3 ms·

> the incorrect claim that “back then Big Tech’s fact-checkers were still describing claims about SARS-CoV-2 being airborne and face masks preventing infection

> the incorrect claim that “back then Big Tech’s fact-checkers were still describing claims about SARS-CoV-2 being airborne and face masks preventing infection as ‘misleading’”. This is a not an incorrect claim, it is a correct claim.

acdha 4y ago
Do you have any citations? I saw both of those claims being discussed heavily on Twitter and Facebook during that time without those disclaimers so if there was some campaign it appears to have been pretty limited.
- rngname22 4y ago
  Anecdata but the more "official" covid subreddits /r/coronavirus and then /r/covid19 started off pretty free speech but then began bringing in more and more moderation and allowing less divergence from agreed upon narrative, if parent poster is a heavy Reddit user perhaps that is where their feelings come from.
  - acdha 4y ago
    That could definitely explain something like that - basically upgrading some random Reddit moderators to “Big Tech”, and substantially broadening the perceived scope.
  - simplotek 4y ago
    > Anecdata but the more "official" covid subreddits /r/coronavirus and then /r/covid19 brought started off pretty free speech but then began bringing in more and more moderation (...) Aren't you talking about the growth in conspiracy nuts fabricating all sorts of conspiracy theories and assorted loony claims, such as the infamous "covid is caused by 5G" idiot fest, which were flooding covid-related forums? Are we now expected to turn a blind eye to all the sadly avoidable deaths that conspiracy nuts and antivaxxers with their bullshit claims brought upon the world in the last couple of years? I mean, countless people ended up queuing veterinarian supply stores to gargle on horse dewormer thanks to these morons. Depicting these loonies as innocent truth-seekers that just asked questions and fought conspiracies is intellectually dishonest.
    - zaroth 4y ago
      > “Are we now expected to…” I think you are jumping waaay past the assertion you are replying to.
- tinus_hn 4y ago
  Here YouTube itself is stating you can’t contradict local health authorities on COVID transmission: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/9891785?hl=en https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/9891785?hl=en It’s a really stupid policy because the ‘truth’ depends on who your local health authorities are, they can easily contradict.
  - fragmede 4y ago
    Given that YouTube is region aware, why is it stupid? Just index to whatever the local health authority says and show only items which agree with that.
    - tinus_hn 4y ago
      It’s stupid because there is a pretense they are defending the truth, while the difference between what local authorities claim make it plainly obvious there either is no truth or if there is a truth it can’t ever be what half of the authorities are saying and thus what YouTube is defending. And that’s of course just an example the dumb anti science stance of forbidding disagreement with the ‘scientific’ status quo, it really puts YouTube in the position of the church silencing Galileo. The church was as sure they were right as are those local authorities.
  - acdha 4y ago
    The policy was first applied in May 2020 so it wouldn't have been relevant during most of the period in question but even if it had, the examples do not make it seem like they'd be going after someone who said that an N95 would protect you against COVID-19. http://web.archive.org/web/20220000000000*/https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/9891785?hl=en http://web.archive.org/web/20220000000000*/https://support.g... Part of why I asked for specific examples is that a common problem you'll see in alternative health circles is where someone will say something which isn't completely wrong in the middle of a bunch of blather which is, and then when they're moderated they'll claim that the former was the reason and a bunch of people will hear that claim without the full original context.
snowwrestler 4y ago
Both the original SARS and coronaviruses in general are known to spread via droplets in the air, and from the beginning folks assumed this was one way SARS-COV-2 spread. What was unknown was how long the virus could remain viable after the droplets landed on surfaces. If it is a long time, then mishandling a soiled mask could easily undo any benefit of wearing it. This is the same reason people were washing their groceries and mail. We now know that is spreads very poorly this way, so we wear masks and we don’t wash our groceries anymore.
- graeme 4y ago
  It was apparent very early that there were spread patterns only explainable by aerosols. The Diamond Princess was the earliest publicized example, with cases occurring onboard despite isolation in cabins. Japanese experts understood the lesson immediately and implemented a "three C's" approach to counter airborne spread: avoid close contact, closed spaces, and crowds. Western governments and experts and the WHO instead took a "lalalala I can't see this" and to this day many still deny airborne transmission and advocate droplet and fomite precautions. There was not in fact any great mystery about aerosol spread unless you were positively convinced it was impossible. The early tech fact checking was based on this denial, rather than a good faith uncertainty. Zeynep Tufecki wrote a good article about how airborne spread was resisted: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/07/opinion/coronavirus-airborne-transmission.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/07/opinion/coronavirus-airbo...
  - Izkata 4y ago
    There's a paywall on nytimes so I can't confirm if it's the same topic, but see also https://www.wired.com/story/the-teeny-tiny-scientific-screwup-that-helped-covid-kill/ https://www.wired.com/story/the-teeny-tiny-scientific-screwu... The screw-up the title refers to is that the medical definition of the droplet/aerosol threshold has been wrong for most of a century, and the source only just tracked down in late 2020/early 2021. Also buried in there is an interesting tidbit that experts resist aerosol spread in general because it's too similar to the long-discredited miasma theory, so each virus has had to individually be proven in a lab to have aerosol spread before it's acceptable to say so.
GuB-42 4y ago
You just made a claim, about a claim, about a claim, about a claim. My claim is that it is getting too deep.

