6 ms·

Some seem to be okay with the government and intelligence agencies working hand-in-hand with Big Tech to make sure we only get to learn and discuss corporate sp

Some seem to be okay with the government and intelligence agencies working hand-in-hand with Big Tech to make sure we only get to learn and discuss corporate sponsored healthcare advice now.

nullish_signal 4y ago
I dream of a United States with 0 Ads for Prescription Medicine, and the end of "Ask your Doctor about [Brand]"
- mc32 4y ago
  Yeah so we took out alcohol advertising and replaced it with a different kind of evil.
  - jakear 4y ago
    Alcohol ads are definitely still a thing. Perhaps you’re thinking of tobacco?
    - mc32 4y ago
      I meant spirits but yeah you’re right tobacco is a better (worse) one.
      - valleyer 4y ago
        Television ads for spirits, too, are legal and not uncommon in the United States.
- sfusato 4y ago
  It used to be like that before the turn of the century. Then, shilling for Big Pharma became cool slowly and surely.
- jhgfjhgfjhfgjhg 4y ago
  [flagged]
- wsc981 4y ago
  Doctors have sometimes gotten kickbacks from Big Pharma for promoting some medicine. There’s been lawsuits in the USA over this and I am sure if the profits outweigh the costs Big Pharma will try it again. Here’s an example from Pfizer (2010): https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/insurer-sues-pfizer-paying-kickbacks-docs-flna1c9446653 https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/insurer-sues-pfiz...
  - jacquesm 4y ago
    And rightly so, doctors that take kickbacks are acting against their oath and should be relieved of their license to practice.
- jacquesm 4y ago
  Oh no, but what about free speech? /s
  - bluescrn 4y ago
    "But it's not real censorship unless it's the government doing it! Corporations and institutions can ban/deplatform whoever they want!" (Well, at least until an 'evil conservative' controls a significant platform, it seems...)
tootie 4y ago
Who was enforcing corporate healthcare? You just made that part up. And also, Twitter is a corporation itself. Government is supposed to regulate. They exchanged information. They were told when laws were being broken. Deleting content was entirely Twitter's discretion. And they did what they deemed most beneficial to their operations and their shareholders.
- andrew_ 4y ago
  "healthcare *advice" leaving that word out misrepresents the parent. I understand why people hold the same position you do, but I still believe it's wrong and shortsighted. It will be inevitably abused in a way you disagree with in the future.
- lmm 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - tootie 4y ago
    At least HN doesn't filter COVID disinformation. Your first paragraph is all incorrect. Patent-free treatments were extensively tested and some (notably dexamethasone) were put into treatment regimens for a while but none proven effective. "Corporate" vaccines were very effective and I'm not sure what alternative you're thinking of (artisanal vaccines? Maybe Sinovac?) but either way it's irrelevant. Twitter is just a messaging platform. The people extolling and deriding vaccines were from all walks. Politicians, journalists, doctors, researchers or rank amateurs. Twitter was trying to reign in disinformation from all quarters because it was killing people. There is zero hint of political interference at any level, this was all at the level of bureaucrats attempting to provide a service to companion who wanted assistance. What if the executive starts censoring politically incompatible thoughts? Trump certainly tried or at least threatened to do so many times but it's nowhere near reality.
    - EdwardDiego 4y ago
      "I developed this organic artisanal vaccine when my organic kombucha brewed entirely using my beard yeast took an unexpected turn..."
steeve 4y ago
Do you think saying "vaccines cause cancer" is fair game then? Where do you draw the line?
- poszlem 4y ago
  What do you mean by fair game? Is that true? Probably not. Should people be censored and prevented from talking about that? Absolutely fecking not. We have enough examples of medical misinformation coming from the most reputable sources to doubt their ability to impartially make decisions about what should and shouldn't be "fair game".
  - steeve 4y ago
    So we should not prevent people from talking about the fire in the crowded theater is what you’re saying?
    - somenameforme 4y ago
      There's a fun story related to that quote. It's a quote from Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, the same Supreme Court Justice also well known for his "two generations of imbeciles" quote in a ruling in defense of eugenics. The quote comes from the case Schenck v United States [1]. Holmes envisioned the quote as a reasonable metaphor for why Mr. Schenck must be imprisoned for spreading such dangerous, provocative, and utterly unacceptable speech. That speech? Scheck was handing out fliers encouraging people to refuse to comply with the military draft. So yes, I do think it's important we allow people to discuss this "fire in the crowded theater" because if the present somehow doesn't show you where the alternative leads, then merely look to the past - there are illustrations aplenty. Schenck lost and was convicted under the Espionage Act. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States
    - evandale 4y ago
      Yes, if people want to discuss fire in a crowded movie theatre they are free to do that. That doesn't mean they can jump out of their seat, scream "fire", and urge everyone to evacuate the theatre. I could see consequences for doing that, but calmly asking "does anyone smell smoke?" seems harmless.
alexk307 4y ago
Most of us just don’t get healthcare advice from the internet or social media.

