4 ms·

> There's two different things to discuss here. One is "the science" and one is "public health guidelines", and they're different things. It is one thing to dis

> There's two different things to discuss here. One is "the science" and one is "public health guidelines", and they're different things. It is one thing to discuss the behavior of the virus in a scientific context. It is another thing to spread memes, FUD, or armchair conjecture in a forum of non-experts that make claims counter to the latest scientific consensus. But what if the memes and FUD are right? Should we really censor the paranoid conspiracy theorist, that said that you need a mask, when fauci was saying that washing hands is enough? What about when vaccines became available, someone said "even if vaccinated, you'll still get it, you can still spread it to your grandma, and she can still die from it, and the 'vaccinated people don't get ill' is a lie!"? I mean... it turned out to be true, but it got deleted from facebook and it got you banned from a lot of reddit. > This isn't a fault of scientists or regulators. This is a failure of social media and their user base. They are incapable of being nuanced enough to determine the difference between scientific discussion, pseudoscience, conjecture, and malice. And so, those platforms became filled with speech that confused all four, and those who managed those platforms threw up their hands and resorted to heavy handed tactics because they lack the capability to do anything more precise. ...and wikipedia, the topic of this post. > That isn't at all what happened, or what the problem was. The national stockpile of masks wasn't mismanaged by scientists, it was mismanaged by politicians. And JIT inventory wasn't implemented by distributors and hospital management by scientists, it was done by MBAs. And divesting manufacturing overseas wasn't done by scientists, it was done by wall street. And again, as I said in a sibling comment, the CDC was upfront about the rationale from the beginning. The general consensus was, that masks don't help a lot, that's why you don't need them. It wasn't "you really need a mask, and we'll mandate it soon, but we don't have enough for now".

kube-system 3y ago
> But what if the memes and FUD are right? Should we really censor the paranoid conspiracy theorist, that said that you need a mask, when fauci was saying that washing hands is enough? I'll answer this two different ways: 1. For ad supported platforms: Regardless of anyone's moral objections, ad supported platforms have neither the expertise nor desire to do anything otherwise. They are not scientific experts, they aren't any good at moderating nuanced speech, and they barely have the capability to moderate even the most obvious of situations on their platform. 2. In regards to Wikipedia, while they at least attempt to operate in a way that prioritizes information over profit incentives, it has always been a battleground of agendas by people of varying qualification hiding behind keyboards. Truth is just an inherently hard thing to determine, especially when it is a contemporary topic with a lot of change that requires expertise to understand. If it is hard for the world's best experts to come to an answer, it will be even harder others to do the same. Then the question is more about balance of quality -- do you want your platform to contain more information, even if some is wrong? Or do you want to maintain a higher standard, even if you kick out some people who might have been right? What if the wrong information could be dangerous to people's health? Do you bear some responsibility to ensure it is correct? I don't think there's a correct answer for every situation here, but there are absolutely good arguments for why you might not want to let people cry fire in a crowded theatre if the other attendees disagree. > The general consensus was, that masks don't help a lot, that's why you don't need them. It wasn't "you really need a mask, and we'll mandate it soon, but we don't have enough for now". What "general consensus" are you referring to? What the CDC said in March 2020 was that masks were recommended to be prioritized for healthcare workers who needed them the most. This was reasonable at the time, and still reasonable in hindsight.
- ajsnigrutin 3y ago
  CDC also said: https://web.archive.org/web/20210402002315/https://www.msnbc.com/transcripts/transcript-rachel-maddow-show-3-29-21-n1262442 https://web.archive.org/web/20210402002315/https://www.msnbc... > And we have -- we can kind of almost see the end. We`re vaccinating so very fast, our data from the CDC today suggests, you know, that vaccinated people do not carry the virus, don`t get sick, and that it`s not just in the clinical trials but it`s also in real world data. So, if you listened to CDC, you'd get vaccinated, grandma would get vaccinated, you'd go to grandma, and think you were safe, while infecting her with covid and in a few days/weeks killing her. If you listened to a "local conspiracy nut", who was telling you that vaccines don't work, that there will be no herd immunity and that vaccines were causing heart issues, you'd be closer to reality than if you listened to the CDC director. So, do you want a platform that lets all opinions, "correct" and "wrong", to stay there, or a platform that lets wrong 'facts' (because some authority told them they're facts) stay, while deleting true 'conspiracy theories'. How many times can "authorities" (cdc, whoever) be wrong, and conspiracy theorists right, before we stop censoring the truth to protect the authorities? > What if the wrong information could be dangerous to people's health? Do you bear some responsibility to ensure it is correct? Like "if you get vaccinated, you won't get sick and spread it"? Fever and caughing? You're vaccinated right? It's just a cold, go to work, visit grandma, vaccinated people don't get covid, don't carry the virus. I mean.. you're advocating censorship for Bob Average from oregon while supporting the wrong and dangerous information from authorities.
  - kube-system 3y ago
    > If you listened to a "local conspiracy nut", who was telling you that vaccines don't work, A broken clock is wrong twice per day, but that doesn't mean you should consider one as a valid NTP server. (and in fact, the conspiracy nut was still wrong, vaccines do work, to prevent hospitalization and death) Basing a guideline off of data, and updating when wrong, is a more rigorous methodology than fabrication and conjecture. The quantity and quality of evidence available to support an opinion is a relatively way to measure that opinion's validity. That doesn't make them infallible, but it makes them less fallible than opinions that lack quality rationale. > So, do you want a platform that lets all opinions, "correct" and "wrong", to stay there, or a platform that lets wrong 'facts' (because some authority told them they're facts) stay, while deleting true 'conspiracy theories'. Usually something in the middle, depending on the specifics. I think too many people are quick to apply broad free speech ideals to everything, when in reality, context, audience, venue, and impact matters a LOT.

