12 ms·

It's difficult to parse subsubzero's post after his edit, but he's saying Zuck believes Trump will win in 2024, so Zuck's spinning a narrative that he was force

It's difficult to parse subsubzero's post after his edit, but he's saying Zuck believes Trump will win in 2024, so Zuck's spinning a narrative that he was forced to remove COVID misinformation, because COVID misinformation was largely a right-wing phenomenon. My response to him was to point out that Harris is strong and trending stronger, while Trump is weak, so the tea leaves are saying the opposite of what he thinks they're saying.

roenxi 2y ago
> because COVID misinformation was largely a right-wing phenomenon. That isn't really a fair assessment; it is true that large groups of people generate more wild theories but there was a lot of misinformation everywhere. Most of it inconsequential. But weighting by consequence it is hard to overlook things like: - "Plague of the unvaccinated" and the tide of misinformation saying that the vaccine would halt COVID. A lot of people believed that. They were wrong. And a lot of the blatant human rights violations through the COVID era were probably driven by that particular mistake. It wasn't a right-wing phenomenon. - "14 Days to Flatten the Curve", which turned out to be critical misinformation that derailed any debate over the wisdom of lockdowns. Certainly a forgivable move given the urgency and confusion in the first few months, but the fact that it was material and misinformation stands out in hindsight. - Dismissing a lot of legitimate studies related to Ivermectin. It turned out that they were showing that people who had parasites + COVID had a much better response to COVID if they took an anti-parasite drug so, y'know, fair enough but not that useful in the west. But there was a lot of misinformation that the studies themselves were fake that undermined trust that the responders were looking at evidence. That dismissal was also certainly not coming from the right wing.
- somewhat_drunk 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - kortilla 2y ago
    You’re so blinded by partisan hatred you just equivocated information about ineffective lockdowns with calling COVID a hoax.
    - somewhat_drunk 2y ago
      [flagged]
  - throw10920 2y ago
    > No, those mistakes did not justify the downright biblical flood of COVID misinformation that emanated from the right. > The examples you've given are just right wing apologetics. > That particular delusion is entirely due to right wing misinformation This is blatantly violating the HN guidelines (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html), in addition to being logically invalid emotional attacks and fallacies that do nothing to actually respond to GP's points. Suggest against this - it absolutely destroys the credibility of the points that you do make, in addition to reducing the quality of HN.
    - somewhat_drunk 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - throw10920 2y ago
        > the statements you've pointed out either do not violate HN's guidelines These statements: > No, those mistakes did not justify the downright biblical flood of COVID misinformation that emanated from the right. > The examples you've given are just right wing apologetics. > That particular delusion is entirely due to right wing misinformation Violate these parts of the guidelines: > Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. > Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes. > Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. There was virtually zero factual content to your comment. It almost pure partisan political activism. > None of what I've said is "logically invalid emotional attacks and fallacies." It seems like you don't understand the difference between an emotional plea and a factual statement. "the downright biblical flood of COVID misinformation that emanated from the right" is not a fact - it's an emotional plea, as are the other cited statements. It is impossible to find a citation for this statement because "biblical flood" isn't a technical term that you can back up with facts. "right wing apologetics" is another instance of something that you cannot prove because it does not have a factual status. > Do better. > Try to keep up. You should review the guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html > Edit out swipes.
- defrost 2y ago
  > Dismissing a lot of legitimate studies related to Ivermectin. It turned out that they were showing that people who had parasites + COVID had a much better response to COVID if they took an anti-parasite drug I read along from Australia during that period and I saw little evidence that people who knew what they were talking about "[Dismissed] a lot of legitimate studies related to Ivermectin". It was clear cut at the time that meta-studies from "the Global South" showed that Ivermectin greatly improved M&M stats (recovery from infection, death rates) across the board for the cold, the flu, COVID, .. everything really. No great suprise there, when parasites are killed off the host has more resources to fight off infection. What was repeatedly dismissed, perhaps not always clearly, was the great leap being put about that Ivermectin would magically cure COVID in G20 coutries with little to no general parasite problems. The big deal was that social media meta study that sourced 80% of COVID bullshit back to 12 "people" | groups that were all snake oil sales types peddling miracle cures on the vack of sowing fear doubt and uncertainty. It was an endless sisyphean task pushing back against the amplification of bullshit in US social media.
  - roenxi 2y ago
    There were a large body of studies showing that Ivermectin helped with COVID. Some people said that evidence should be dismissed and, fair enough. I get to be consistent in my belief that people should be able to ignore evidence because sometimes it is misleading. In this case it was a good move. But there was also a large crowd of people spreading misinformation that the reason the evidence was misleading was because it was fake or the studies were faulty and that only crazy people would want to take Ivermectin. It turned out not only were the studies were fine but also that there are many people who should probably take Ivermectin immediately upon recognising COVID symptoms. That large crowd were, in a pretty clear-cut way, spreading misinformation. Not right wingers, they tended to be more of a pure-play authoritarian variety based on the arguments I had. > I read along from Australia during that period and I saw little evidence that people who knew what they were talking about "[Dismissed] a lot of legitimate studies related to Ivermectin". Bit of a tautology there, we'd expect the people who got things right to know what they were talking about in hindsight and vice versa. People who spread misinformation have a fairly particular profile, it just isn't partisan.
- Blot2882 2y ago
  > But there was a lot of misinformation that the studies themselves were fake That was not misinformation. The idea that Ivermectin was helpful in dealing with CoVID was determined from a meta analysis that included a fake study that nobody can confirm happened and even used dead people. It was pushed by grifting doctors who sell Ivermectin. Yes, if you have parasites and take an anti-parasite drug you're gonna feel better, whether you have CoVID or not. > the tide of misinformation saying that the vaccine would halt COVID It halted it as much as it could considering 30% of people didn't complete vaccination. I finished and have had every booster and never got CoVID despite all of my family members getting it (who refused to get vaccinated).

