5 ms·

There's a difference between opinions and misinformation, at least how I see it. "Covid isn't dangerous" is an opinion. "Covid doesn't exist" is misinformation

There's a difference between opinions and misinformation, at least how I see it. "Covid isn't dangerous" is an opinion. "Covid doesn't exist" is misinformation.

_vdpp 5y ago
“Misinformation” is being used as a cudgel to suppress opinions or even facts that are, say - inconvenient - for someone’s narrative though. Completely reasonable differences in opinion about the risk, origin, or proper mitigation of COVID were blasted as “misinformation” before they were eventually accepted by the wider establishment. The initial rush to completely censor such discussion early on is what caused all this free speech ruckus. There’s always been nutty conspiracy talk, scams, hoaxes, lies, ignorance - especially on the internet - and we’ve learned to filter it out. The “misinformation” label is going to backfire, though. Instead of ignoring it, people are going to take a closer look, because there’s probably something there that the labeler finds inconvenient. If it was simply untrue, then say so, call it “not true” or a “lie.” Instead, “misinformation” is this kind of 1984-ish weasel word used to discredit inconvenient facts while maintaining plausible deniability when they turn out to be correct.
- vxNsr 5y ago
  > Instead, “misinformation” is this kind of 1984-ish weasel word used to discredit inconvenient facts while maintaining plausible deniability when they turn out to be correct. This is so well stated I’ve saved it with attribution for future reference and quoting. You’ve hit the crux of the problem people today have with society at large. It truly feels like we’re living in the on ramp to one of the dystopian novels from our youth, 1984, the giver, etc. Large swaths of society see nothing wrong with controlling people’s thought.
- dukeofdoom 5y ago
  As someone that was always very skeptical of the claimed effectiveness of the vaccine, despite the claims of its effectiveness by the experts at the time from both administrations. I feel vindicated when real world numbers come out like this. https://www.walgreens.com/businesssolutions/covid-19-index.jsp https://www.walgreens.com/businesssolutions/covid-19-index.j... Page 3, showing the unvaccinated testing at a much lower rate for covid than the double or triple vaccinated despite being forced to take a lot more tests. I just assume it's easier to claim success than to actually achieve it. I also took a few stat courses at university, and saw problems with claims being made at that time. So I opted to wait. Now I'm glad I did.
  - edmundsauto 5y ago
    It could easily be that unvaccinated people are more likely to get a test when they have no symptoms but did have an exposure, because they know C19 has worse outcomes when unvaccinated. Or, as you say - they are tested more often, routinely, without symptoms or exposures because of their status. I'd say both are more likely explanations than the vaccine makes people more likely to contract covid, which appears to be what you're suggesting.
    - dukeofdoom 5y ago
