4 ms·

The US gov pressured social media companies to censor posts about both those topics for political reasons, even though a lot of what was said turned out to be t

The US gov pressured social media companies to censor posts about both those topics for political reasons, even though a lot of what was said turned out to be true

scott_w 2y ago
> censor posts about both those topics for political reasons In the context of Covid disinformation, "political reasons" is simply not correct. We're only 2 years out but it was clear even at the time that there was a concerted effort to pretend there wasn't an active pandemic and governments were right to crack down on it. The only thread connecting them is "disinformation" which is tenuous at best. It's not clear to me what Zuckerberg's letter refers to because the article seems to move between the topics as though they're basically the same thing.
- cheeseomlit 2y ago
  Suppressing the lab leak theory certainly seemed political to me
  - scott_w 2y ago
    The length of the Wikipedia article on this nonsensical conspiracy theory runs counter to your argument that it was "suppressed." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_lab_leak_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_lab_leak_theory
    - pixxel 2y ago
      [flagged]
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - throwaway98527 2y ago
      According to Wikipedia itself, the WHO seems to find it a likely theory... >The report added weight to calls for a broader probe into the theory that the COVID-19 virus could have escaped from a laboratory.[6][7] However, a WHO report states "introduction through a laboratory incident was considered to be an extremely unlikely pathway".[3] Since then, the head of the WHO COVID-19 origins investigative team, Peter Ben Embarek, has stated that the Chinese authorities exerted pressure on the WHO report conclusions, and that he in fact considers an infection via a researcher's field samples to be a "likely" scenario.[8]* * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_COVID-19_pandemic_in_2019 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_COVID-19_pande...
    - mypastself 2y ago
      Are you disagreeing with the “chilling effect” section of the article, or are you implying the effect could not have been real due to the current length of the article?
    - tim333 2y ago
      There were certainly attempts to suppress it such as the Proximal Origins paper. And the public "We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories" letter where privately the were saying it was "so friggin likely". The reasons do seem kind of political, though more to cover up establishment cock ups and not upset the Chinese than a left right thing. Even today Wikipedia says "explanations, such as speculations that SARS-CoV-2 was accidentally released from a laboratory have been proposed, such explanations are not supported by evidence." But if you look at the actual evidence it was almost certainly a lab leak.
- silverquiet 2y ago
  There's a scene is "30 Rock" where Alec Baldwin gives a speech the morning after a party that got way out of hand about how they must now all face each other in the cold, hard light of dawn. To me, it sort of feels like we are living through that now after covid. We've learned things about people that we didn't really want to know; particularly that others don't place a lot of value on our lives (something that anyone who grew up with a health condition could already have told you). It's all rather discomfiting. I suppose it's human nature to reach out for miracle cures, but the way people behaved in the pandemic still surprised me. Reaching for random drugs like hydroychloroquine or dewormers (why couldn't it have been a fun drug like cocaine?) and eschewing actual covid vaccines makes one wonder how it is possible that one shares a reality with their fellow humans. Obviously they do not.
  - ifyoubuildit 2y ago
    > I suppose it's human nature ... It's pretty simple, the different realities like you said. People consume and trust different streams of information (for a whole bunch of reasons). Your info stream probably told you that people were gobbling horse goo and aquarium cleaner and dying by the droves, while threatening your grandmother, and you believed it because the sum total of your experience told you that was the most believable of the options. Other peoples experiences led them to believe sources saying that there was a thing called ivermectin that sees use in agriculture but also in billions of human doses as an antiparasitic that seems to be helping against covid (and that big corporations are not to be trusted). There are life stories behind each of these perspectives. Many people with either of these perspectives had never heard of ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine before their media of choice started praising or condemning them. Then suddenly they were experts. I never took any of it. Was that the right decision? It seems to have worked out at least. I do try to avoid the trap of thinking any of the stuff blasted out by the media corporations, at no cost to you, has any other purpose than to get you to 1) vote a certain way or 2) buy a certain product, or 3) support some forever war. The news corps aren't just generously informing you - there has to be an ROI.
    - scott_w 2y ago
      > It's pretty simple, the different realities like you said. Agreed. > Your info stream probably told you that people were gobbling horse goo and aquarium cleaner and dying by the droves, while threatening your grandmother That's not even close to the truth. There were reliable reports of people admitted to hospital with this but nobody in their right mind thought "droves" of people were taking dangerous quantities of ivermectin or drinking bleach.
djur 2y ago
Who was President of the United States when the Hunter Biden story was being "censored"?