roenxi 2y ago

> because COVID misinformation was largely a right-wing phenomenon. That isn't really a fair assessment; it is true that large groups of people generate more wild theories but there was a lot of misinformation everywhere. Most of it inconsequential. But weighting by consequence it is hard to overlook things like: - "Plague of the unvaccinated" and the tide of misinformation saying that the vaccine would halt COVID. A lot of people believed that. They were wrong. And a lot of the blatant human rights violations through the COVID era were probably driven by that particular mistake. It wasn't a right-wing phenomenon. - "14 Days to Flatten the Curve", which turned out to be critical misinformation that derailed any debate over the wisdom of lockdowns. Certainly a forgivable move given the urgency and confusion in the first few months, but the fact that it was material and misinformation stands out in hindsight. - Dismissing a lot of legitimate studies related to Ivermectin. It turned out that they were showing that people who had parasites + COVID had a much better response to COVID if they took an anti-parasite drug so, y'know, fair enough but not that useful in the west. But there was a lot of misinformation that the studies themselves were fake that undermined trust that the responders were looking at evidence. That dismissal was also certainly not coming from the right wing.

somewhat_drunk 2y ago
[flagged]
- kortilla 2y ago
  You’re so blinded by partisan hatred you just equivocated information about ineffective lockdowns with calling COVID a hoax.
  - somewhat_drunk 2y ago
    [flagged]
- throw10920 2y ago
  > No, those mistakes did not justify the downright biblical flood of COVID misinformation that emanated from the right. > The examples you've given are just right wing apologetics. > That particular delusion is entirely due to right wing misinformation This is blatantly violating the HN guidelines (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html), in addition to being logically invalid emotional attacks and fallacies that do nothing to actually respond to GP's points. Suggest against this - it absolutely destroys the credibility of the points that you do make, in addition to reducing the quality of HN.
  - somewhat_drunk 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - throw10920 2y ago
      > the statements you've pointed out either do not violate HN's guidelines These statements: > No, those mistakes did not justify the downright biblical flood of COVID misinformation that emanated from the right. > The examples you've given are just right wing apologetics. > That particular delusion is entirely due to right wing misinformation Violate these parts of the guidelines: > Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. > Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes. > Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. There was virtually zero factual content to your comment. It almost pure partisan political activism. > None of what I've said is "logically invalid emotional attacks and fallacies." It seems like you don't understand the difference between an emotional plea and a factual statement. "the downright biblical flood of COVID misinformation that emanated from the right" is not a fact - it's an emotional plea, as are the other cited statements. It is impossible to find a citation for this statement because "biblical flood" isn't a technical term that you can back up with facts. "right wing apologetics" is another instance of something that you cannot prove because it does not have a factual status. > Do better. > Try to keep up. You should review the guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html > Edit out swipes.
defrost 2y ago
> Dismissing a lot of legitimate studies related to Ivermectin. It turned out that they were showing that people who had parasites + COVID had a much better response to COVID if they took an anti-parasite drug I read along from Australia during that period and I saw little evidence that people who knew what they were talking about "[Dismissed] a lot of legitimate studies related to Ivermectin". It was clear cut at the time that meta-studies from "the Global South" showed that Ivermectin greatly improved M&M stats (recovery from infection, death rates) across the board for the cold, the flu, COVID, .. everything really. No great suprise there, when parasites are killed off the host has more resources to fight off infection. What was repeatedly dismissed, perhaps not always clearly, was the great leap being put about that Ivermectin would magically cure COVID in G20 coutries with little to no general parasite problems. The big deal was that social media meta study that sourced 80% of COVID bullshit back to 12 "people" | groups that were all snake oil sales types peddling miracle cures on the vack of sowing fear doubt and uncertainty. It was an endless sisyphean task pushing back against the amplification of bullshit in US social media.
- roenxi 2y ago
  There were a large body of studies showing that Ivermectin helped with COVID. Some people said that evidence should be dismissed and, fair enough. I get to be consistent in my belief that people should be able to ignore evidence because sometimes it is misleading. In this case it was a good move. But there was also a large crowd of people spreading misinformation that the reason the evidence was misleading was because it was fake or the studies were faulty and that only crazy people would want to take Ivermectin. It turned out not only were the studies were fine but also that there are many people who should probably take Ivermectin immediately upon recognising COVID symptoms. That large crowd were, in a pretty clear-cut way, spreading misinformation. Not right wingers, they tended to be more of a pure-play authoritarian variety based on the arguments I had. > I read along from Australia during that period and I saw little evidence that people who knew what they were talking about "[Dismissed] a lot of legitimate studies related to Ivermectin". Bit of a tautology there, we'd expect the people who got things right to know what they were talking about in hindsight and vice versa. People who spread misinformation have a fairly particular profile, it just isn't partisan.
Blot2882 2y ago
> But there was a lot of misinformation that the studies themselves were fake That was not misinformation. The idea that Ivermectin was helpful in dealing with CoVID was determined from a meta analysis that included a fake study that nobody can confirm happened and even used dead people. It was pushed by grifting doctors who sell Ivermectin. Yes, if you have parasites and take an anti-parasite drug you're gonna feel better, whether you have CoVID or not. > the tide of misinformation saying that the vaccine would halt COVID It halted it as much as it could considering 30% of people didn't complete vaccination. I finished and have had every booster and never got CoVID despite all of my family members getting it (who refused to get vaccinated).