3 ms·

What are your specific concerns with the advice given in the social media warning?

by xpe 3y ago

renewiltord 3y ago
> What are your specific concerns with the advice given in this warning? Social media upturns traditional government controlled information transmission. E.g. the US government built its case for the Iraq War partly on fake information run by the NYT (by the currently media-respected journalist Judith Miller). Control of information transmission by attempting to FUD alternative means is a way to consolidate opinions - a way to manufacture consent. Just like in the intentionally deceptive mask comments from the NIAID, it isn't fact that's in question. It is motivation and intent, and the severity of the condition. In the mask case, they misinformed the public on purpose so that they could perform some societal engineering. You made a lot of comments here, and it is tradition on HN to downvote every comment if you dislike one in a thread so if I respond to them all, I'll get rate limited for being severely downvoted but since you asked for sources: Video interview of Dr. Fauci where he explains the mask deception https://www.thestreet.com/video/dr-fauci-masks-changing-directive-coronavirus https://www.thestreet.com/video/dr-fauci-masks-changing-dire... The CDC tweets against masks https://twitter.com/cdcgov/status/1233134710638825473 https://twitter.com/cdcgov/status/1233134710638825473 Jerome Adams (then SG) tweeted this but now has deleted it so you have to find only references to it https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/02/29/health/face-masks-coronavirus-surgeon-general-trnd/index.html https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/02/29/health/face-masks-coronav... His admission of fault here https://twitter.com/jeromeadamsmd/status/1416536968821886977?s=46&t=YWmQR089vGAckoy_Njie3A https://twitter.com/jeromeadamsmd/status/1416536968821886977... Response to your comment below: > Are you claiming that public health authorities are seeking to “manufacture consent” broadly? I am claiming (and have receipts for the claims) that public health professionals will provide advice that is damaging or risky in order to protect something else. They will intentionally mislead you so that some imagined total outcome is better. In the past, their attempt to do so resulted in personal harm or death for many (perhaps in the millions) because they're bad at managing the total outcome too. Essentially, they're like a GPS system that intentionally routes you down a slower route so that you won't slow others down on the fast route. Except on matters of much greater import. As always, don't forget to ask: "cui bono?" Response again: Ultimately, I acted as I thought responsible through the pandemic. Which, for my age group, was rapidly not masking and aiming for low dose frequent exposure. So each time I did the opposite of what was recommended and never tested positive despite following a 2 week schedule since I was traveling and didn't want to get anyone else sick. But a lot of people listened and died. So, it's up to you whom you'd rather follow: yourself, incentives aligned, or the guys who'd kill you and your loved ones to save others. I choose me.
- xpe 3y ago
  > Social media upturns traditional government controlled information transmission. E.g. the US government built its case for the Iraq War partly on fake information run by the NYT (by the currently media-respected journalist Judith Miller). I agree with much of this: the PR foundation for the war in Iraq was based on cherry-picked information and a large degree of media manipulation. However, the media outlets also were not blameless; there is considerable fault to go around. Many journalists were too trusting. Knight-Ridder may have been the only major journalism team to get it right. (Fair?) > Control of information transmission by attempting to FUD alternative means is a way to consolidate opinions - a way to manufacture consent. As a method, yes. The logic is sound. But to prove it happens, we must investigate. When it is a large explanatory factor? In what specific situations? I agree it applied to the Bush administration’s handling of claims of WMD in Iraq. But I’m not clear on how it applies to the social media guidance for children. I think it would be ‘reasonable’ for social media companies to lobby public health officials to water down the government criticism of them. (But I’m not clear if this is along the lines you are thinking.) To put a fine point on it: Are you claiming that U.S. public health authorities are seeking (or under pressure) to “manufacture consent” broadly, in this sense; namely, to counter social media only because it challenge and undermines government information? Are you saying U.S. government attempts to “manufacture consent” only for selfish purposes (to control the dissemination of information), without caring about the veracity of such social media claims? Another motivation is more plausible: public health officials intend to protect public health, (as constrained by the powers their agencies have)? A lot of social media information suffers from being false and misleading. It is a proper role of government to have official channels to put out vetted information. Ideally, these channels would be true and well supported by evidence. We can and should be skeptical of such official advice, but it should be treated seriously and be given some weight. We also must be skeptical of claims of a broad motivation to “control information” overrides a public health agency’s primary professional responsibility. Even if there is significant motivation, where is the ability? The federal bureaucracy is quite sprawling and hard to control. Such attempts to do often lead to resignations, legal battles, and/or leaks. … I might even agree with the ethics that suggest getting masks to key personnel is worth some degree of public deception. I’m not sure. A lot of disaster and emergency triage involves tough choices. When we’re acting ideally, public officials don’t have to lie or mislead. In any case, the effect of deception is a loss of trust.