Some seem to be okay with the government and intelligence agencies working hand-in-hand with Big Tech to make sure we only get to learn and discuss corporate sponsored healthcare advice now.

nullish_signal 4y ago

I dream of a United States with 0 Ads for Prescription Medicine, and the end of "Ask your Doctor about [Brand]"

mc32 4y ago
Yeah so we took out alcohol advertising and replaced it with a different kind of evil.
- jakear 4y ago
  Alcohol ads are definitely still a thing. Perhaps you’re thinking of tobacco?
  - mc32 4y ago
    I meant spirits but yeah you’re right tobacco is a better (worse) one.
    - valleyer 4y ago
      Television ads for spirits, too, are legal and not uncommon in the United States.
sfusato 4y ago
It used to be like that before the turn of the century. Then, shilling for Big Pharma became cool slowly and surely.
jhgfjhgfjhfgjhg 4y ago
[flagged]
wsc981 4y ago
Doctors have sometimes gotten kickbacks from Big Pharma for promoting some medicine. There’s been lawsuits in the USA over this and I am sure if the profits outweigh the costs Big Pharma will try it again. Here’s an example from Pfizer (2010): https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/insurer-sues-pfizer-paying-kickbacks-docs-flna1c9446653 https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/insurer-sues-pfiz...
- jacquesm 4y ago
  And rightly so, doctors that take kickbacks are acting against their oath and should be relieved of their license to practice.
jacquesm 4y ago
Oh no, but what about free speech? /s
- bluescrn 4y ago
  "But it's not real censorship unless it's the government doing it! Corporations and institutions can ban/deplatform whoever they want!" (Well, at least until an 'evil conservative' controls a significant platform, it seems...)

tootie 4y ago

Who was enforcing corporate healthcare? You just made that part up. And also, Twitter is a corporation itself. Government is supposed to regulate. They exchanged information. They were told when laws were being broken. Deleting content was entirely Twitter's discretion. And they did what they deemed most beneficial to their operations and their shareholders.

andrew_ 4y ago
"healthcare *advice" leaving that word out misrepresents the parent. I understand why people hold the same position you do, but I still believe it's wrong and shortsighted. It will be inevitably abused in a way you disagree with in the future.
lmm 4y ago
[flagged]
- tootie 4y ago
  At least HN doesn't filter COVID disinformation. Your first paragraph is all incorrect. Patent-free treatments were extensively tested and some (notably dexamethasone) were put into treatment regimens for a while but none proven effective. "Corporate" vaccines were very effective and I'm not sure what alternative you're thinking of (artisanal vaccines? Maybe Sinovac?) but either way it's irrelevant. Twitter is just a messaging platform. The people extolling and deriding vaccines were from all walks. Politicians, journalists, doctors, researchers or rank amateurs. Twitter was trying to reign in disinformation from all quarters because it was killing people. There is zero hint of political interference at any level, this was all at the level of bureaucrats attempting to provide a service to companion who wanted assistance. What if the executive starts censoring politically incompatible thoughts? Trump certainly tried or at least threatened to do so many times but it's nowhere near reality.
  - EdwardDiego 4y ago
    "I developed this organic artisanal vaccine when my organic kombucha brewed entirely using my beard yeast took an unexpected turn..."

steeve 4y ago

Do you think saying "vaccines cause cancer" is fair game then? Where do you draw the line?

poszlem 4y ago
What do you mean by fair game? Is that true? Probably not. Should people be censored and prevented from talking about that? Absolutely fecking not. We have enough examples of medical misinformation coming from the most reputable sources to doubt their ability to impartially make decisions about what should and shouldn't be "fair game".
- steeve 4y ago
  So we should not prevent people from talking about the fire in the crowded theater is what you’re saying?
  - somenameforme 4y ago
    There's a fun story related to that quote. It's a quote from Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, the same Supreme Court Justice also well known for his "two generations of imbeciles" quote in a ruling in defense of eugenics. The quote comes from the case Schenck v United States [1]. Holmes envisioned the quote as a reasonable metaphor for why Mr. Schenck must be imprisoned for spreading such dangerous, provocative, and utterly unacceptable speech. That speech? Scheck was handing out fliers encouraging people to refuse to comply with the military draft. So yes, I do think it's important we allow people to discuss this "fire in the crowded theater" because if the present somehow doesn't show you where the alternative leads, then merely look to the past - there are illustrations aplenty. Schenck lost and was convicted under the Espionage Act. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States
  - evandale 4y ago
    Yes, if people want to discuss fire in a crowded movie theatre they are free to do that. That doesn't mean they can jump out of their seat, scream "fire", and urge everyone to evacuate the theatre. I could see consequences for doing that, but calmly asking "does anyone smell smoke?" seems harmless.

alexk307 4y ago

Most of us just don’t get healthcare advice from the internet or social media.