3 ms·

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.

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.
- ajsnigrutin 3y ago
  What is "in the middle"? If CDC says "get vaccinated, so you won't infect grandma" and I say "even if you're vaccinated, you can still get covid and infect grandma" ... where's the middle there? And if your NTP server has failed you once before.. and again.. and again... would it be unreasonable to say "maybe the NTP is wrong" the next time something weird happens with your system clock?
  - kube-system 3y ago
    A pretty reasonable middle road is to hold statements supported by evidence made by experts in higher regard than statements not supported by evidence made by non-experts. The degree to which someone might do reasonably do this, and what action they might reasonably take as a result, depends on the audience, the moderator of the medium, their ability to moderate, and their ability judge the evidence independently.

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.

ajsnigrutin 3y ago
What is "in the middle"? If CDC says "get vaccinated, so you won't infect grandma" and I say "even if you're vaccinated, you can still get covid and infect grandma" ... where's the middle there? And if your NTP server has failed you once before.. and again.. and again... would it be unreasonable to say "maybe the NTP is wrong" the next time something weird happens with your system clock?
- kube-system 3y ago
  A pretty reasonable middle road is to hold statements supported by evidence made by experts in higher regard than statements not supported by evidence made by non-experts. The degree to which someone might do reasonably do this, and what action they might reasonably take as a result, depends on the audience, the moderator of the medium, their ability to moderate, and their ability judge the evidence independently.