      Well except. Take two groups, A and B. If A tests more often, then the accuracy of the results are more accurate, because you have more data points confirming the results and are more likely to count all the positive cases during the 10 day window when someone might test positive. This is not a trivial difference either. The triple Vaccinated are 3 times more likely to test positive now, according to the Walgreens results, despite that group going in for testing at much lower rates. Are there some circumstances under which we might see this pattern, sure. But there are also some circumstances on the other side of the argument like Marek's disease that lead to the disease evolving to target the vaccinated. Anyway, we went from expert claims of vaccine being 98% effective at preventing covid, to what now? hoping they will get the same infection rate as the unvaccinated. You have to admit the standards keep dropping. Now this doesn't even consider the economic damage done by the lockdowns. That same Walgreens is running out of baby formula. It was a mainstream story just a day ago. Also, Ontario is showing the same pattern. Though it over counts the unvaccinated in all categories, by including those that received a single dose, and those getting sick within 14 days. https://covid-19.ontario.ca/data?fbclid=1 https://covid-19.ontario.ca/data?fbclid=1
      - chiggsy 5y ago
        Seems like more is being found out about covid, and so things which were thought early, turned out to have more nuance to them. Vaxxed people absolutely don't get hit as hard by covid, therefore requiring far less expensive hospital care. Since we all pay for this, this seems a reasonable thing to do. What is not reasonable is me trusting YOU, someone who's arguments, seem somewhat ... unconvincing, about the severity of the covid infection you would spread to me without a care. As for your babies, supply chain issues coincided with covid, they are not caused by it. Please research the issue, you will see. Why not take a trip to a hospital and ask the staff what they see and think? Oh, and a mortuary, see what they are seeing. I look forward to your report, sir.
_bfhp 5y ago
"Humans are mammals, so they are mostly either male or female" misinformation or opinion? "Israel is an apartheid state, even one of its former ministers said this" misinformation or opinion? "Government-funded groups like Hasbara Fellowships and CAMERA make up an operation to spread propaganda and influence our elections" misinformation or opinion? And who should decide one or the other? If you have the names of any experts we should appoint at Twitter, Facebook etc, it would be great to know.
- judge2020 5y ago
  Who decided depends on who you ask to propagate your opinion. If they disagree with it they don't have to restate what you say.
  - LegitShady 5y ago
    if opinions are decided to be misinformation and censored, they don't get the opportunity to agree or disagree. that's the whole point.
    - judge2020 5y ago
      My point is that Twitter or Facebook or whoever can exercise their own free speech to not propagate what you say, whether that be for the reason of “misinformation” or for the reason “contains the letter X”.
      - LegitShady 5y ago
        I agree, but I think they should lose legal protection for the content on their platform, because they've demonstrated the ability to moderate it. They should be legally liable for the spread of hate speech, financial scams, etc. Lost money on a bitcoin scam on twitter? They exercised their free speech to display that scam, and should be liable for it. Anti semitism or other hate speech? Guess who chose to publish it - Twitter. Problem solved. Be a publisher or be platform. Be both, eat liability nobody else has special exceptions for. but either way that's all a distraction from the original point, which is that the line between misinformation and being mistaken, or misinformation or truth, is arbitrary nonsense from politically active groups working to push their agendas, not anything related to truth.

