4 ms·

> but I object to people spreading objectively false information UFOs, MKUltra, involvement in various coups, PRISM, etc. used to be "objectively false informa

> but I object to people spreading objectively false information UFOs, MKUltra, involvement in various coups, PRISM, etc. used to be "objectively false information"... until it wasn't. > This isn’t a new problem, it’s been illegal to pretend to be a doctor for decades. The difference is simply the reach we are giving charlatans. Thalidomide is the famous counterexample. Just to be clear, I don't like people who give bad medical advice. But I am much more tempered when it comes to the rights of ordinary citizens to hold and discuss their personal views about industrialized medicine.

Retric 4y ago
Thank you for providing a perfect example of my point. I am not saying people need to be silenced, rather that which amplifies misinformation is problematic.
- nottathrowaway3 4y ago
  [flagged]
- nottathrowaway3 4y ago
  > Thank you for providing a perfect example of my point. Thalidomide scandal is a counterexample, not an example, to your point for the following reason. You said > Convincing people to take alternative medicine for serious diseases is just as harmful as yelling fire in a theater or hate speech the victims... I can’t wait until a flat earthers start defunding GPS because it’s spreading lies. But here, the medical/pharma industry was wrong and the pregnant women whose children were born with birth defects would have been better off using alternative medicine (read "placebo") or no medicine at all. There are plenty of other examples of drugs where the prescribing/usage trend has changed because of newly discovered risks: barbiturates, ipecac syrup, opioids. > rather that which amplifies misinformation is problematic It's problematic only if the "misinformation" indeed turns out to be false. Which can never be known at the time. And -- given the historical context -- healthy skepticism of the medical/pharma industry is somewhat warranted. So I disagree that online platforms should discriminate via the currently accepted status of the content being "info" or "misinfo". Online platforms should amplify in an impartial and evidence-based way and -- in particular -- stay out of arbitrating medical industry vs. the individual's right to be skeptical.
  - Retric 4y ago
    > women whose children where born with birth defects would have been better off using alternative medicine (read "placebo") or no medicine at all. That’s a common misconception, some of those women would have died without it. Inflammation of the brain is as severe as it gets, unfortunately it was sold over the counter so people where taking it for less severe issues. It took 4 years for the drug to be pulled from the market in Europe, but today it’s on the World Health Organization's List of Essential Medicines and regularly prescribed in Europe. Thus the reality and perception of this drug are different. Of course it shouldn’t have been sold over the counter, that was a mistake, but 10,000 birth defects is hardly the only thing it did. And in fact most pregnant women who took it didn’t have such side effects.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - nottathrowaway3 4y ago
      At the end of the day, a mistake was made and corrected by the medical/pharma industry. It's obviously an effective drug when used correctly, as you indicated. Still, ordinary people had to bear the consequences for a lifetime. Which, to bring the discussion back to speech and your original comment, is why I'm arguing that platforms should be impartial with regard to what they amplify and let the legal system define and handle illegal speech.
      - Retric 4y ago
        The tradeoff is hundreds of thousands of people literally dying. So, I have trouble seeing the benefits of a “neutral” stance being worth it. Shutting down all social media is probably an over reaction, but even that seems like a better option.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]

Retric 4y ago

Thank you for providing a perfect example of my point. I am not saying people need to be silenced, rather that which amplifies misinformation is problematic.

nottathrowaway3 4y ago
[flagged]
nottathrowaway3 4y ago
> Thank you for providing a perfect example of my point. Thalidomide scandal is a counterexample, not an example, to your point for the following reason. You said > Convincing people to take alternative medicine for serious diseases is just as harmful as yelling fire in a theater or hate speech the victims... I can’t wait until a flat earthers start defunding GPS because it’s spreading lies. But here, the medical/pharma industry was wrong and the pregnant women whose children were born with birth defects would have been better off using alternative medicine (read "placebo") or no medicine at all. There are plenty of other examples of drugs where the prescribing/usage trend has changed because of newly discovered risks: barbiturates, ipecac syrup, opioids. > rather that which amplifies misinformation is problematic It's problematic only if the "misinformation" indeed turns out to be false. Which can never be known at the time. And -- given the historical context -- healthy skepticism of the medical/pharma industry is somewhat warranted. So I disagree that online platforms should discriminate via the currently accepted status of the content being "info" or "misinfo". Online platforms should amplify in an impartial and evidence-based way and -- in particular -- stay out of arbitrating medical industry vs. the individual's right to be skeptical.
- Retric 4y ago
  > women whose children where born with birth defects would have been better off using alternative medicine (read "placebo") or no medicine at all. That’s a common misconception, some of those women would have died without it. Inflammation of the brain is as severe as it gets, unfortunately it was sold over the counter so people where taking it for less severe issues. It took 4 years for the drug to be pulled from the market in Europe, but today it’s on the World Health Organization's List of Essential Medicines and regularly prescribed in Europe. Thus the reality and perception of this drug are different. Of course it shouldn’t have been sold over the counter, that was a mistake, but 10,000 birth defects is hardly the only thing it did. And in fact most pregnant women who took it didn’t have such side effects.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - nottathrowaway3 4y ago
    At the end of the day, a mistake was made and corrected by the medical/pharma industry. It's obviously an effective drug when used correctly, as you indicated. Still, ordinary people had to bear the consequences for a lifetime. Which, to bring the discussion back to speech and your original comment, is why I'm arguing that platforms should be impartial with regard to what they amplify and let the legal system define and handle illegal speech.
    - Retric 4y ago
      The tradeoff is hundreds of thousands of people literally dying. So, I have trouble seeing the benefits of a “neutral” stance being worth it. Shutting down all social media is probably an over reaction, but even that seems like a better option.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]