The US gov pressured social media companies to censor posts about both those topics for political reasons, even though a lot of what was said turned out to be true

scott_w 2y ago

> censor posts about both those topics for political reasons In the context of Covid disinformation, "political reasons" is simply not correct. We're only 2 years out but it was clear even at the time that there was a concerted effort to pretend there wasn't an active pandemic and governments were right to crack down on it. The only thread connecting them is "disinformation" which is tenuous at best. It's not clear to me what Zuckerberg's letter refers to because the article seems to move between the topics as though they're basically the same thing.

cheeseomlit 2y ago
Suppressing the lab leak theory certainly seemed political to me
- scott_w 2y ago
  The length of the Wikipedia article on this nonsensical conspiracy theory runs counter to your argument that it was "suppressed." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_lab_leak_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_lab_leak_theory
  - pixxel 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - throwaway98527 2y ago
    According to Wikipedia itself, the WHO seems to find it a likely theory... >The report added weight to calls for a broader probe into the theory that the COVID-19 virus could have escaped from a laboratory.[6][7] However, a WHO report states "introduction through a laboratory incident was considered to be an extremely unlikely pathway".[3] Since then, the head of the WHO COVID-19 origins investigative team, Peter Ben Embarek, has stated that the Chinese authorities exerted pressure on the WHO report conclusions, and that he in fact considers an infection via a researcher's field samples to be a "likely" scenario.[8]* * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_COVID-19_pandemic_in_2019 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_COVID-19_pande...
  - mypastself 2y ago
    Are you disagreeing with the “chilling effect” section of the article, or are you implying the effect could not have been real due to the current length of the article?
  - tim333 2y ago
    There were certainly attempts to suppress it such as the Proximal Origins paper. And the public "We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories" letter where privately the were saying it was "so friggin likely". The reasons do seem kind of political, though more to cover up establishment cock ups and not upset the Chinese than a left right thing. Even today Wikipedia says "explanations, such as speculations that SARS-CoV-2 was accidentally released from a laboratory have been proposed, such explanations are not supported by evidence." But if you look at the actual evidence it was almost certainly a lab leak.
silverquiet 2y ago
There's a scene is "30 Rock" where Alec Baldwin gives a speech the morning after a party that got way out of hand about how they must now all face each other in the cold, hard light of dawn. To me, it sort of feels like we are living through that now after covid. We've learned things about people that we didn't really want to know; particularly that others don't place a lot of value on our lives (something that anyone who grew up with a health condition could already have told you). It's all rather discomfiting. I suppose it's human nature to reach out for miracle cures, but the way people behaved in the pandemic still surprised me. Reaching for random drugs like hydroychloroquine or dewormers (why couldn't it have been a fun drug like cocaine?) and eschewing actual covid vaccines makes one wonder how it is possible that one shares a reality with their fellow humans. Obviously they do not.
- ifyoubuildit 2y ago
  > I suppose it's human nature ... It's pretty simple, the different realities like you said. People consume and trust different streams of information (for a whole bunch of reasons). Your info stream probably told you that people were gobbling horse goo and aquarium cleaner and dying by the droves, while threatening your grandmother, and you believed it because the sum total of your experience told you that was the most believable of the options. Other peoples experiences led them to believe sources saying that there was a thing called ivermectin that sees use in agriculture but also in billions of human doses as an antiparasitic that seems to be helping against covid (and that big corporations are not to be trusted). There are life stories behind each of these perspectives. Many people with either of these perspectives had never heard of ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine before their media of choice started praising or condemning them. Then suddenly they were experts. I never took any of it. Was that the right decision? It seems to have worked out at least. I do try to avoid the trap of thinking any of the stuff blasted out by the media corporations, at no cost to you, has any other purpose than to get you to 1) vote a certain way or 2) buy a certain product, or 3) support some forever war. The news corps aren't just generously informing you - there has to be an ROI.
  - scott_w 2y ago
    > It's pretty simple, the different realities like you said. Agreed. > Your info stream probably told you that people were gobbling horse goo and aquarium cleaner and dying by the droves, while threatening your grandmother That's not even close to the truth. There were reliable reports of people admitted to hospital with this but nobody in their right mind thought "droves" of people were taking dangerous quantities of ivermectin or drinking bleach.

djur 2y ago

Who was President of the United States when the Hunter Biden story was being "censored"?