduce, while the new ones contains a mechanism that produces new pathogen. This statement is a bit off in terms of how traditional vaccines and newer mRNA vaccines work. First, the spike protein produced from mRNA vaccines is not a pathogen. Second, mRNA vaccines do not reproduce or replicate. Third, some traditional vaccines are attenuated vaccines [1] that can actually replicate, a fact that is taken into account when they are used. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attenuated_vaccine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attenuated_vaccine
- ls15 5y ago
  I don't attack the vaccines as a useful tool in many cases, but the way in that they are/were marketed and mandated and the way in that sceptics are/were treated, as well as the way in that concerns about adverse reactions are treated. > That’s because the vaccines did a great job of preventing infection for a good year or so until newer variants came in. Protection against infection with two doses of the mRNA vaccine has dropped from something like >90% in the original trials to <50% with the newest variants. But wasn't that to be expected, because viruses mutate? It was surely mentioned by many when it started, but that did not stop the discrimination. > First, the spike protein produced from mRNA vaccines is not a pathogen. If it is not the spike protein, then what is most likely causing post-mRNA myocarditis? > Second, mRNA vaccines do not reproduce or replicate. That's not what I claimed, but that even after 8 weeks new spike protein can be produced. If spike protein is likely to cause myocarditis and potentially other adverse reactions and spike protein is still produced 8 weeks after injection, then delayed reactions seem reasonable. Public claims were that spike protein only gets produced for a very short amount of time, while there were never actual numbers. Because nobody knew, I guess.

thenerdhead 5y ago

Exactly this. - A claim is made with apparently uncontested evidence like a video, picture, quote, article, or endorsement. - Knowledgeable viewers see the story and realize something is wrong. - Meanwhile, the original claim starts to get spread by the "credible" media such as newspapers, TV, and online publications. - Critics then mock and complain on social media about the claim. - The regular news eventually catches up and makes new stories over the corrected claim without a reference to their original claims. Hold these people accountable and don't give them your attention. Journalism has lost much of it's integrity.