There's a difference between opinions and misinformation, at least how I see it. "Covid isn't dangerous" is an opinion. "Covid doesn't exist" is misinformation.

_vdpp 5y ago

“Misinformation” is being used as a cudgel to suppress opinions or even facts that are, say - inconvenient - for someone’s narrative though. Completely reasonable differences in opinion about the risk, origin, or proper mitigation of COVID were blasted as “misinformation” before they were eventually accepted by the wider establishment. The initial rush to completely censor such discussion early on is what caused all this free speech ruckus. There’s always been nutty conspiracy talk, scams, hoaxes, lies, ignorance - especially on the internet - and we’ve learned to filter it out. The “misinformation” label is going to backfire, though. Instead of ignoring it, people are going to take a closer look, because there’s probably something there that the labeler finds inconvenient. If it was simply untrue, then say so, call it “not true” or a “lie.” Instead, “misinformation” is this kind of 1984-ish weasel word used to discredit inconvenient facts while maintaining plausible deniability when they turn out to be correct.

vxNsr 5y ago
> Instead, “misinformation” is this kind of 1984-ish weasel word used to discredit inconvenient facts while maintaining plausible deniability when they turn out to be correct. This is so well stated I’ve saved it with attribution for future reference and quoting. You’ve hit the crux of the problem people today have with society at large. It truly feels like we’re living in the on ramp to one of the dystopian novels from our youth, 1984, the giver, etc. Large swaths of society see nothing wrong with controlling people’s thought.
dukeofdoom 5y ago
As someone that was always very skeptical of the claimed effectiveness of the vaccine, despite the claims of its effectiveness by the experts at the time from both administrations. I feel vindicated when real world numbers come out like this. https://www.walgreens.com/businesssolutions/covid-19-index.jsp https://www.walgreens.com/businesssolutions/covid-19-index.j... Page 3, showing the unvaccinated testing at a much lower rate for covid than the double or triple vaccinated despite being forced to take a lot more tests. I just assume it's easier to claim success than to actually achieve it. I also took a few stat courses at university, and saw problems with claims being made at that time. So I opted to wait. Now I'm glad I did.
- edmundsauto 5y ago
  It could easily be that unvaccinated people are more likely to get a test when they have no symptoms but did have an exposure, because they know C19 has worse outcomes when unvaccinated. Or, as you say - they are tested more often, routinely, without symptoms or exposures because of their status. I'd say both are more likely explanations than the vaccine makes people more likely to contract covid, which appears to be what you're suggesting.
  - dukeofdoom 5y ago
    Well except. Take two groups, A and B. If A tests more often, then the accuracy of the results are more accurate, because you have more data points confirming the results and are more likely to count all the positive cases during the 10 day window when someone might test positive. This is not a trivial difference either. The triple Vaccinated are 3 times more likely to test positive now, according to the Walgreens results, despite that group going in for testing at much lower rates. Are there some circumstances under which we might see this pattern, sure. But there are also some circumstances on the other side of the argument like Marek's disease that lead to the disease evolving to target the vaccinated. Anyway, we went from expert claims of vaccine being 98% effective at preventing covid, to what now? hoping they will get the same infection rate as the unvaccinated. You have to admit the standards keep dropping. Now this doesn't even consider the economic damage done by the lockdowns. That same Walgreens is running out of baby formula. It was a mainstream story just a day ago. Also, Ontario is showing the same pattern. Though it over counts the unvaccinated in all categories, by including those that received a single dose, and those getting sick within 14 days. https://covid-19.ontario.ca/data?fbclid=1 https://covid-19.ontario.ca/data?fbclid=1
    - chiggsy 5y ago
      Seems like more is being found out about covid, and so things which were thought early, turned out to have more nuance to them. Vaxxed people absolutely don't get hit as hard by covid, therefore requiring far less expensive hospital care. Since we all pay for this, this seems a reasonable thing to do. What is not reasonable is me trusting YOU, someone who's arguments, seem somewhat ... unconvincing, about the severity of the covid infection you would spread to me without a care. As for your babies, supply chain issues coincided with covid, they are not caused by it. Please research the issue, you will see. Why not take a trip to a hospital and ask the staff what they see and think? Oh, and a mortuary, see what they are seeing. I look forward to your report, sir.

_bfhp 5y ago

"Humans are mammals, so they are mostly either male or female" misinformation or opinion? "Israel is an apartheid state, even one of its former ministers said this" misinformation or opinion? "Government-funded groups like Hasbara Fellowships and CAMERA make up an operation to spread propaganda and influence our elections" misinformation or opinion? And who should decide one or the other? If you have the names of any experts we should appoint at Twitter, Facebook etc, it would be great to know.

judge2020 5y ago
Who decided depends on who you ask to propagate your opinion. If they disagree with it they don't have to restate what you say.
- LegitShady 5y ago
  if opinions are decided to be misinformation and censored, they don't get the opportunity to agree or disagree. that's the whole point.
  - judge2020 5y ago
    My point is that Twitter or Facebook or whoever can exercise their own free speech to not propagate what you say, whether that be for the reason of “misinformation” or for the reason “contains the letter X”.
    - LegitShady 5y ago
      I agree, but I think they should lose legal protection for the content on their platform, because they've demonstrated the ability to moderate it. They should be legally liable for the spread of hate speech, financial scams, etc. Lost money on a bitcoin scam on twitter? They exercised their free speech to display that scam, and should be liable for it. Anti semitism or other hate speech? Guess who chose to publish it - Twitter. Problem solved. Be a publisher or be platform. Be both, eat liability nobody else has special exceptions for. but either way that's all a distraction from the original point, which is that the line between misinformation and being mistaken, or misinformation or truth, is arbitrary nonsense from politically active groups working to push their agendas, not anything related to truth.