kube-system 3y ago

> But what if the memes and FUD are right? Should we really censor the paranoid conspiracy theorist, that said that you need a mask, when fauci was saying that washing hands is enough? I'll answer this two different ways: 1. For ad supported platforms: Regardless of anyone's moral objections, ad supported platforms have neither the expertise nor desire to do anything otherwise. They are not scientific experts, they aren't any good at moderating nuanced speech, and they barely have the capability to moderate even the most obvious of situations on their platform. 2. In regards to Wikipedia, while they at least attempt to operate in a way that prioritizes information over profit incentives, it has always been a battleground of agendas by people of varying qualification hiding behind keyboards. Truth is just an inherently hard thing to determine, especially when it is a contemporary topic with a lot of change that requires expertise to understand. If it is hard for the world's best experts to come to an answer, it will be even harder others to do the same. Then the question is more about balance of quality -- do you want your platform to contain more information, even if some is wrong? Or do you want to maintain a higher standard, even if you kick out some people who might have been right? What if the wrong information could be dangerous to people's health? Do you bear some responsibility to ensure it is correct? I don't think there's a correct answer for every situation here, but there are absolutely good arguments for why you might not want to let people cry fire in a crowded theatre if the other attendees disagree. > The general consensus was, that masks don't help a lot, that's why you don't need them. It wasn't "you really need a mask, and we'll mandate it soon, but we don't have enough for now". What "general consensus" are you referring to? What the CDC said in March 2020 was that masks were recommended to be prioritized for healthcare workers who needed them the most. This was reasonable at the time, and still reasonable in hindsight.

ajsnigrutin 3y ago
CDC also said: https://web.archive.org/web/20210402002315/https://www.msnbc.com/transcripts/transcript-rachel-maddow-show-3-29-21-n1262442 https://web.archive.org/web/20210402002315/https://www.msnbc... > And we have -- we can kind of almost see the end. We`re vaccinating so very fast, our data from the CDC today suggests, you know, that vaccinated people do not carry the virus, don`t get sick, and that it`s not just in the clinical trials but it`s also in real world data. So, if you listened to CDC, you'd get vaccinated, grandma would get vaccinated, you'd go to grandma, and think you were safe, while infecting her with covid and in a few days/weeks killing her. If you listened to a "local conspiracy nut", who was telling you that vaccines don't work, that there will be no herd immunity and that vaccines were causing heart issues, you'd be closer to reality than if you listened to the CDC director. So, do you want a platform that lets all opinions, "correct" and "wrong", to stay there, or a platform that lets wrong 'facts' (because some authority told them they're facts) stay, while deleting true 'conspiracy theories'. How many times can "authorities" (cdc, whoever) be wrong, and conspiracy theorists right, before we stop censoring the truth to protect the authorities? > What if the wrong information could be dangerous to people's health? Do you bear some responsibility to ensure it is correct? Like "if you get vaccinated, you won't get sick and spread it"? Fever and caughing? You're vaccinated right? It's just a cold, go to work, visit grandma, vaccinated people don't get covid, don't carry the virus. I mean.. you're advocating censorship for Bob Average from oregon while supporting the wrong and dangerous information from authorities.
- kube-system 3y ago
  > If you listened to a "local conspiracy nut", who was telling you that vaccines don't work, A broken clock is wrong twice per day, but that doesn't mean you should consider one as a valid NTP server. (and in fact, the conspiracy nut was still wrong, vaccines do work, to prevent hospitalization and death) Basing a guideline off of data, and updating when wrong, is a more rigorous methodology than fabrication and conjecture. The quantity and quality of evidence available to support an opinion is a relatively way to measure that opinion's validity. That doesn't make them infallible, but it makes them less fallible than opinions that lack quality rationale. > So, do you want a platform that lets all opinions, "correct" and "wrong", to stay there, or a platform that lets wrong 'facts' (because some authority told them they're facts) stay, while deleting true 'conspiracy theories'. Usually something in the middle, depending on the specifics. I think too many people are quick to apply broad free speech ideals to everything, when in reality, context, audience, venue, and impact matters a LOT.