acdha 4y ago

Do you have any citations? I saw both of those claims being discussed heavily on Twitter and Facebook during that time without those disclaimers so if there was some campaign it appears to have been pretty limited.

rngname22 4y ago
Anecdata but the more "official" covid subreddits /r/coronavirus and then /r/covid19 started off pretty free speech but then began bringing in more and more moderation and allowing less divergence from agreed upon narrative, if parent poster is a heavy Reddit user perhaps that is where their feelings come from.
- acdha 4y ago
  That could definitely explain something like that - basically upgrading some random Reddit moderators to “Big Tech”, and substantially broadening the perceived scope.
- simplotek 4y ago
  > Anecdata but the more "official" covid subreddits /r/coronavirus and then /r/covid19 brought started off pretty free speech but then began bringing in more and more moderation (...) Aren't you talking about the growth in conspiracy nuts fabricating all sorts of conspiracy theories and assorted loony claims, such as the infamous "covid is caused by 5G" idiot fest, which were flooding covid-related forums? Are we now expected to turn a blind eye to all the sadly avoidable deaths that conspiracy nuts and antivaxxers with their bullshit claims brought upon the world in the last couple of years? I mean, countless people ended up queuing veterinarian supply stores to gargle on horse dewormer thanks to these morons. Depicting these loonies as innocent truth-seekers that just asked questions and fought conspiracies is intellectually dishonest.
  - zaroth 4y ago
    > “Are we now expected to…” I think you are jumping waaay past the assertion you are replying to.
tinus_hn 4y ago
Here YouTube itself is stating you can’t contradict local health authorities on COVID transmission: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/9891785?hl=en https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/9891785?hl=en It’s a really stupid policy because the ‘truth’ depends on who your local health authorities are, they can easily contradict.
- fragmede 4y ago
  Given that YouTube is region aware, why is it stupid? Just index to whatever the local health authority says and show only items which agree with that.
  - tinus_hn 4y ago
    It’s stupid because there is a pretense they are defending the truth, while the difference between what local authorities claim make it plainly obvious there either is no truth or if there is a truth it can’t ever be what half of the authorities are saying and thus what YouTube is defending. And that’s of course just an example the dumb anti science stance of forbidding disagreement with the ‘scientific’ status quo, it really puts YouTube in the position of the church silencing Galileo. The church was as sure they were right as are those local authorities.
- acdha 4y ago
  The policy was first applied in May 2020 so it wouldn't have been relevant during most of the period in question but even if it had, the examples do not make it seem like they'd be going after someone who said that an N95 would protect you against COVID-19. http://web.archive.org/web/20220000000000*/https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/9891785?hl=en http://web.archive.org/web/20220000000000*/https://support.g... Part of why I asked for specific examples is that a common problem you'll see in alternative health circles is where someone will say something which isn't completely wrong in the middle of a bunch of blather which is, and then when they're moderated they'll claim that the former was the reason and a bunch of people will hear that claim without the full original context.

snowwrestler 4y ago

Both the original SARS and coronaviruses in general are known to spread via droplets in the air, and from the beginning folks assumed this was one way SARS-COV-2 spread. What was unknown was how long the virus could remain viable after the droplets landed on surfaces. If it is a long time, then mishandling a soiled mask could easily undo any benefit of wearing it. This is the same reason people were washing their groceries and mail. We now know that is spreads very poorly this way, so we wear masks and we don’t wash our groceries anymore.

graeme 4y ago
It was apparent very early that there were spread patterns only explainable by aerosols. The Diamond Princess was the earliest publicized example, with cases occurring onboard despite isolation in cabins. Japanese experts understood the lesson immediately and implemented a "three C's" approach to counter airborne spread: avoid close contact, closed spaces, and crowds. Western governments and experts and the WHO instead took a "lalalala I can't see this" and to this day many still deny airborne transmission and advocate droplet and fomite precautions. There was not in fact any great mystery about aerosol spread unless you were positively convinced it was impossible. The early tech fact checking was based on this denial, rather than a good faith uncertainty. Zeynep Tufecki wrote a good article about how airborne spread was resisted: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/07/opinion/coronavirus-airborne-transmission.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/07/opinion/coronavirus-airbo...
- Izkata 4y ago
  There's a paywall on nytimes so I can't confirm if it's the same topic, but see also https://www.wired.com/story/the-teeny-tiny-scientific-screwup-that-helped-covid-kill/ https://www.wired.com/story/the-teeny-tiny-scientific-screwu... The screw-up the title refers to is that the medical definition of the droplet/aerosol threshold has been wrong for most of a century, and the source only just tracked down in late 2020/early 2021. Also buried in there is an interesting tidbit that experts resist aerosol spread in general because it's too similar to the long-discredited miasma theory, so each virus has had to individually be proven in a lab to have aerosol spread before it's acceptable to say so.

GuB-42 4y ago

You just made a claim, about a claim, about a claim, about a claim. My claim is that it is getting too deep.