What are your specific concerns with the advice given in the social media warning?

by xpe 3y ago

What are your specific concerns with the advice given in the social media warning?

> What are your specific concerns with the advice given in this warning? Social media upturns traditional government controlled information transmission. E.g. the US government built its case for the Iraq War partly on fake information run by the NYT (by the currently media-respected journalist Judith Miller). Control of information transmission by attempting to FUD alternative means is a way to consolidate opinions - a way to manufacture consent. Just like in the intentionally deceptive mask comments from the NIAID, it isn't fact that's in question. It is motivation and intent, and the severity of the condition. In the mask case, they misinformed the public on purpose so that they could perform some societal engineering. You made a lot of comments here, and it is tradition on HN to downvote every comment if you dislike one in a thread so if I respond to them all, I'll get rate limited for being severely downvoted but since you asked for sources: Video interview of Dr. Fauci where he explains the mask deception https://www.thestreet.com/video/dr-fauci-masks-changing-directive-coronavirus https://www.thestreet.com/video/dr-fauci-masks-changing-dire... The CDC tweets against masks https://twitter.com/cdcgov/status/1233134710638825473 https://twitter.com/cdcgov/status/1233134710638825473 Jerome Adams (then SG) tweeted this but now has deleted it so you have to find only references to it https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/02/29/health/face-masks-coronavirus-surgeon-general-trnd/index.html https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/02/29/health/face-masks-coronav... His admission of fault here https://twitter.com/jeromeadamsmd/status/1416536968821886977?s=46&t=YWmQR089vGAckoy_Njie3A https://twitter.com/jeromeadamsmd/status/1416536968821886977... Response to your comment below: > Are you claiming that public health authorities are seeking to “manufacture consent” broadly? I am claiming (and have receipts for the claims) that public health professionals will provide advice that is damaging or risky in order to protect something else. They will intentionally mislead you so that some imagined total outcome is better. In the past, their attempt to do so resulted in personal harm or death for many (perhaps in the millions) because they're bad at managing the total outcome too. Essentially, they're like a GPS system that intentionally routes you down a slower route so that you won't slow others down on the fast route. Except on matters of much greater import. As always, don't forget to ask: "cui bono?" Response again: Ultimately, I acted as I thought responsible through the pandemic. Which, for my age group, was rapidly not masking and aiming for low dose frequent exposure. So each time I did the opposite of what was recommended and never tested positive despite following a 2 week schedule since I was traveling and didn't want to get anyone else sick. But a lot of people listened and died. So, it's up to you whom you'd rather follow: yourself, incentives aligned, or the guys who'd kill you and your loved ones to save others. I choose me.

xpe 3y ago
> Social media upturns traditional government controlled information transmission. E.g. the US government built its case for the Iraq War partly on fake information run by the NYT (by the currently media-respected journalist Judith Miller). I agree with much of this: the PR foundation for the war in Iraq was based on cherry-picked information and a large degree of media manipulation. However, the media outlets also were not blameless; there is considerable fault to go around. Many journalists were too trusting. Knight-Ridder may have been the only major journalism team to get it right. (Fair?) > Control of information transmission by attempting to FUD alternative means is a way to consolidate opinions - a way to manufacture consent. As a method, yes. The logic is sound. But to prove it happens, we must investigate. When it is a large explanatory factor? In what specific situations? I agree it applied to the Bush administration’s handling of claims of WMD in Iraq. But I’m not clear on how it applies to the social media guidance for children. I think it would be ‘reasonable’ for social media companies to lobby public health officials to water down the government criticism of them. (But I’m not clear if this is along the lines you are thinking.) To put a fine point on it: Are you claiming that U.S. public health authorities are seeking (or under pressure) to “manufacture consent” broadly, in this sense; namely, to counter social media only because it challenge and undermines government information? Are you saying U.S. government attempts to “manufacture consent” only for selfish purposes (to control the dissemination of information), without caring about the veracity of such social media claims? Another motivation is more plausible: public health officials intend to protect public health, (as constrained by the powers their agencies have)? A lot of social media information suffers from being false and misleading. It is a proper role of government to have official channels to put out vetted information. Ideally, these channels would be true and well supported by evidence. We can and should be skeptical of such official advice, but it should be treated seriously and be given some weight. We also must be skeptical of claims of a broad motivation to “control information” overrides a public health agency’s primary professional responsibility. Even if there is significant motivation, where is the ability? The federal bureaucracy is quite sprawling and hard to control. Such attempts to do often lead to resignations, legal battles, and/or leaks. … I might even agree with the ethics that suggest getting masks to key personnel is worth some degree of public deception. I’m not sure. A lot of disaster and emergency triage involves tough choices. When we’re acting ideally, public officials don’t have to lie or mislead. In any case, the effect of deception is a loss of trust.