3 ms·

Not denouncing, just answering a loaded question by putting my finger in the barrel. I think we can talk about our concerns in a realistic way without resortin

Not denouncing, just answering a loaded question by putting my finger in the barrel. I think we can talk about our concerns in a realistic way without resorting to baseless speculation. It's fair to question whether the CDC should be using this data. The thing about Tuskegee is that it wasn't a conspiracy. It started in 1932, in a time when the majority of Americans probably would have supported it if they knew about it. That doesn't make it OK, but it does make it a poor example of a conspiracy. Systems and incentives are much better predictors of behavior.

llanowarelves 5y ago
Yes, we should talk about the system and incentives of the revolving-doors between massive corporations and government bodies meant to govern those corporations. With the cash/status/power incentives attached. You don't need an explicit intentional criminal conspiracy when a "conspiracy of common interests" can produce similar results.
tepitoperrito 5y ago
Acknowledged, I mostly don't want to talk past others who are hung up on conspiracies (pro or against). Much more fruitful is definitely the analysis of strategies and games and actors. Their power or influence and their motivations. Thanks for your thoughtful response.
cgio 5y ago
I don't believe conspiracy necessarily has to be for a goal that is against majority support. I.e. someone may conspire against a minority. Conspiracy is by virtue of not disclosing actions or their goals. I.e. the subjects of the study would definitely see it as a conspiracy against them. The relevant argument here would be the extent to which this approach to scientific experimentation was normal at that point in time and how it compares to current protocols. I.e. whether CDC aligns with scientific research protocols and therefore the focus would be on whether these protocols are strong enough to warrant broad access to data without consent.

llanowarelves 5y ago

Yes, we should talk about the system and incentives of the revolving-doors between massive corporations and government bodies meant to govern those corporations. With the cash/status/power incentives attached. You don't need an explicit intentional criminal conspiracy when a "conspiracy of common interests" can produce similar results.

tepitoperrito 5y ago

Acknowledged, I mostly don't want to talk past others who are hung up on conspiracies (pro or against). Much more fruitful is definitely the analysis of strategies and games and actors. Their power or influence and their motivations. Thanks for your thoughtful response.

cgio 5y ago

I don't believe conspiracy necessarily has to be for a goal that is against majority support. I.e. someone may conspire against a minority. Conspiracy is by virtue of not disclosing actions or their goals. I.e. the subjects of the study would definitely see it as a conspiracy against them. The relevant argument here would be the extent to which this approach to scientific experimentation was normal at that point in time and how it compares to current protocols. I.e. whether CDC aligns with scientific research protocols and therefore the focus would be on whether these protocols are strong enough to warrant broad access to data without consent.